The JFK Mystery

Friday, November 22, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

A few little-known facts about the murder that happened in broad daylight on Elm Street in Dallas a half-century ago:

1) No witnesses in Dealey Plaza have ever supported the findings of the Warren Commission Report because they say the shooting did not happen in accordance with the official story. In the three-year period that followed the murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died — six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a snapped neck, three from heart attacks, and two from “natural causes.”

2) Madeleine Duncan Brown, LBJ’s mistress of more than 21 years and mother of their son, Steven, said LBJ told her the night before the assassination, “After tomorrow, those son-of-a-bitch Kennedys will never bother me again. That isn’t a threat; it’s a promise.” She was disturbed by the comment and asked him what he meant the following morning. He said, “After today, those son-of-a-bitch Kennedys will never bother me again.” Three hours later, John Kennedy’s head was blown off.

3) Four days before Dallas, Joseph Milteer was recorded in Miami saying Kennedy was going to be killed with a high-powered rifle from a tall building. He doesn’t mention Oswald. This destroys the criticism of conspiracy because if you believe Oswald did it, this proves he couldn’t have acted alone. This is just one of the points at which the official story unravels.

4) On October 3, 1963, less than two months before the murder, Arthur Krock from the New York Times published an article in which he quoted a high-ranking official within the Kennedy administration: “The CIA’s growth was ‘likened to a malignancy’ which the ‘very high official was not even sure the White House could control … any longer.’ ‘If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon.’ The agency ‘represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.’” The Warren Commission never talked to Mr. Krock or asked about his source.

5) Local resident Rob Lowe should be ashamed of himself to have furthered the colossal lie surrounding the killing of Kennedy with his fictional role in which his research included finding out what Kennedy ate for breakfast and his preference for taking notes in pencil. Very deep research, Rob.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Actually that's exactly the type of research an actor should undertake for a role, especially that of an historical personage. Bravo Lowe.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Mr. Bellamar. I hope to see more articles from you in the future... I know theres more to be said on this subject.
To the point of Rob Lowes research, while knowing what someone ate for breakfast may add to an actors portrayal in a shallow sense, knowing what drove that person - their passion - is far more meaningful. It is a passionate and courageous man who would attempt to remove the stranglehold of the Federal Reserve on this country as JFK attempted.
I believe that Mr. Bellamar is making the point that, with not only everything that happened on that day, but also with everything that Pres Kennedy stood for, it seems more than odd to cite breakfast choices as an indicator of a character well researched.

Paige123 (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I do think there's more to the JFK assassination than we know, or may ever know, many of the "facts" presented by this writer are much disputed, the "quotes" attributed to LBJ's mistress, for example, being of the urban myth variety. Stating that something is a "fact" does not make it so.

Many years after the assassination, while in Dallas, a local took me to the site in Dealey Plaza and I remember being surprised at how "close" everything seemed, how expert marksmanship may have been less a factor than commonly supposed.
I do think there's more to the story; Oswald may indeed have been the "patsy" he claimed to be, but those who go to far off into conspiracy land, on any topic, ultimately just drive away the rational-minded who may have their own doubts.

zappa (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JFK Murder Truth telling - Heading to the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd - 50th Anniversary

juanv (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This article is b.s.
1) Dozens of witnesses saw the rifle pointed out of the TSBD window. There were 552 witnesses accounts in the Warren Commision report. 18 of them died, people die all the time
2)Ms. Brown was a convicted forger and scammer. Her son was no more LBJ's son than I am. Her statements are not believable.
3)Milteer's recorded statement was in reference to JFK's visit to Miami. JFK himself speculated that if he was to be killed it would be with a high powered rifle from a building. Perhaps JFK was behind his own murder!
the ultimate inside job.
4)Specualtion from a Kennedy official is not evidence of anything.
5) Rob Lowe is a freaking actor. Why would you expect him to "research" an alleged conspiracy when there has been fifty years of jackasses trying to connect dots that do not connect.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)


1) Nobody claims that a gun wasn't being pointed out from the book depository or that shots were not fired from there. More importantly than how many witnesses were killed is which witnesses were they and what did they want to say they saw. Even if only 5 or 10 of those people were actually murdered, that would invoke a conspiracy,

2) Well I suppose if a conviction was overturned you can still get away with saying they were convicted now eh ;)

3) Still curious, secret ops are often fluid

4) Presents motive which is evidence that can be upheld in a court of law.

5) Distraction, obfuscation, similar to your function whether intended or not.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PFFFFT, the writer of this article stated "No witnesses in Dealey Plaza have ever supported the findings of the Warren Commission Report because they say the shooting did not happen in accordance with the official story." You should know that that is a complete falsehood. This article is an excersice of lies and obfuscation designed to promote the JFK CT kooks agenda. i am sorry that you are so easily fooled.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read both sides and make a determination of who is most accurate.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Meet Jean Hill:

James Darnell : What is your name Mame?
Jean Hill

James Darnell : From Dallas? Did you see the shooting, Mame?

Jean Hill: Yes sir.

James Darnell : Could you describe what happen?

Jean Hill: Yes sir.

James Darnell : Could you do that now?

Jean Hill: Uh, they were driving along, and we were the only people in this area, on our side. Shots came directly across the street from us. And just as the president's car became directly even with us, we took one look at him, sitting there, he and Jackie were looking at [something] in the middle of the seat, and about that time, 2 shots rang out, just as he looked up. Just as the president looked up...The president looked up, hear the shots rang out and then he grabbed his chest, looked like he was in pain, then fell over in the seat, then Jackie fell on him. My god he's been shot.

