I am satisfied the JFKA has been solved

[Lance Payette]

I think I have finished my JFKA-related studies with Gus Russo’s books Live by the Sword and Brothers in Arms. I’m surprised Russo’s work doesn’t seem to get more attention. Probably because it is too solid, makes too much sense, and is such a killer for more elaborate and sexy conspiracy theories, I would guess.

I am satisfied that Russo’s work is the answer to the JFKA in the sense that (1) Oswald, a lone assassin, had a much stronger pro-Castro anti-JFK motive, long before 11-22-63, than I had previously appreciated, or (2) Oswald, a lone assassin, actually conspired in at least some loose sense with pro-Castro operatives, potentially including ones with a direct connection to Castro himself. The “cover-up” at every level, from LBJ, RFK, the CIA and the Warren Commission on down, was a cover up of the exceedingly dangerous Cuban Connection. My guess is that #2 is closer to the truth than #1 but that we will never have a definitive answer. (No, I do not believe the KGB was a factor at all - at all.)

I am also satisfied that other theories, while undoubtedly sexier, more fun and having more potential for those with ideological agendas, are just mental masturbation and a waste of time. I, at least, am done with debating them or attempting to expose their fallacies. Those who promote them, here as elsewhere are, IMHO, mentally ill. Not just conspiracy prone, but mentally ill. There is a point at which craziness cannot be excused on the basis of a mere propensity toward conspiracy thinking.

This is quite old (which is why it must be accessed via the Wayback Machine), but it is Russo’s scathing and quite humorous takedown of Jim DiEugenio and his ilk: https://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.jfkfiles.com/archives/html/feat.htm. The apoplectic venom that DiEugenio spews at Russo is not a major factor in my conclusion that Russo has pretty well solved the case, but it doesn’t hurt. (It’s interesting that the Spartacus site quotes extensively from the above-linked piece but completely disguises that it’s a scathing, highly personal takedown of DiEugenio.)

Russo, a major part of the PBS Frontline piece on Oswald, makes clear that he and the others were given free rein and a near-unlimited budget to explore every conspiracy angle that struck their fantasy. In connection with that piece and thereafter, Russo did an astounding amount of actual, on-the-ground research in the preparation of his books. I was reminded of what forensic investigative historian Peter Vronksy told me years ago – i.e., he went to Russia fully expecting to make a documentary that blew the Warren Report wide open and came back concluding the Warren Commission “basically got things right” (with the exception, Russo would say, of willfully avoiding the Cuban Angle): http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm.

Anyway, I’m done. It’s kind of ironic that I was planning to exit the JFKA Follies anyway but happened to encounter right at the end the research that I believe puts the nail in the coffin of those Follies. I’m sure Russo’s work has some warts and errors, but as a whole I believe it provides The Answer in a way that makes sense from every perspective. I’ve already seen some of Griffith’s and DiEugenio’s critiques of Russo and can only say that, IMHO, these folks are mentally ill. For some reason, they cannot even live with a highly plausible, evidence-based conspiracy that doesn’t fit their foaming-at-the-mouth ideological agenda. In any event, I guess I will exit the JFKA as at least a “sorta kinda” CTer who tends to think Oswald’s pro-Castro anti-JFK hysteria was probably ratcheted up and actively encouraged by others in New Orleans and/or Mexico City. This actually does make more sense than the standard LN scenario of a last-minute, go-home-the-night-before-and-get-my-clunky-Carcano decision. I am still left with the puzzles as to why Oswald didn’t acquire a better weapon before 11-22-63 and what was actually in the “curtain rods” package. (Was he clever enough to go to the Paine garage and get curtain rods as a cover just in case someone heard or saw him assembling the Carcano?)

Carry on. (I would note that I have observed the curious phenomenon that both this forum and the Other One seem to be solidly in the grip of tedious characters who have taken lessons in "How to Kill an Internet Forum." Anyone who had anything non-insane and more-or-less substantive to contribute seems to be gone. Is this just coincidence or, as I suspect, are the JFKA Follies finally just running out of gas?)

[Benjamin Cole]

LP-

Well, I hope you continue to participate in the forums; you are the rare collegial, circumspect commenter. 

My only comments--

The M-C is an adequate weapon at 75 yards, and was designed to meet military specs for accuracy at 200 yards. That is, if you put an M-C on a tripod, fixed on target, it would hit the bullseye at 200 yards, with the right ammo. And again and again.

