And even then, at six years old, I thought that the world had ended and a new world had replaced it and not a better one - and I never believed the official story - and it obsessed me, even then...
In the book, Crossfire, the opening chapter discusses the witnesses at Dealy Plaza that day. There were approximately 150 witnesses who were interviewed. About fifty thought the shots came from the Book Depository, fifty thought the shots came from the grassy knoll, and 50 thought that the shots came from another direction to create a triangulation zone.
In addition, Richard Nixon was in Dallas for the week before JFK was assassinated. He said he was there to attend a Pepsi-Cola corporate convention, but there was no Pepsi convention in Dallas at any time in 1963. The two men most associated with coordinating the assassination were Howard Hunt, who later worked in the Nixon White House, and Frank Sturgis, one of those caught in the Watergate burglary. These are also the two men which the US House select committee on assasinations concluded were responsible for the JFK assasination.
In my opinion, it was Hunt and Sturgis who organized three teams who shot JFK, probably under the direction of Dick Nixon in coordination with Lyndon Johnson.
The last minute parade route could not be changed without the approval of the Mayor of Dallas who happened to be the brother of former number 2 CIA official, Charles Cabell, fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Indeed. See https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/jfks-war-against-the-national-security-establishment/ - "During my three years on the staff of the ARRB, and while subsequently researching the manuscript for my five-volume book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, I became increasingly aware of the broad levels of conflict between President Kennedy and his own national security establishment — those officials within the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council (NSC), and the CIA who helped him to formulate and carry out the nation’s foreign and military policy around the world. This internal conflict over just what our nation’s foreign and military policies ought to be, at the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, commenced early in the first year of JFK’s presidency, and continued to escalate during the 34 months of his administration. Although John F. Kennedy gave a robust inaugural address that seemed in the eyes of many to establish his credentials as a traditional, mainstream Cold Warrior, his ensuing behavior early in 1961, and his increasing and open skepticism, throughout his first year in office, toward the bellicose and inflexible advice he was receiving from within the federal bureaucracy, signaled a growing gulf between the young 35th President and the national security establishment that was supposed to serve him and implement his policy decisions.
By the end of November 1961, profoundly dissatisfied with his own national security advisory apparatus, President Kennedy had firmly pushed back against the national security establishment (in this case the NSC, the State Department, and the CIA) by purging and/or reshuffling many of the civilian hawks in his own administration into other positions, and by placing officials more in line with his own views into key positions. [A change in the top leadership at the Pentagon was to come later, in 1962.] Throughout 1961, the new President had painfully but quickly learned to be quite skeptical of the advice he was receiving, pertaining to matters of war and peace, from his hawkish advisors; and as 1961 progressed, John F. Kennedy repeatedly demonstrated what the hawks in government (the majority) no doubt considered a disturbingly independent (and increasingly all-too-predictable) frame of mind in regard to the national security recommendations he was receiving from the “sacred cows” and “wise men” in Washington, D.C. As I shall demonstrate in this essay, by the end of 1962, the national security establishment in Washington D.C., which had quickly come to know JFK as a skeptic during 1961, had come to view him as a heretic; and by November of 1963, the month he was assassinated, they no doubt considered him an apostate, for he no longer supported most of the so-called “orthodox” views of the Cold War priesthood. Increasingly alone in his foreign policy judgments as 1963 progressed, JFK was nevertheless proceeding boldly to end our “Holy War” against Communism, instead of trying to win it. In retrospect it is clear that the national security establishment wanted to win our own particular “jihad” of the post-WW II era by turning the Cold War against the USSR into a “hot war,” so that we could inflict punishing and fatal blows upon our Communist adversaries (and any other forces we equated with them) on the battlefield. It was this desire for “hot war” by so many within the establishment — their belief that conventional “proxy wars” with the Soviet Bloc were an urgent necessity, and that nuclear war with the USSR was probably inevitable — to which President Kennedy was so adamantly opposed. And it was JFK’s profound determination to avoid nuclear war by miscalculation, and to eschew combat with conventional arms unless it was truly necessary, that separated him from almost everyone else in his administration from 1961 throughout 1963, as events have shown us." Ibid.
It's clear that JFK was set up by the Washington Establishment, people like Nixon and Johnson, as well as those less well known. There is no way that the order could have been given to the army to stand down in Dallas without powerful people wanting that to happen. JFK was obviously unbeatable in the 1964 election and equally problematic for the Hawks in Washington was that Bobby would succeed his brother in 1968. Plus, at that time, Teddy was a rising star and could have succeeded RFK. We have to ask who benefitted most from the assassination? Clearly, Nixon and Johnson. If JFK had been re-elected and his brother were to follow him, then both Nixon and Johnson would have been too old to run for President. For Nixon and Johnson, the only option was an assassination.
