Hoover’s effort to “convince the public that Oswald” was lone assassin…

[Martin Weidmann]

Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald. But such a ridiculous activity, which is something that Internet CTers engage in daily, won't make the evidence against him cease to exist.

It would appear as though most conspiracy theorists still haven't figured out the above basic truth---even 58 years after the evidence was collected.

~shrug~

Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald.

Here's a basic truth for you;

Sure, there is evidence against Oswald. The real question is; is it persuasive and conclusive enough and any objective person would have to conclude that it really isn't. It's mainly a circumstantial case with here and there some physical pieces of evidence thrown in. And even those physical pieces of evidence have their own individual problems. To ignore the problems there are with the evidence and the way it was gathered is just as dishonest as claiming that there is no evidence against Oswald.

[Richard Smith]

It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response.

Really? The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...

In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war.

And others think that the alleged involvement of Russia/Cuba was just an excuse to cover up what really happened and put the blame on Oswald alone.

The whole idea of WWIII over the assassination of a President is just as idiotic as the nuclear arms race itself was. Sure, if Russia or Cuba were involved (which I seriously doubt they were), there would be a major political crisis but no regime would be stupid enough to fire the first nuke, as selfdestruction would most certainly follow.

Talk about a strawman!  Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.  That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.  To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Talk about a strawman!  Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.  That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.  To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.

Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.


At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.

That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.

Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....

To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.


BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.

It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?

The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!

[Richard Smith]

Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.


At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.

That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.

Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....

To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.


BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.

It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?

The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles, but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?  What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state?  WWI started over an assassination.  The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation.  A very legitimate concern. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles, but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?  What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state?  WWI started over an assassination.  The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation.  A very legitimate concern.

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles.

Really? Kennedy wasn't bluffing? Are you sure about that?

but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?

BS... All I asked you was where and how that "military retaliation" was to take place and you seem clueless.

What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state?  WWI started over an assassination.

You better start reading some history books, because the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was merely the excuse they needed to start a war that was long overdue. The tension in Europe was already building up since the 1870 German/French war, which resulted in the formation of Germany as we know it today. The Austrians didn't like what was happening and the Balkan was full of tension.

The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background.

BS. Oswald was who he was. He had been the Russia and was pro-Cuba (according to the official story), so that leap could easily have been made, but it wasn't. At least not by the general public or the media.

due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation.  A very legitimate concern.

There were no "crazy conspiracy theorists" when Katzenbach wrote his memo, nor was there any pressure on the government. All there was were US Goverment officials who instantly decided that Oswald was a lone nut and that's all they wanted to know. The WWIII thing was never anything more than an excuse.

[Richard Smith]

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles.

Really? Kennedy wasn't bluffing? Are you sure about that?

but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?

BS... All I asked you was where and how that "military retaliation" was to take place and you seem clueless.

You want me to specify where and how the "military retaliation" would have taken place?  LOL.  The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.  The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses). 

[Martin Weidmann]

You want me to specify where and how the "military retaliation" would have taken place?  LOL.  The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.  The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).

The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.

No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.


The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).

More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut. At that time some evidence had been gathered but Hoover admitted it was no way enough to convict Oswald of anything. So, why does the public need to be convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman even before the investigation had produced credible results? It wasn't because of a possible WWIII. That was just the excuse they used to put the focus on Oswald als the lone nut, in the same way that the murder of Franz Ferdinand was used as the excuse to start a war which was already inevitable.

The notion that the public can succesfully demand that their Government starts a war is idiotic!