SMG--

Thanks for posting. BTW, there are clips of RFK in 1967 backing US actions in SV, which by them were much enlarged.

JFK was an ardent and global anti-communist. So was RFK.

The idea that some group would assassinate JFK for his unclear plans on Vietnam in 1963 is very weak. LBJ was also unclear on what to do in 1964.

There was a great deal of animosity in the Cuban exile crowd towards JFK, and, of course, Castro had been the target of multiple assassinations attempts during the JFK years.

President LBJ put the kibosh on following any leads from LHO back to Havana or Moscow.

Round and round we go on this while those that insist he was going to unconditionally leave - not even try to negotiate first? a neutral Vietnam? anything? he going to just surrender? - ignore it all. They simply can't give up the Camelot myth, the view of JFK as some sort of historic peace maker who was going to end the Cold War (they don't think the communists were responsible for the conflict; only the US). And it was for that that he was killed.

The RFK comments on the war and what JFK's plan was are additional evidence. Not that it's needed. If JFK was going to withdraw wouldn't he have told RFK? But RFK said there was no plan in place to unconditionally withdraw at that time. The idea was to keep South Vietnam from being taken over by the communists, i.e., containment. They thought in 1963 they could still achieve that goal. It was why JFK supported the coup; to put a better (he thought) government in place that could in turn better defend Saigon from the communists. Why go all of that coup intrigue if we have going to leave anyway? Besides, wouldn't JFK at least tried to negotiate with Hanoi over this? Get something in return? The idea that he would simply unilaterally leave, essentially surrender to the communists, is silly.

Remember as well that during RFK's presidential campaign when he turned against the war, a war waged by a man he utterly detested, RFK never said, "This is not what President Kennedy wanted to do. Johnson is going against what he wanted." If JFK had decided to withdraw I would suggest that RFK would have used that against LBJ, used the words of the martyred president against Johnson. As we all know, RFK and LBJ hated each other intensely. Using JFK to go after LBJ would have been irresistible.

As to LBJ and any foreign government involvement leads: We've gone over this again and again. Sorry, I see no evidence for that. Who said LBJ ordered this shutdown? Besides, the HSCA investigated the assassination and they found no evidence of Cuban or Soviet involvement. So who told the HSCA to not look into them? LBJ was dead at the time.

From the report:

1.  The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
2.  The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Okay, ignore the WC on this question. What about the other investigations?

yes, Albert…….  you should contact Judyth to find out which ‘Lee’ was in ‘Me’, I mean, her, uh, no, wait………

Galbraith is sniping quotes and ignoring the vast evidence of JFK preparing to do detente with the communists in all the theaters he mentions...

The reason they assassinated Kennedy was because he very much intended radical moves and intended to negotiate peace with the Russians and Cubans - and, yes, the North Vietnamese...It is clearly spelled out in Douglass and was done in order to keep from chasing emerging 3rd world countries that were nationalizing in to the hands of the all too willing communists...

Douglass made clear that Kennedy had to get elected in 1964 and if he showed his hand before that he would probably lose...

Good point Tim maybe there is some distinct specific difference with Oswald’s rifle that would  prevent any trace of gunpowder from escaping the chamber even though it was exposed 3 times during the bolt operation ejection of shell and loading the next round?

What do you think about the CBS time trial shooters  not having used Oswald’s rifle? Does that invalidate the fact that 3 shooters were actually able to fire 3 shots and get at least 2 hits in less than 6 seconds?

An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle three times and tested negative with the basic paraffin test. That establishes that the rifle could be fired without leaving gunpowder residue on the shooter's cheek.

The CBS test was a silly one because it required the shooters to fire 3 shots in under six seconds, something Oswald wasn't required to do. Even with the compressed time span for the shooting, some of the shooters scored 2 hits in 3 shots. I believe one of them score 3 hits.

Three shots in 5.6 seconds is a ridiculous constraint because it is only one second over the minimum time required to fire three aimed shots. It would have given the shooters just a half second additional time to aim the rifle. I guess nobody at CBS News ever bothered to read the WC conclusion on the time span of the shooting. Uncle Walter was still repeating the myth of 3 shots in under 6 seconds in 1988. One would expect more accuracy from a cub reporter than Cronkite gave us over several decades of reporting on the JFKA.

There's nothing asinine about that comment.
You are little more than a robot constantly spewing the Warren Commission's narrative.
Is there a single point or detail that you deviate from the Warren Commission Report?

And name a single thing - the tiniest thing - that you have proven to anyone. You don't even know the difference between a fact and a theory. How can you 'prove' anything if you don't know what a fact is?
You are the second worst kind of frothing-at-the-mouth, rabid zealot. Your only saving grace is that you don't hide what you are.

Name a single detail about the assassination where you differ from the Warren Commission's narrative.
And by the way - when did Oswald make his preparations? He was down on the first floor talking to Eddie Piper while Bonnie Ray was up on the 6th from noon until  a few minutes before the Presidential limo entered Dealey Plaza.
Maybe he was the man with the rifle Arnold Rowland saw on the 6th floor.
Try to think for yourself for a change.

I was trying to offer to the LNs  a possible  rational alternative that explains Dougherty not seeing anything in Oswald’s hands when Oswald entered the back door of TSBD that morning to replace the standard LN “he just was  not paying attention” argument. So I just letting you know I’m not  attacking either you or John Corbett . I’m just trying to have a Socratic dialogue and that means questioning the status quo.