In the book, Crossfire, the opening chapter discusses the witnesses at Dealy Plaza that day. There were approximately 150 witnesses who were interviewed. About fifty thought the shots came from the Book Depository, fifty thought the shots came from the grassy knoll, and 50 thought that the shots came from another direction to create a triangulation zone.
In addition, Richard Nixon was in Dallas for the week before JFK was assassinated. He said he was there to attend a Pepsi-Cola corporate convention, but there was no Pepsi convention in Dallas at any time in 1963. The two men most associated with coordinating the assassination were Howard Hunt, who later worked in the Nixon White House, and Frank Sturgis, one of those caught in the Watergate burglary. These are also the two men which the US House select committee on assasinations concluded were responsible for the JFK assasination.
In my opinion, it was Hunt and Sturgis who organized three teams who shot JFK, probably under the direction of Dick Nixon in coordination with Lyndon Johnson.
The last minute parade route could not be changed without the approval of the Mayor of Dallas who happened to be the brother of former number 2 CIA official, Charles Cabell, fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
There is so much more.
Indeed. See https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/jfks-war-against-the-national-security-establishment/ - "During my three years on the staff of the ARRB, and while subsequently researching the manuscript for my five-volume book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, I became increasingly aware of the broad levels of conflict between President Kennedy and his own national security establishment — those officials within the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council (NSC), and the CIA who helped him to formulate and carry out the nation’s foreign and military policy around the world. This internal conflict over just what our nation’s foreign and military policies ought to be, at the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, commenced early in the first year of JFK’s presidency, and continued to escalate during the 34 months of his administration. Although John F. Kennedy gave a robust inaugural address that seemed in the eyes of many to establish his credentials as a traditional, mainstream Cold Warrior, his ensuing behavior early in 1961, and his increasing and open skepticism, throughout his first year in office, toward the bellicose and inflexible advice he was receiving from within the federal bureaucracy, signaled a growing gulf between the young 35th President and the national security establishment that was supposed to serve him and implement his policy decisions.
By the end of November 1961, profoundly dissatisfied with his own national security advisory apparatus, President Kennedy had firmly pushed back against the national security establishment (in this case the NSC, the State Department, and the CIA) by purging and/or reshuffling many of the civilian hawks in his own administration into other positions, and by placing officials more in line with his own views into key positions. [A change in the top leadership at the Pentagon was to come later, in 1962.] Throughout 1961, the new President had painfully but quickly learned to be quite skeptical of the advice he was receiving, pertaining to matters of war and peace, from his hawkish advisors; and as 1961 progressed, John F. Kennedy repeatedly demonstrated what the hawks in government (the majority) no doubt considered a disturbingly independent (and increasingly all-too-predictable) frame of mind in regard to the national security recommendations he was receiving from the “sacred cows” and “wise men” in Washington, D.C. As I shall demonstrate in this essay, by the end of 1962, the national security establishment in Washington D.C., which had quickly come to know JFK as a skeptic during 1961, had come to view him as a heretic; and by November of 1963, the month he was assassinated, they no doubt considered him an apostate, for he no longer supported most of the so-called “orthodox” views of the Cold War priesthood. Increasingly alone in his foreign policy judgments as 1963 progressed, JFK was nevertheless proceeding boldly to end our “Holy War” against Communism, instead of trying to win it. In retrospect it is clear that the national security establishment wanted to win our own particular “jihad” of the post-WW II era by turning the Cold War against the USSR into a “hot war,” so that we could inflict punishing and fatal blows upon our Communist adversaries (and any other forces we equated with them) on the battlefield. It was this desire for “hot war” by so many within the establishment — their belief that conventional “proxy wars” with the Soviet Bloc were an urgent necessity, and that nuclear war with the USSR was probably inevitable — to which President Kennedy was so adamantly opposed. And it was JFK’s profound determination to avoid nuclear war by miscalculation, and to eschew combat with conventional arms unless it was truly necessary, that separated him from almost everyone else in his administration from 1961 throughout 1963, as events have shown us." Ibid.
It's clear that JFK was set up by the Washington Establishment, people like Nixon and Johnson, as well as those less well known. There is no way that the order could have been given to the army to stand down in Dallas without powerful people wanting that to happen. JFK was obviously unbeatable in the 1964 election and equally problematic for the Hawks in Washington was that Bobby would succeed his brother in 1968. Plus, at that time, Teddy was a rising star and could have succeeded RFK. We have to ask who benefitted most from the assassination? Clearly, Nixon and Johnson. If JFK had been re-elected and his brother were to follow him, then both Nixon and Johnson would have been too old to run for President. For Nixon and Johnson, the only option was an assassination.