16 Candles

1. Why were all the members of the Warren Commission closely connected with the U.S. Government?
   
2. If, as we are told, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?
   
3. If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in the strictest secrecy?
   
4. Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who killed President John F. Kennedy?
   
5. Why have so many liberals abandoned their own responsibility to a Commission whose circumstances they refuse to examine?
   
6. Why did the authorities follow many persons as potential assassins and fail to observe Oswald’s entry into the book depository building while allegedly carrying a rifle over three feet long?
   
7. Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him past Oswald’s place of work?
   
8. Why has the medical evidence concerning the President’s death been altered out of recognition?
   
9. What is the evidence to substantiate the allegation that the President was shot from behind?
   
10. Why has the FBI refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case [photographs taken of JFK’s vehicle just before and during the shooting]?
    
11. How is it that millions of people have been misled by complete forgeries [of photos of the murder weapon] in the press?
    
12. Why was the result of the paraffin test altered before being announced by the authorities?
    
13. Why was the only description of Tippit’s killer deliberately omitted by the police from the affidavit of the sole eyewitness?
    
14. Why was Oswald’s description in connection with the murder of Patrolman Tippit broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43 p.m. on November 22, when Tippit was not shot until 1:06 p.m.?
    
15. How was it possible for Earl Warren to forecast that Marina Oswald’s evidence would be exactly the reverse of what she had previously testified?
    
16. How does a District Attorney of Wade’s great experience account for all the extraordinary changes in evidence and testimony which he has announced during the Oswald case?
    

Frankie Vegas wrote:Number 16 is a good one, considering what we know now about Wade and his way of getting convictions.
I find lots of the early work has stood the test of time really well. I imagine it was more difficult then without the internet, yet way less convoluted without every Tom Dick and Harry putting up their pet versions of what happened on their personal Youtube channel.
I have a pretty good collection of some early work. One of my faves is a book called "The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy's Assassination" By Sylvan Fox, written in 1964 and published 65.
'If you prefer to believe that you have been given the final answers to the assassination, don't read this book, otherwise, you are in for an unsettling experience... in the highest traditions of journalism.'
- Edwin Silberling, Chief of the Organised Crime and Racketeering Division of the United States Dept of Justice under Robert F Kennedy.

His questions are:
1.The question of motive
(current thinking) TFX contracts, getting LBJ into power, revenge for BOP etc 
2. Was there a conspiracy?
Yes
3. How was it possible?
One man knowing all the right people
4. How many shots were fired?
Who cares?
5. Why did Oswald kill Tippit?
Begging the question
6. What happened to Jackie?
She eventually remarried and died
7. Marina: Mystery Witness
?
8. Why did Ruby shoot Oswald?
A number of psychological tricks used on top of chemicals to convince him to do it
9. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?
A kid with Asperger's whose family got caught up in Cold War BS and allowed him to be used
10. Guilty or Innocent?
LHO? Innocent
11. Can it happen again?
It HAS happened again - because they have been getting away with it since at least 1948. That said, it's unlikely to recur in the US any time soon because it has finally reached the point where NO  ONE is going to buy into another Lone Nut.

Goban Saor wrote:My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.

greg parker wrote:That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.

greg parker wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.

There you go with that "Big Picture" stuff again!   

That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:My view on the question of motive is that it all comes down to the old bitch goddess, money or, more precisely, greed.

Which is probably just a simpler version of Greg’s answer.

JFK was standing in the way of the raping of the planet by warmongering imperialist kleptocrats and he had to be eliminated.

There you go with that "Big Picture" stuff again!   

That was the overarching "mind set" of some very influential individuals/corporations/politicians/military types that navigated and weaved its way throughout modern US history... yet there was no need to assassinate him to get rid of him. They could simply have thrown all their wealth, influence and bag of dirty tricks into making sure he lost the upcoming election. The ONLY reasons to assassinate him prior to an election he could lose (or be made to lose) would be to get LBJ in and to make certain potential criminal actions go away. These same people were already pissed (VERY pissed) about the BOP and Missile Crisis. They had no desire to bring an end to the Cold war and all the money it generated for the War Industry. It was the very essence of the MICC.

Going on your final few sentences, Greg, we seem to be agreed on the Mammon motive.

I think JFK posed a unique threat to the MIC kleptocrats and their ilk. His personal wealth made him dangerously independent (he donated his presidential salary to charity) and he had proved in office that they couldn’t control him. 

Unlike you, I believe they weren’t at all confident they could stop him from being re-elected no matter what they threw at him. Nixon had sworn not to run in 64 and Goldwater was never going to beat JFK. As David Talbot repeatedly pointed out in Brothers, both JFK and RFK were shrewd political operators who knew how to mix it when the going got rough.

As well as that, JFK – and of course Jackie – had a charismatic appeal akin to that of the great stars of stage and screen and JFK knew its political value. Which is why he insisted on going to Dallas to engage personally with the electorate in spite of the danger.

If they thought they could nobble JFK in the 64 election they wouldn’t have murdered him – for the reasons Terlin gave. The only way they were able to stop RJK in 68 was by murdering him.

I doubt the kleptocrats were greatly exercised about shoehorning LBJ into the White House.   LBJ was dispensable and replaceable just like most other corrupt(ible) puppet politicians (as Terlin also implies) and didn’t matter in the overall scheme of things.

JFK did matter because, as James Douglass describes cogently in his book, he didn’t play the puppet role. That’s why I don’t agree with Terlin when he says he believes JFK was killed for personal reasons not political reasons. 

Goban Saor wrote:JFK did matter because, as James Douglass describes cogently in his book, he didn’t play the puppet role.