I am partial to anti-Castro Cuban exiles or G-2'ers, or double agents, working with LHO.

I do not rule out the KGB having some sort of role; after all KGB was tight with G-2.

And there is the whole Bruce Solie angle. LHO's 2+ year's stay a few blocks from KGB-Minsk, and the oily DeMohrenschilt. The visit to Kostikov. Maybe something there.

Like you, I somewhat exhausted with the topic, and the rigidity of ideologies and narratives of those in the JFKA game, and disagreeable personalities.

But it is fun to read the forums.

[Charles Collins]

I think I have finished my JFKA-related studies with Gus Russo’s books Live by the Sword and Brothers in Arms. I’m surprised Russo’s work doesn’t seem to get more attention. Probably because it is too solid, makes too much sense, and is such a killer for more elaborate and sexy conspiracy theories, I would guess.

I am satisfied that Russo’s work is the answer to the JFKA in the sense that (1) Oswald, a lone assassin, had a much stronger pro-Castro anti-JFK motive, long before 11-22-63, than I had previously appreciated, or (2) Oswald, a lone assassin, actually conspired in at least some loose sense with pro-Castro operatives, potentially including ones with a direct connection to Castro himself. The “cover-up” at every level, from LBJ, RFK, the CIA and the Warren Commission on down, was a cover up of the exceedingly dangerous Cuban Connection. My guess is that #2 is closer to the truth than #1 but that we will never have a definitive answer. (No, I do not believe the KGB was a factor at all - at all.)

I am also satisfied that other theories, while undoubtedly sexier, more fun and having more potential for those with ideological agendas, are just mental masturbation and a waste of time. I, at least, am done with debating them or attempting to expose their fallacies. Those who promote them, here as elsewhere are, IMHO, mentally ill. Not just conspiracy prone, but mentally ill. There is a point at which craziness cannot be excused on the basis of a mere propensity toward conspiracy thinking.

This is quite old (which is why it must be accessed via the Wayback Machine), but it is Russo’s scathing and quite humorous takedown of Jim DiEugenio and his ilk: https://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.jfkfiles.com/archives/html/feat.htm. The apoplectic venom that DiEugenio spews at Russo is not a major factor in my conclusion that Russo has pretty well solved the case, but it doesn’t hurt. (It’s interesting that the Spartacus site quotes extensively from the above-linked piece but completely disguises that it’s a scathing, highly personal takedown of DiEugenio.)

Russo, a major part of the PBS Frontline piece on Oswald, makes clear that he and the others were given free rein and a near-unlimited budget to explore every conspiracy angle that struck their fantasy. In connection with that piece and thereafter, Russo did an astounding amount of actual, on-the-ground research in the preparation of his books. I was reminded of what forensic investigative historian Peter Vronksy told me years ago – i.e., he went to Russia fully expecting to make a documentary that blew the Warren Report wide open and came back concluding the Warren Commission “basically got things right” (with the exception, Russo would say, of willfully avoiding the Cuban Angle): http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm.

Anyway, I’m done. It’s kind of ironic that I was planning to exit the JFKA Follies anyway but happened to encounter right at the end the research that I believe puts the nail in the coffin of those Follies. I’m sure Russo’s work has some warts and errors, but as a whole I believe it provides The Answer in a way that makes sense from every perspective. I’ve already seen some of Griffith’s and DiEugenio’s critiques of Russo and can only say that, IMHO, these folks are mentally ill. For some reason, they cannot even live with a highly plausible, evidence-based conspiracy that doesn’t fit their foaming-at-the-mouth ideological agenda. In any event, I guess I will exit the JFKA as at least a “sorta kinda” CTer who tends to think Oswald’s pro-Castro anti-JFK hysteria was probably ratcheted up and actively encouraged by others in New Orleans and/or Mexico City. This actually does make more sense than the standard LN scenario of a last-minute, go-home-the-night-before-and-get-my-clunky-Carcano decision. I am still left with the puzzles as to why Oswald didn’t acquire a better weapon before 11-22-63 and what was actually in the “curtain rods” package. (Was he clever enough to go to the Paine garage and get curtain rods as a cover just in case someone heard or saw him assembling the Carcano?)

Carry on. (I would note that I have observed the curious phenomenon that both this forum and the Other One seem to be solidly in the grip of tedious characters who have taken lessons in "How to Kill an Internet Forum." Anyone who had anything non-insane and more-or-less substantive to contribute seems to be gone. Is this just coincidence or, as I suspect, are the JFKA Follies finally just running out of gas?)

I read Russo’s book “Live by the Sword” many years ago. I don’t remember many details, but I agree that he does have some reasonable ideas. I also read Jim Hosty’s book “Assignment Oswald”. Hosty makes his ideas clear about the Cuban aspects of the case. There are no smoking guns revealed, but Hosty does make some interesting points.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Yeah, too bad that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your "solution" of the JFK case. Too bad the last official U.S. Government investigation into JFK's murder (the HSCA) concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll, that Jack Ruby lied about how and why he shot Oswald, that Ruby had substantial Mafia ties, that Silvia Odio's account is credible, that the first hit on JFK was fired at a time when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, etc., etc.

You must be unpatriotic to reject the last and most thorough federal investigation into JFK's death. You are sowing distrust in our government and institutions. Your rejection of the HSCA is "nation rending." Why do you refuse to accept the government's last official findings about the assassination? 

[Charles Collins]

Yeah, too bad that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your "solution" of the JFK case. Too bad the last official U.S. Government investigation into JFK's murder (the HSCA) concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll, that Jack Ruby lied about how and why he shot Oswald, that Ruby had substantial Mafia ties, that Silvia Odio's account is credible, that the first hit on JFK was fired at a time when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, etc., etc.

You must be unpatriotic to reject the last and most thorough federal investigation into JFK's death. You are sowing distrust in our government and institutions. Your rejection of the HSCA is "nation rending." Why do you refuse to accept the government's last official findings about the assassination? 

The government’s last official findings regarding the JFK Assassination was not the HSCA:


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found a major flaw in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigation by discrediting its acoustic evidence. After a review in 1982, the NAS found that the sounds interpreted by the HSCA as gunshots were recorded after the assassination occurred.
Based on the NAS findings, the Department of Justice (DOJ) later concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the HSCA's conspiracy theory.
The National Academy of Sciences reviewAcoustic evidence:

 A key piece of evidence for the HSCA's conclusion of a conspiracy was an analysis of a Dictabelt recording from a Dallas Police motorcycle officer. This analysis indicated a high probability of a fourth shot coming from the grassy knoll, suggesting a second gunman.
The flaw: The National Academy of Sciences, acting on a request from the DOJ, reviewed the HSCA's acoustic evidence in 1982. Using new methods, the NAS found the supposed gunshots were recorded about a minute after the assassination and, therefore, were not related to the shooting itself.
The conclusion: The NAS concluded that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman".

The Department of Justice's response Review and reversal:

In 1988, after reviewing the acoustic analysis from both the FBI's Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Justice reversed its position.
Official conclusion: The DOJ formally concluded that "no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy" in the assassination of President Kennedy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+organization+found+the+HSCA+investigation+to+be+flawed&client=safari&sca_esv=6ddd0cbd40df43d1&hl=en-us&ei=RmD_aLLWE8-2wN4P-sfpuQ4&ved=0ahUKEwiykaTWq8SQAxVPG9AFHfpjOucQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=what+organization+found+the+HSCA+investigation+to+be+flawed&gs_lp=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_oBJGq_9DlugYECAEYB5IHBTQ2LjE0oAfb9QKyBwU0NS4xNLgH5ifCBwgwLjIuNTEuN8gHzQI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[Royell Storing]

  Payette - I ask you to reconsider your pulling of the plug. My discovery of what I believe was a "getaway" car is now rippling through the JFK Assassination Investigation. That car NOT being parked alongside the Island on the Wiegman Film, is a game changer in the JFK Assassination Investigation. I ask you to re-engage and try to prove me wrong.   

[Benjamin Cole]

GC-

I never liked the CT treatment of the DPD tape. The whole thing is dubious, and I suspect there is a bit of 20th-century witchcraft involved in deciphering clicks on an ancient spool.

The CT community is sometimes its own worst enemy.

That said, what I can see with my own eyes on the Z-film, that is closely spaced shots on JFK and JBC...has me leaning to me than one gunsel on 11/22.

The GK smoke-and-bang show, even if only a diversion, is another pointer towards a conspiracy.

But hey, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

There are as many JFKA narratives as there are narrators.

[Tom Graves]

[There were] closely spaced shots on JFK and JBC.

If you mean the Single Bullet Theory is incorrect, you're wrong.