James Darnell : Ah.. Ah... And...

Jean Hill: Then more shots rang out... and then the car sped away.

James Darnell : What kind of car was that?

Jean Hill: What kind of care was it? It's the president's car!

James Darnell : No, I mean, where did the shots come from?

Jean Hill: The shots came from the hill.

James Darnell : The Hill?

Jean Hill: Yes. Uh, it was just east of the underpass.

James Darnell : and, Uh Hun...

Jean Hill: We were just on the south side.

James Darnell : Could you see... Did you look up there, where the shots came from, mam?

Jean Hill: Yes sir.

James Darnell : Could you see anyone?

Jean Hill: Ah, I thought I saw this man running, but I look at the president, and you know, for awhile, and then I looked up there and thought saw a man running. So, right after that, I didn't have any better sense and started running up there too.

James Darnell : Uh Hun, what is your name mame?

Jean Hill: Jean Hill

James Darnell : J-e-a-n?

Jean Hill: J-e-a-n.

James Darnell : And what's your address?

Jean Hill: 9402 Bluff Creek

James Darnell : 9402 Bluff Creek

James Darnell : That was an interview I had with Mrs Jean Hill of Dallas, a few minutes ago.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Testimony of H. L. Brennan:
"I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking not only at Elm street but I could see the large red brick building across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparantly [sic] waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last window I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again. "

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JFK was a dangerous man. He tried to pull the curtains back to let us see the light of a transparent government and lost his life fighting for the freedoms of every last American. I paid homage to the greatest President to ever grace the Oval Office today on the Anniversary of his death at

dregstudios (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JFK was a dangerous man if you happened to be a target of numerous assassination attempts like Fidel Castro or a successful bloody coup like President Diem. Take off the rose colored glasses. JFK was a great man, but he was an unapologetic cold warrior.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who are turned-off by hearsay, as I am, I would encourage you to research both arguments objectively... Look at documentable facts, then make a value judgement. There are excellent (albeit dry) documentaries that mention little to no hearsay on the subject but have video and documents as the basis. They do a great job explaining the events both the day prior and the day-of.
I have myself, and I strongly lean toward the belief that Oswald was a patsy, as many do. I always try to leave some room for the fact that I wasn't there and cannot be certain.
The gentleman (term used loosely) who referred to 'conspiracy theorists' as jackasses lacks tact and class, and also can't be certain of the absolute validity of his opinion. Name calling is juvenile and undermines ones argument with its mere presence.

Paige123 (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The jackass is a noble creature. I am sorry if I have offended anyone either equine or human with my remark. This society's almost drug like addiction to conspiracy theories is foolish and keeps us from paying attention to the real transgressions of our government.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This could be a real transgression by the government. Unfortunately, 50 years, nonsense and conspiracy, bad science trying to explain a magic bullet, and now Rob Lowe? Leave it to humans to f everything up, tear down, and destroy. It's really what they're best at.

spacey (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just as surely as there will always be conspiracy theorists, there will also be conspiracies. The correspondences will be weak, but do we live in a world without scheming interest groups? I think that most conspiracy buffs smell the corruption, but they lack the sophistication to identify its sources. The govt musta done it, etc. But it mighta just been Oswald living his peculiar dream, or Herschel Grynszpan shooting his gay Nazi lover, for example. We'll never know. But we CAN fact-check conspiracy theories in this Internet age, unlike in previous decades when only conspiracy hoaxers sold copy, unlike fact-respecting debunkers.

Anyone care to take on ACTUAL cover-ups?

Google "Holodomor" or "Solzhenitsyn 200 Years Together," for example, to find whitewashed history, abundantly documented.

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Haha!!! Godwins Law in action.
I will check out what you cited...

Back to the topic of conspiracy theory, I do find it curious that educated folks will acknowledge the many known conspiracies now brought to light (think Vietnam, etc.) as wrongs of the past, but when someone suggests that something else was a cover-up of some kind, they laugh as though it is an unfathomable notion only a fool would entertain.

Vietnam, for example: was this not a real transgression of the government? Was it not also a conspiracy? This is but one example.

The real transgression of the government is it's loyalty to corporations and special interest groups. Many of the top politicians in our government have strong ties to major companies that benefited greatly from their appointment / election to office. Think Cheney and Condoleeza (sic). These are facts, and in my mind their own sort of conspiracy. No one was 'silenced' no major cover-up needed, but manipulative of government policy nonetheless through the lack of information easily accessed by the average American.

I do agree with a point from above - it is very difficult to know good science from bad - a theory can sound logical but still be false and lead one down the wrong path. This is, in part, why I avoid making assertions of certainty and temper what I research with that understanding. I do find it most helpful to research both sides thoroughly - and evaluate the merits of counterpoints as well.

I can also say that, using only known absolute facts (no hearsay, no 'science') about the events surrounding JFK's assassination, I see strong evidence that it was not Oswald.

Paige123 (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How is Rob Lowe suppose to singlehandedly change the nation's banking system? I'm sure he'd have better luck with a Snow White redux. That's as crazy as thinking bullets do u-turns in midair!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There was no u turning bullet except in the fantasy world of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone. If you look at the actual Presidential limo not a stock Lincoln convertable, clearly Connally was sitting in front and to the left of JFK. It was a straight shot into the neck, out the throat and into Connally.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: