A great deal of new evidence has come out since the Warren Commission Report was published. Much of this is due to the funding of the Assassination Records Review Board by Congress in 1992. Also, many witnesses who were afraid to testify before have felt safer with the passage of time and have come forward. Many other witnesses who had been interviewed, but had their testimony disregarded or even reversed, were re-interviewed. Accepting the official Warren Commission report requires ignoring many eyewitness testimonies.
It's important to keep in mind that any assassination plan using multiple shooters cannot predict the wounds. Therefore it would be essential to take possession of the body before it can be officially examined, so the wounds could be made to match the cover story. The plan would have to included tightly controlling the whole autopsy process. Fake autopsy photos would probably be needed.
This is why it is so significant that there is a huge controversy over Kennedy's wounds. The official story requires ignoring the eyewitness testimonies of doctors who treated Kennedy in the emergency room. Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History" simply dismisses these doctors' eyewitness testimonies as "not credible medical evidence". That's how he removes them from consideration as he works toward his conclusions supporting the official report.
Bugliosi was not the first to use this tactic. Gerald Posner used it in "Case Closed". Bugliosi's book had a lot more padding, which made it look even more conclusive. Bugliosi has filler like scenes with Marina Oswald waking up in the morning and going through her routine.
But on Kennedy's wounds, the evidentiary center of such a case, Bugliosi spends only a few pages of his massive tome. And he delivers a a most slanted version of that controversy, not even trying to be fair. Posner does his version of the same. In Posner's own transcripts it's easy to hear him badgering the doctors, trying to get them to change their testimonies in this way or that.
Bugliosi's book is an expansion on his role in a BBC documentary drama, in which Lee Harvey Oswald gets put on trial and Bugliosi is the prosecutor. As he did there, his book avoids evidence that hurts his case, as a lawyer does, and as Posner does. But it's not what a scientist, or any other objective investigator does.
The Head Wound
A bullet through the head will leave a small entrance wound and a large exit wound. As the bullet goes through the body it creates a pressure wave that spreads out beyond the size of the bullet. The front of this pressure wave creates a large hole as it exits the head.
So a large exit hole in the back of the Kennedy's head would clearly indicate a shot entering from the front. Which could not have come from Oswald, being behind Kennedy. And would mean a multiple shooter situation.
Overall, many eyewitnesses have testimonied that they saw a large hole in the back of Kennedy's head.
As Kennedy was being shot, two women in the Willis family were watching him. They both testified that brain matter blew out the back of his head. "All of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle with bright matter in the middle of it." The second woman concurred. "The particular head shot must have come from another direction besides behind him because the back of the head blew off." Testimony begins at about 23:45 in this video, the 1988 documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy: Part 1 The Coup d'Etat", abbreviated in future references as "WKK 1".
The Willis family's testimonies were never heard by the Warren Commission. The family was surprised they weren't called, several eyewitnesses with a clear view. They were part of a batch of similar witnesses whose evidence never made it to the Warren Commission.
Another batch of ignored witnesses were the doctors who treated Kennedy right after the shooting. And their testimonies place a large exit hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head. These testimonies, if true, would mean at least some of the available official autopsy photos were fake.
At Parkland Hospital several doctors also saw a large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. The first doctor to attend Kennedy was Malcolm Perry. He describes seeing "a large wound to his head in the right posterior", at about 0:50 in this brief video.
Parkland Hospital doctors Paul Peters and Robert McClelland also attended Kennedy and testified to a large wound in the back of the head. You can watch them each place their hand on the right rear of their head to indicate the location of the wound. Their testimony begins at about 25:30 in the Men Who Killed Kennedy 1 video. Dr. McClelland draws a picture showing the location of the wound at about 28:45 of this same video.
Doctor Kemp Clark, chief of neurological surgery at Parkland Hospital, was the person who made the official pronouncement of Kennedy's death. His testimoney included the following. "I then examined the wound in the back of his head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."
More recently Dr. McClelland repeated his story at the JFK Museum in the Dallas Book Depository building, recorded by C-SPAN. During the rescue efforts he stood right beside Kennedy's head. His first words upon seeing Kennedy's head were, "My God, have you seen the back of his head? It's gone." He repeatedly describes a "massive" wound to the back of the head. He describes seeing part of the cerebellum fall out of Kennedy's head onto the table. The cerebellum is a distinctive looking part of the brain at the lower back of the head, approximately at the top of the spinal cord, easily distinguished from the cortex. McClelland specifically disputes a Warren Commission drawing of a bullet trajectory that shows only a small wound on the back of Kennedy's head, presumably where a bullet entered. McClelland's testimony begins at about 14:00 on the video Men Who Killed Kenndy 1.
Nurse Audrey Bell was the Parkland Hospital Supervisor of Operating and Recovery Rooms in 1963, and viewed President Kennedy's main head wound. She asked Dr. Perry where the wound was, and he turned Kennedy's head slightly toward the left. She saw a head wound in the right rear, which she described as occipital. A summary of her testimony is in the first following link. Two diagrams on which she circled the main wound location are in the next two links.
It's generally acknowledged that the autopsy did not meet normal standards of care in the handling of evidence. The most crucial physical evidence, the brain that would show bullet trajectories definitively, disappeared. There are only theories about what happened to it, but no definitive knowledge.
Paul O'Connor, was a medical technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital when Kennedy's body was brought in for the autopsy. He was present at the arrival of the body and the opening of the casket. O'Connor testifies that there was essentially no brain in Kennedy's skull when it arrived at Bethesda. "My job in working with autopsies was to remove the brain. What struck me was when we removed the sheet I looked down, I said 'My God, he doesn't have any brains left, literally. I was just astounded by it. I think everybody else was too, because there was just a gasp throughout the room. There was no brain to be removed at all." The purpose of removing the brain is so it can be sliced into thin sections, the sections photographed, and any injuries, including bullet tracks, clearly mapped out. O'Connor's testimony is about about 31:15 of MWKK 1.
O'Connor also testified that the casket was a "cheap, shipping type of casket", and "not very ornamental, very plain." Al Rike testifies that in Dallas he placed Kennedy's body in an "expensive, bronze colored" casket, "one of the most expensive we had in stock", with "white satin lining inside the casket."
Rike further says that in Dallas "We wrapped him in one of the sheets and just placed him in the casket". O'Connor testifies that when the casket was opened at Bethesda, Kennedy's body was in a rubber body bag. The body was removed from the body bag and placed on the table. "He was nude, no clothes on, but he had a white sheet, a bloody white sheet on wrapped around his face and his head". O'Connor and Rike's testimonies begin at about 26:45 of the video MWKK 1.
In Dallas there was a highly experienced, pre-eminent forensic pathologist ready to do the autopsy. Instead the body was taken to a Naval doctor at Bethesda who had never done an autopsy, and had been an adminstrator rather then practicing medicine for the last several years, and was getting ready to retire. Attending medic Paul O'Conner said there were many top military brass in the room, outranking the pathologist, interrupting the procedure, and ordering some steps skipped.
Changing the autopsy's venue involved a physical struggle for control of the body. The Dallas police who were guarding the body refused to give up custody without explicit orders from their superiors, regardless of what badges they were shown. Instead of going that route, the federal agents strong-armed the body away.
All photograph negatives from the autopsy were immediately turned over to a plainclothes agent at the autopsy, to be developed at a lab at another Navy base, rather than being developed by the Bethesda lab as usually done.
The head autopsy photographer, John Stringer, later testified under oath to the Assassination Records Review Board that the official autopsy photos of Kennedy's brain in the archives are quite possibly not the photos he took, for several reasons.
The brain photos he took were of the brain being sectioned (sliced). From such slices bullet tracks could be traced through the interior of the brain. The photos he was shown from the archives for the ARRB testimony included no sectioning, and included exterior views that he did not take.
Further, the film type and film packing type were not the standard types that he normally used and recalled using in Kennedy's autopsy. This section of his testimony begins at PDF No. 40 (testimony pages 211-216), which is one web page, and goes through PDF No. 41 and 42.
The head photographer, John Stringer, changed his testimony, from initially seeing a large wound in the back of the head, to seeing only a small wound in the back of the head, consistent with the Warren Commission report. However his assistant, Floyd Riebe, also present throughout the autopsy, when asked about head wounds said, "The right side in the back was gone (indicating). Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it."
Testimonies of several doctors who attended Kennedy are in this video, which looks in detail at the wounds.
The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination
This is much evidence that the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy was also not investigated properly. Here we will focus only on the most glaring and compelling of that evidence.
The man convicted of killing Robert Kennedy was several feet in front of Kennedy at all times, according to all witnesses. But according to the official autopsy report, by highly experienced and respected coroner Thomas Noguchi, Robert Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the back of the head. Further the bullet was fired from a distance of 0.5 - 3 inches, leaving powder residue on the hair around the wound. Further, this key fact was not even brought up at the trial by the court-appointed defense attorney.
Before doing the autopsy, Noguchi consulted with renowned forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, because Wecht had extensively studied the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination. Wecht tells this story in a talk recorded by C-SPAN. The full video is about 33 minutes, mostly discussing the JFK assassination. The discussion of Robert Kennedy's assassination begins at 23:50 in video, and the autopsy discussion begins at 26:40.
How could such clear exculpatory evidence not be brought up during the trial? And how could the news media not report on this evidence? And how could they not report on its omission at the trial? In such a high profile case, the murder of a sitting U.S. senator running for president, none of this could plausibly be due to oversight. The remaining alternative is that it was intentional.
According to his closest friends, Robert Kennedy intended to re-open the investigation into his brother's murder if he became president. Therefore killing Robert Kennedy would have been essential to maintaining a coverup up of John Kennedy's assassination.
This is described in the in-depth book "Brothers" by David Talbot. The book also describes in detail the Kennedy brothers' struggles with an insubordinate CIA. Here Talbot talks about the book, recorded by C-SPAN.
Who Gave the Order?
The evidence is overwhelming that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was an inside job, and involved the highest levels of the US government. Who gave the order?
The main theories are:
1. The mob, because JFK and RFK were cracking down on mob corruption.
2. The Cubans, in retaliation for the efforts to assassinate Castro.
3. Lyndon Johnson, so he could squash investigations into his shady dealings, including murders.
4. Texas oil men, because JFK wanted to end their oil depletion tax break.
5. The CIA, because JFK wanted to take away their covert operations, and restrict them to intelligence gathering and analysis (their original legal purpose).
6. The Israelis, because JFK wanted to (a) stop their nuclear weapons program and (b) eliminate Israeli money from American politics by making the Zionist Organization of America (the precursor to AIPAC) register as an agent of a foreign government.
7. An unspecified cabal that would profit from the Vietnam war, because JFK would end that plan.
8. A consortium of the above.
Today, decades later, we have an additional piece of evidence. It was somebody who had the capacity to keep the overwhelming evidence out of the news media. That would rule out the mob, the Cubans, Johnson, and the oil men as principal perpetrators. None of them on their own have the persistent control of the American news media to this day.
That leaves the CIA, the Israelis, and a cabal of war profiteers.
Vice President Johnson was at the highest level of the government, and was involved in the plot. But as he told his mistress, the actual initiators were "fat cats" and "intelligence" people. Most politicians in America are ruled by the ultra wealthy due to the extravagant costs of political campaigns. So the plot was hatched above his pay grade.
We know that Johnson as president was somehow coerced by the Israelis to squash the Navy's investigation into the premeditated Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. This demonstrates some Israeli interest and capacity to control high levels of the American government.
And we know that the story of that attack has been kept out of the American mainstream media ever since. This demonstrates a significant Israeli capacity to keep selected stories out of America's news media. More details on the attack and coverup, with links to further details, are in this site's article "War Profiteers and 9/11".
We also know that the establishment of Israel was financed by the Rothschild bank, which had been profiting from both sides of wars for centuries. More details on the establishment of Israel, with links to futher details, are in this site's article "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror". More details on the huge role played by war profits in the rise of the Rothschild bank are here.
We also know that the Rothschild bank early on became the wealthiest European bank because, among other factors, of its coordinated international branches in five countries. And this great wealth was naturally invested in fledgling banks and corporations in America, extending its financial influence into some of America's major pools of wealth.
We also know that the CIA from its inception was run by men with close connections to the banking world. It's not plausible that government employees, even in the CIA, secretly control the bankers. Employees are easily fired. But it is plausible that ultra wealthy bankers control who is hired at the top levels of the CIA. Vast wealth enables a vast network of bribery, which has been a standard political tool since before the ancient Romans.
Further, if the bankers had a covert operations organization, like that in the CIA, this would enable them to use another ancient political tool, physical intimidation, including assassination. If this covert operations organization could draw men and materials from the largest, most high-tech military in the world, as the CIA draws on the US military, then they would have the most formidable secret military operation in the world.
The war profiteer theory was professionally presented by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, an insider's insider. Prouty was the CIA's contact person in the US military. He directed all military support for clandestine CIA operations. So he knew what was going on.
In Prouty's words:
"By the fall of 1963, I knew perhaps as much as anyone about the inner workings of this world of special operations. I had written the formal directives on the subject that were used officially by the U.S. Air Force and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services."
So what did Prouty observe when the Kennedy assassination occurred? Continuing in his own words:
"Therefore, it seemed strange when I was approached after I had come back from a week spent reading intelligence papers in Admiral Felt's headquarters in Hawaii, during September 1963, and informed that I had been selected to be the military escort officer for a group of VIP civilian guests that had been invited to visit the naval station in Antarctica and the South Pole facility at McMurdo Sound. This group was scheduled to leave on November 10, 1963, and to return by the end of the month.
"Although this trip had absolutely nothing to do with my previous nine years of work, except that I had supported CIA activity in Antarctica over the years, I accepted the invitation and looked forward to the trip as a "paid vaction".
So Colonel Prouty was temporarily stationed out of the country when Kennedy was killed.
Prouty had an insider's knowledge of the protection procedures for a presidential motorcade. He quickly saw that many standard motorcade security measures were not followed in Dallas. He writes:
"An assassination, especially of the chief of state, can always be made easier and much more predictable if his routine security forces and their standard policies are removed and canceled. The application of this step in Dallas was most effective. A few examples serve to underscore this phase of the concept:
"1. The President was in an open, unarmored car.
2. The route chosen was along busy streets with many overlooking high buildings on each side.
3. Windows in these buildings had not been closed, sealed, and put under surveillance.
4. Secret Service units and trained military units that were required by regulations to be there were not in place. As a result there was limited ground and building surveillance.
5. Sewer covers along the way had not been welded shut.
6. The route was particularly hazardous, with sharp turns requiring slow speeds, in violation of protection regulations.
"The list is long and ominous. Such a lack of protection is almost a guarantee of assassination in any country. It is difficult, if not more difficult, to convince trained and ready units not to be there than to let them go ahead and do their job; yet someone on the inner cabal staff was able to make official sounding calls that nullified all of these ordinary acts of presidential protection on November 22, 1963." (JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassination John F. Kennedy, pp. 315,316)
Details on the exact Texas police and military units that were specifically ordered to stand down that day, over their strenuous objections, is given by James Douglass in his extremely thorough book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters". This book is excellent for bringing together a great deal of the most significant and recent evidence, and presenting it in a clear and coherent way. A review and summary of his book is here.
A speech by James Douglass is here.
Here's a video showing one of Kennedy's bodyguards being obviously baffled by an order to stand down just moments before Kennedy is assassinated.
Prouty also had a clear view of how the CIA was manufacturing the war in Vietnam. He describes the methods in some detail. He also describes how it was an extension of the CIA's manufactured war in the Philippines in order to influence elections there. In that case the CIA actually provided both sides of staged battles.
Prouty notes that the CIA's sabotage of peace efforts also occurred during the Eisenhower administration. In his words:
"1. It was Allen Dulles who overlooked President Eisenhower's express orders not to involve Americans in Vietnam, with the creation of the Saigon Military Mission (1954).
2. Allen Dulles was in charge of the CIA's U-2 spy plane operations and of the flight that crash-landed in the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, causing the disruption of the Paris Summit Conference. Eisenhower had specifically ordered all overflights of Communist territory to be grounded before and during that period.
3. The Bay of Pigs operation was planned under Dulles's leadership, and his failure to be "on duty" that day may have been a contributing factor in its failure.
4. Dulles was a member of the Cuban Study Group that reviewed that ill-fated operation (1961).
5. Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission."
The above quotes are from Colonel Prouty's book, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassination John F. Kennedy", pp. 303,304
Seeing how Eisenhower's peace efforts were sabotaged by the CIA, it makes sense the he would warn about the "military-industrial complex". The close social ties between the upper levels of the CIA and the financial elite, together with the CIA's secrecy, made it an ideal instrument to foment highly profitable wars.
The business strategy of war was not new. Abraham Lincoln worried about how extremely profitable the Civil War was for some companies, partly because of the massive amounts of fraud committed. He feared that the extreme amounts of wealth becoming centered in a few companies would corrupt and threaten democracy even more than the civil war itself. In Lincoln's words:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
Prouty saw how the CIA sandbagged Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs by suddenly forcing him to either escalate dramatically or be defeated, to either go big for war or seriously risk defeat in the next election. But Kennedy had been in combat, and he had toured devastated German cities as a reporter in 1945. He had interviewed destitute and desparate people. He did not want to casually impose such suffering on masses of people. Kennedy saw that he had been sandbagged in Cuba, and realized he was being set up in Vietnam. Some people were floating the idea of a nuclear first strike against the USSR, while the US could still "win" a nuclear exchange. Kennedy saw the very real possibility of a nuclear war, and turned his attention to preventing it. Economist Jeffrey Sachs discusses Kennedy's push for peace here.
Prouty saw Kennedy's memorandum taking away the CIA's covert operations arm and putting it under the military. Prouty was in the meeting when the top military brass discussed this major change. Before it could be implemented Kennedy would be dead.
Prouty tells this story in detail in "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy". You can see Prouty interviewed in the following video. The interview begins discussing his impressive insider background. His DEFINITIVE observations on the JFK assassination begin about 30:40 in the video. At about 1:08 he discusses who did it, noting the role of the CIA is that of a servant agency. He mentions people "above the military", "above the State Department", with "enormous wealth". His interviewer mentions Churchill's private references to a "high cabal".
Other Prouty interviews and articles are here.
A major line of Prouty's story, that behind the scenes Kennedy was actively working to extricate the U.S. from Vietnam, has been confirmed by recently released audio tapes of conversations between Kennedy and some of his key advisors, including Defense Secretary MacNamara and General Taylor. Some of these tapes were presented and discussed by Marc Selverstone, Chair of the University of Virginia's Presidential Recordings Program, who is presenting and discussing the tapes. The presentation is available on C-SPAN.
At the Assassination School
Daniel Marvin was an elite Special Forces Green Beret training at the Special Warfare School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina school when JFK was assassinated. There he was receiving training that included guerrilla warfare, assassination, and terrorism. In 1995, after becoming a born-again Christian and retired, he went public on how the instructors in his school had used the JFK assassination as a textbook case of a political assassination. In his own words:
"On the John F. Kennedy situation, that was brought to our attention as a classic example of the way to organize a complete program to eliminate a nation's leader, while pointing the finger at a lone assassin. It involved also the cover-up of the assassination itself. We had considerable detail. They had a mock lay-out of the plaza and that area, and showed where the shooters were, and where the routes were to the hospital...
"They had quite a movie, film coverage - it seemed like, thinking back to the time - and some still photoes of the Grassy Knoll and places like that. They told us that Oswald was not involved in the shooting at all. He was the patsy. He was the one who was set up.
"We did, myself and a friend of mine, for a very distinct impression that the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. During the coffee break, we overheard one of the CIA instructors say to the other, 'Things really did go well in Dealey Plaz, didn't they?' Or something to that effect.
"And that just reinforced, or really added to our suspicions. And we really felt, before the end of the training was over, that one of those instructors may have been involved himself in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
"... But I just then convinced myself, as did my friend, that it somehow had to be in the best interests of the United States governmennt that Kennedy was killed. Otherwise, why would our own people have done it?"
This illustrates the mindset cultivated by the clandestine services. If the CIA did it, it must be good. This belief is based on the assumption that the CIA always acts in the best of interests of America as a whole. The historical evidence is plentiful that this is not always true. On its best days, America is a force for good in the world. But it definitely has bad days in that department. That's when America's government is hijacked from its democratic process, at great expense, but well worth the "investment". But in a "need to know" environment, agendas are easily hidden. The operator on the ground may have no inkling of the true purpose of his mission.
The above quotes from Colonel Marvin were copied from "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It's Important" by James Douglass (2008) pp. 318-321. There Douglass tells Marvin's story more completely.
A moving video of Colonel Marvin telling his story is in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 6 at about 17:45 on the video.
Colonel Marvin was later asked by the CIA if he would volunteer to kill a U.S. naval officer, William Pitzer, who was head of the audio-visual unit at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Marvin turned down the assignment when he found out the killing would have to be done in the United States rather than overseas. That naval officer, it turned out, had film of a JFK autopsy that clearly showed a "small" wound in the right temple and a "huge gaping" wound in the rear. That officer was killed by someone else, just before he retired, and the film disappeared. This part of the story is told by his work colleague, and immediately follows the segment above, beginning at about 21:10 of MWKK 6.
