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

[Martin Weidmann]

I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII.  You interjected all manner of nonsense including speculation about nuclear war.  That risk was premised upon the public being convinced of the involvement of Russian or Cuban involvement rather than any actual involvement.  And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!!  The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation.  I have truly heard it all now.   Breathtaking hypocrisy.

I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII.

Yes, you did say that and it was BS. If you really think that WWIII could be fought with only conventional weapons and that no party would employ nuclear power, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!!  The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation.

More shallow crap. There is a massive difference between the Government as a whole (when it comes to declaring war) and parts of that same Government or even elements within those parts of the Government. Do I believe the Government as a whole was involved in Kennedy's assassination? No ot course not. I don't even believe that parts of the Government had anything to do with it, but when we get to the level of individuals working at those departments, that's a different matter.

Was the entire Government in on Watergate and/or Iran-contra or was it only some rotten apples within that Government? Was the entire Government involved in trying to blackmail Ukraine to get dirt on Biden or was it only some rotten apples?

I reject the conclusions of the official investigation on their lack of merit and credibility as well as a biased and poorly run "investigation". 

[Richard Smith]

I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII.

Yes, you did say that and it was BS. If you really think that WWIII could be fought with only conventional weapons and that no party would employ nuclear power, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!!  The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation.

More shallow crap. There is a massive difference between the Government as a whole (when it comes to declaring war) and parts of that same Government or even elements within those parts of the Government. Do I believe the Government as a whole was involved in Kennedy's assassination? No ot course not. I don't even believe that parts of the Government had anything to do with it, but when we get to the level of individuals working at those departments, that's a different matter.

Was the entire Government in on Watergate and/or Iran-contra or was it only some rotten apples within that Government? Was the entire Government involved in trying to blackmail Ukraine to get dirt on Biden or was it only some rotten apples?

I reject the conclusions of the official investigation on their lack of merit and credibility as well as a biased and poorly run "investigation".

Again, I simply noted that there was a "risk" of WWIII if the public were convinced that Russia (considered a hostile foreign power at time) was involved in the assassination of the US President.  I'm not sure why you are going on and about nuclear weapons vs conventional war as though someone has to produce a crystal ball to demonstrate exactly how such a war might have played out to suggest that there was a "risk" of war.   That doesn't seem very controversial except to yourself.  Most astounding is that I'm the one expressing admiration for the government's handling of the investigation while you are suggesting that many US government agencies were involved in the frame up of Oswald and perhaps even the assassination.  But I'm the one you claimed has a distrust of the government!  Unreal.  That is Alice-in-Wonderland logic.  Like trying to convince someone that 4-3=0.  Breath taking hypocrisy and lack of logic.

[Jake Maxwell]

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!

I think you’ve absolutely nailed it here...

When both memos were written, there was no solid evidence of any kind... as you noted... "They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination."... and then they suppressed all evidence that might have suggested any other conclusion than the one they wanted... from the very beginning!!

The most likely explanation for this... and I would think every fair judge and jury would agree... Hoover and company were part of a big cover-up... for themselve and their partners in crime... and some might even suggest Oswald’s past record looks a little better than Hoover’s...

[Richard Smith]

I think you’ve absolutely nailed it here...

When both memos were written, there was no solid evidence of any kind... as you noted... "They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination."... and then they suppressed all evidence that might have suggested any other conclusion than the one they wanted... from the very beginning!!

The most likely explanation for this... and I would think every fair judge and jury would agree... Hoover and company were part of a big cover-up... for themselve and their partners in crime... and some might even suggest Oswald’s past record looks a little better than Hoover’s...

There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?  Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene.  The shots were fired from the building in which he worked.  He had no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  He fled the building and was implicated in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later.  They were aware of his suspect political background.  Pretty much a slam dunk case at that point.  Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt.  To this day, nearly six decades later, there is no doubt as to his guilt and no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.

[Martin Weidmann]

There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?  Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene.  The shots were fired from the building in which he worked.  He had no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  He fled the building and was implicated in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later.  They were aware of his suspect political background.  Pretty much a slam dunk case at that point.  Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt.  To this day, nearly six decades later, there is no doubt as to his guilt and no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.

There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?

In the sense that it was enough to convict? No, there wasn't. And most certainly not in the first 48 hours. That's what Hoover told LBJ!

Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt.

Wrong, it was an extensive investigation to only find material that could prove his guilt.

For crying out loud, the entire FBI investigation was supervised by Hoover, a known blackmailer of Presidents, members of Congress and anybody else who he considered a threat and who even denied that there was any such thing as a mafia. The guy was a criminal with no scruples whatsoever. To believe that he would conduct a fair and unbiased investigation is an insult to anybody's intelligence.

[Jake Maxwell]

There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?

In the sense that it was enough to convict? No, there wasn't. And most certainly not in the first 48 hours. That's what Hoover told LBJ!

Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt.

Wrong, it was an extensive investigation to only find material that could prove his guilt.

For crying out loud, the entire FBI investigation was supervised by Hoover, a known blackmailer of Presidents, members of Congress and anybody else who he considered a threat and who even denied that there was any such thing as a mafia. The guy was a criminal with no scruples whatsoever. To believe that he would conduct a fair and unbiased investigation is an insult to anybody's intelligence.

Yes, it was a plan from the beginning to frame Oswald as a lone nut and then cover-up all evidence that might prove otherwise...
It is exactly how corruption works...
And yes... Hoover was corrupt...

[Richard Smith]

There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?

In the sense that it was enough to convict? No, there wasn't. And most certainly not in the first 48 hours. That's what Hoover told LBJ!

All the evidence noted was known within 48 hours (e.g. that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene, that he had fled, that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office, and that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI who had kept tabs on him).  The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi or alternative explanation for its presence.

[Martin Weidmann]

All the evidence noted was known within 48 hours (e.g. that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene, that he had fled, that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office, and that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI who had kept tabs on him).  The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi or alternative explanation for its presence.

that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene

More BS. All they knew within 48 hours of the assassination is that, according to Kleins' the rifle they found at the TSBD was ordered and sold to somebody called A. Hidell.

that he had fled

Nope.. they didn't know that either. All they knew Oswald was one of several TSBD employees who was not present at the roll call

that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office,

That's what they arrested him for. No the murder of the President. So, how do you get from "we suspect him of killing a police officer" to "he is the lone nut that killed the President"?

that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI

It's not a crime to have a particular political background (whatever that means) and having such a background doesn't make somebody a lone nut killer.

The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi

Knock it off with this "his rifle" crap. Until this day we don't know for sure if it was his rifle or not.

They did not know if Oswald could offer a credible alibi or not. The mere fact that he didn't give one to Fritz doesn't mean he had none. He has the right to remain silent and that can not be held against him

or alternative explanation for its presence.

They never investigated any alternative explanation for the presence of the rifle at the TSBD.

As per usual, you are blowing hot air.