Colonel Marvin's testimony resumes at 25:47 of MWKK 6 (above link), telling how he finally decided to come forward in 1993.
The day after Oswald was killed, the new acting Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, wrote a memo that said,
"1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.
2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a communist conspiracy, or ... a left-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists." This memo is shown in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy Part 1" (MWKK 1) at about 33:10.
So even before all the evidence had been collected, the witnesses interviewed, and analysis done, the decision had been made to tell the public not only that Oswald did it, but also that he acted alone. This last fact could not reasonably have been known at that time.
Was Johnson in on it? Barr McClellan, a lawyer who was a member of LBJ's legal team for many years recently came forward and explained LBJ's motive for participating in the Kennedy assassination. As president he would be able to scuttle two percolating investigations into old Texas dealings that involved murder. He talks about his book "Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK" in this C-SPAN video.
Johnson's longtime mistress eventually broke her silence, and was definite about LBJ's involvement in JFK's assassination. He told her he didn't originate the plan. That was the "fat cats" and "intelligence" people. Some of her testimony is in the documentary "LBJ's Role in the JFK Assassination".
The official Warren Commission report on the assassination was deeply flawed. Sylvia Meagher carefully examined the report itself and the 26 volume set of data and interviews on which the report was based. She found that many of the claims in the report were not supported by the evidence referenced, and sometimes even contradicted by the evidence referenced. Further, much evidence that conflicted with the report was simply not mentioned in the report. Ms. Meagher wrote up her findings in two books, "Accessories After the Fact" and "Master Index to the JFK Assassination Investigations". The latter book is an index to the evidence in the 26 volume set, and became the standard index used by researchers. You can hear her discussing about her findings here.
There is also abundant testimony that many witnesses were disregarded by the FBI in its investigation. Some witnesses have even testified that FBI encouraged them to change their testimony. The case of the Willis family was discussed above. In another case, Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home drew a diagram showing a large hole in the back of the head. The FBI agent told him it was an entrance wound, clearly trying to influence his testimony.
The large number of witnesses ignored by the Warren Commission was highlighted by attorney Mark Lane. Lane heard Oswald's request for legal assistance over the radio. He volunteered his service to the authorities and was turned down. He learned that several other attorneys had also volunteered and been turned down. This alerted him to the possibility that something was amiss. His book "Rush to Judgement" was an early examination of the anomolies in the case. Lane is interviewed here.
Was Earl Warren in on it? Probably not. The person who oversaw the collection of evidence, and decided which evidence the Commission would see, was Allen Dulles. He had been head of the CIA when it tried to sandbag Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, and was subsequently fired by Kennedy as he began to clean house and take control. Earl Warren was reluctant and heavily pressured by Johnson to head the Commission. Warren was told that the investigation had to be wrapped up quickly to avoid runaway speculation that the Soviets did it, which could lead to a nuclear war with millions of Americans killed. Historian David Wrone believes Warren was unfairly made the face of the cover-up, stated in the panel discussion linked in the following paragraph.
The current state of the public debate is seen in a CSPAN broadcast in which four panelists (historians and reporters) debate the accuracy of the Warren Commission report. The two panelists disagreeing with the report present many new facts not in the report. The two panelists defending the report ignore all these new facts.
The evidence described above is only a small part of a vast amount of evidence clearly proving a conspiracy and cover-up.
How could such glaring disinformation escape the scrutiny of America's free press? Here is an account of how CBS News president Richard Salant derailed an objective re-examination of the Warren Commission report, and replaced it with a CBS cover-up report, by James DiEugenio.
This CBS case shows that the head of a news organization can successfully overrule that organization's reporters and producers to protect a cover-up, and succeed.
Therefore, a few men placed as heads of the few major news corporations can hide the facts from most Americans.
The New York Times' "ostrich" behavior on the assassination is discussed here.
On the surface, continuing to keep the story buried makes no sense. What would anyone have to lose today, with the conspirators surely in their graves? But it would make sense if new members of the same gang were involved in something similar today. They would not want any talk that might lead the conversation into their current activities. Then it would make a great deal of sense.
This raises the question: Have there been any needless, manufactured wars recently? Yes, the evidence is plentiful that Iraq was a needless, manufactured war. The MSNBC documentary "Hubris" summarizes much of this evidence, even while it tries to clean up the participants motives.
There is also clear evidence that the US attack on Iraq was driven by Israeli interests. Author and political scientist John J. Mearsheimer describes how pro-Israel lobby groups drove the US decision to attack Iraq. He also notes that the 9/11 attack was a necessary ingredient for the decision to attack.
Another alignment of the assassination with Israeli interests shows up in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on February 5, 1999. A review of Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the Bomb," states the following,
"The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program...The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option."
The original, very thorough case for Israel's involvment in the murder of President Kennedy was laid out in the very detailed book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy by Michael Collins Piper. It delves into Kennedy's efforts to block Israel from developing a nuclear bomb, and his efforts to force the Zionist Organization of America (now AIPAC) to register as an agent of a foreign government. The latter effort would have removed Israeli money from American politics, curtailing Israeli influence dramatically. It is now available free online here.
A recent documentary also presents, in briefer form, highly detailed research on Israeli connections to the JFK and RFK assassinations. It examines in particular detail the Israeli assets in America who surrounded Kennedy on his fateful trip to Dallas. Principal among these was Vice President Lyndon Johnson. The evidence is stunning in its detail and thoroughness. It leaves virtually no room to doubt that the Israelis were behind the Kennedy assassinations.
Hidden News Monopoly
We can see there is a hidden news monopoly because it acts exactly like a monopoly. A bunch of separate news businesses in unison do the opposite of what you'd expect a news business to do, which is to cover an important news story. Instead they all ignore the same important story together. They are like fingers on a single hand.
Who is controlling that hand? "Who benefits?"
A clear fact is that they all ignore news unfavorable to Israel. They have kept Israel's true history hidden, and bury important current events about Israel's actions in the Middle East and America. Americans have a completely false picture of Israel. The hidden historical information is richly documented on the website "If America Knew"
as well as this site's article "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror".
And the owners of the major news outlets definitely have ties to Israel. For example, Michael Bloomberg described his emotional attachment to Israel on Tavis Smiley's show. The Comcast media empire, which includes NBC and MSNBC, is run by ardent Zionists.
Concentrated media ownership has routinely been used to silence critics of Israel. Many examples, including Norman Finkelstein and Tom Friedman, are documented in a thoroughly researched article here.
Seeing whose stories are being kept out of the news tells us who controls the news.
Therefore, when some other major story is not being covered, it is also under the direction of this same hand.
A media cover-up of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty would be an example.
A media cover-up of 9/11 would be an example.
A media cover-up of the Kennedy assassinations would be an example.
The Israelis were extremely effective in covering up their attack on the USS Liberty. It's likely that cover-up was carefully planned. For a brief account of that cover-up see this site's article "War Profiteers and 9/11".
Any group secretly undertaking an operation like assassinating an American president, or demolishing Manhattan landmark buildings, or an endless "war on terror", would need an equally well-planned cover-up operation.
Keeping the major press quiet would be essential. This can be done by owning it.
Keeping politicians quiet would be essential. This can done by "owning" them through campaign finances.
This would require an ownership level of control on a large scale. It takes a lot of money.
And Israel is experienced at international political assassinations. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/terrorism-israeli-state
We know from the LIBOR scandal that the biggest banks in the financial capital of London routinely conspired to defraud entire economies. We know the biggest banks have been involved in money laundering for major sources of illegal money, such as drug smuggling. For example:
We know that big money literally overrules the wishes of large majorities of America's voters. A recent scientific study has found that that America in practice is no longer a democracy, but an oligarchy.
And we know that these stories of banking crimes receive only the slightest bit of obligatory attention in America's news media, and then essentially vanish, just like the mountains of overwhelming evidence about the JFK assassination, the 9/11 attack, the attack on the USS Liberty, and the true story about the establishment of Israel.
This control over the American news media is effectively a hidden monopoly. While the various networks and top newspapers are not legally owned by a single parent company, they act exactly as if they were.
US Senator Dick Durbin famously said of the US Senate, "The banks own the place".
The dominant bank on Wall Street has long been the JP Morgan bank. This bank became dominant by becoming an arm of the Rothschild bank. The history of the Rothschild bank, from its early days of drug dealing and overthrowing governments, to its takeover of America, is given in this site's article "War Profiteers and Israel's Bank".
The Roman Republic rotted and collapsed due to severe financial corruption, including in its Senate. The US today is on the same path. The US Constitution embodies lessons learned from the Roman efforts and failures. But the US Constitution clearly did not solve all the problems that can befall a republic. It is clear that major additional safeguards against financial corruption are needed.