TX TX - President John F. Kennedy, 46, Dallas, 22 Nov 1963

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965099686928196014

 

[Betty P]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965099686928196014

She was an amazing, strong woman with an unerring sense of ethics. She was a Quaker. She didn't like Oswald because he was too controlling of his wife and family. She also thought he had mental and psych issues. She tried to help his wife and kids. She had no idea, however, that Oswald was planning anything. Her support of Oswald's wife and daughters continued after he was arrested. She was always very helpful to LE and investigators.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1992294177502110041

 

[airportwoman]

Is this an appropriate place to post that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's 35-year-old daughter, Tatiana, has announced that she has a rare form of leukemia for which treatment has failed?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/22/politics/tatiana-schlossberg-terminal-cancer-kennedy

 

[Marantz4250b]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1992294177502110041

Clickbait from the DM. Those "chilling" pics which everyone has seen a million times and are in no way chilling at all.

Anyway, to reiterate my previous points - it was Oswald.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Is this an appropriate place to post that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's 35-year-old daughter, Tatiana, has announced that she has a rare form of leukemia for which treatment has failed?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/22/politics/tatiana-schlossberg-terminal-cancer-kennedy

well...i want to thank you for posting this... how terribly terribly sad....

 

[kkkkatie]

Is this an appropriate place to post that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's 35-year-old daughter, Tatiana, has announced that she has a rare form of leukemia for which treatment has failed?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/22/politics/tatiana-schlossberg-terminal-cancer-kennedy

Heartbreaking. Praying for a miracle for this young mother.

 

[Dotta]

Clickbait from the DM. Those "chilling" pics which everyone has seen a million times and are in no way chilling at all.

Anyway, to reiterate my previous points - it was Oswald.

I don't think so.

They commemorated the anniversary of President's death.
(the article is dated 22nd November)

And some pictures were new - at least to me.
I haven't seen them "a million times",
but for the first time.

And they are chilling - to me
Because they depict tragedy.
Not only personal,
but of the whole nation.

JMO

 

[Betty P]

Is this an appropriate place to post that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's 35-year-old daughter, Tatiana, has announced that she has a rare form of leukemia for which treatment has failed?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/22/politics/tatiana-schlossberg-terminal-cancer-kennedy

Such terribly sad news for the wonderful young woman and her family. It seems so unfair that, as she said, her children will never remember her. So tragic that medical research still hasn’t found cures for so many of these cancers. Praying for a miracle for her and others.

 

[Charlot123]

well...i want to thank you for posting this... how terribly terribly sad....

I read about it two days ago, in another article. Poor woman, she is only 35 and having two young children. It is amazing that at the time of personal tragedy, she tries to draw our attention to the problems the medicine and other patients facing.

(My acquaintance had AML with chromosome 16 inversion, considered prognostically favorable, and yet, it wasn’t so. Mankind is so far from winning over.)

I am wishing Tatiana to live as many days as it is possible in her situation, to spend more time with her children.

 

[Charlot123]

I don't think so.

They commemorated the anniversary of President's death.
(the article is dated 22nd November)

And some pictures were new - at least to me.
I haven't seen them "a million times",
but for the first time.

And they are chilling - to me
Because they depict tragedy.
Not only personal,
but of the whole nation.

JMO

Logically, it is more likely Oswald than not, because of prior history: he attempted to shoot former Major General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963, in Dallas.

The photos, though, are shockingly scary. The seconds lapsing between two happy families in an open-roof car and a total mayhem, blood and death were too few.

 

[Charlot123]

Now, who could potentially organize nation-wise coverup of JFK’s death in 1963:

One of the “big two” entities plus military/industrial complex.

Would they be interested in assassination?

- main reason why people might dislike JFK in 1963: they did not like JFK’s support of the Civil Right movement.

However: in 1963, these entities in power were headed by experienced people. Many went through WWII, perhaps, participated in Korean War. I can expect these people to be ruthless, but I am sure they were not dumb at all.

So what would such conspirators expect as the result?

In the coming elections of 1964. Goldwater was a weak opponent, but Kennedy’s approval index in September of 1963 was 55% and he was rapidly losing the Southern states, so there was some chance for Barry. What happened post-assassination? JFK is forever a hero. Johnson carried 44 states + DC; 80.6 percentage points. And, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I assume that alleged conspirators could foresee that the nation would gather around its slain leader.

- Let us look at the foreign policy. Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis aptly. The conflict in Indochina was brewing slowly, not full-scale US presence yet, but both Kennedy and Johnson had the same attitude regarding Indochina (pro-war and relied on McNamara). So, not that.

- one aspect related to forthcoming war: the past experience with the failed Cuba invasion, the Bay of Pigs. Could there be some fear that JFK would be a weak leader in Indochina conflict? Would this lead to his assassination?

JMO, Kennedy “inherited” Cuban problem and ended up being blamed for Eisenhower’s and mostly, Dulles’s actions, but I can imagine certain anti-Castro groups being involved. But these are groups; had they killed JFK, there was no need in covering them. Rather, the opposite: post two or three faces, calm the nation. And, in 1963 no one expected Vietnam to turn into what it ended up being.

JMO, JFK vulnerability was his private life. For political assassination, someone could “organize” leakage of a photo to the press before the elections.

So I feel that Dallas was Oswald’s doing. Not that I don’t see the possibility of anyone doing it, I honestly don’t see a big reason to kill JFK.

 

[Charlot123]

Here: towards the history of the presidential debates. Very interesting, I didn’t even know that Johnson refused to debate Goldwater.

Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future by Newton N. Minow and Craig L. LaMay, an excerpt

Now, the 1960, the first televised debates! With the videos.

1960 United States presidential debates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

JFK library: the transcript of the first 1960 debate

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/tnc-172

 

[Richard]

November 22nd will continue to be remembered every year as the date of President John F. Kennedy 's assassination. It certainly was a significant and traumatic event in history. Everyone who was living at the time can say where they were when they heard about it.

There will always be debate and arguments regarding who was behind the planning, actual shooting, and investigation influence/cover-ups.

Maybe the release of information will help to answer some of the long lingering questions, but with more information will come more questions.

Almost all researchers will admit that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved to some extent. But was he the one and only? If so, what was his motive? Were others involved?

 

[Richard]

Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald on 24 November 1963 - 62 years ago.

LINK:

MSN

 

[PrairieWind]

I long thought Oswald was certainly the only shooter. But was their a conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe he did it all on his own for his own reasons, or maybe he was a pawn. His death at the hands of Ruby days later is the thing that makes me think there was perhaps something else going on.

 

[Charlot123]

I long thought Oswald was certainly the only shooter. But was their a conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe he did it all on his own for his own reasons, or maybe he was a pawn. His death at the hands of Ruby days later is the thing that makes me think there was perhaps something else going on.

I never knew how much JFK would listen to his security service. An open-roof Lincoln convertible, moving slowly amidst a huge crowd, was a too easy target.

An open-roof was due to Texas being split about the next election. So, all was a pre-election show, well though over: an open car, the Kennedys sitting with the Connallys. (John Connally was a personal friend and a protégé of Johnson and served as the US Secretary of the Navy in 1961, so one could call him a friend).

But no security service worth its bread would have allowed an open roof. That made it too easy. BTW, the theory says that had Connally not turned after the first shot to look at JFK, the bullet that hit his lung would have hit his head. Connally underwent several surgeries and survived, but his wounds were serious.

Connally agreed with the conclusions of the Warren committee, however:

- he was never sure that Oswald was the only shooter.
- he was against "a single bullet theory".

 

[PrairieWind]

I never knew how much JFK would listen to his security service. An open-roof Lincoln convertible, moving slowly amidst a huge crowd, was a too easy target.

An open-roof was due to Texas being split about the next election. So, all was a pre-election show, well though over: an open car, the Kennedys sitting with the Connallys. (John Connally was a personal friend and a protégé of Johnson and served as the US Secretary of the Navy in 1961, so one could call him a friend).

But no security service worth its bread would have allowed an open roof. That made it too easy. BTW, the theory says that had Connally not turned after the first shot to look at JFK, the bullet that hit his lung would have hit his head. Connally underwent several surgeries and survived, but his wounds were serious.

Connally agreed with the conclusions of the Warren committee, however:

- he was never sure that Oswald was the only shooter.
- he was against "a single bullet theory".

I think a lot of people were against the single bullet theory until it was better explained how it lined up. Also, many people reported hearing shots from two locations, but I just think those were echoes which also accounted for those who thought they heard 4 or 5 shots.

 

[Charlot123]

I long thought Oswald was certainly the only shooter. But was their a conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe he did it all on his own for his own reasons, or maybe he was a pawn. His death at the hands of Ruby days later is the thing that makes me think there was perhaps something else going on.

(To be honest, RFK's assassination by Sirhan looks more like a conspiracy because of the shooting trajectories, but we are not discussing it here. I would not be surprised if we have "a non-conspiracy"/"a conspiracy" cases, btw).

About JFK, perhaps I give too much credence brain-wise to the CIA, the FBI, or the defence ministry. J Edgar Hoover was an idosyncratically unpleasant man, of course, but he was bright. So I always think that a higher-up conspiracy has to have a very clear plan that should work. Any leader assassination creates a precedent, too. What do we see? Nothing changed after Dallas. IRL, everything that they may have not liked JFK for, LBJ delivered.

I can imagine how scary political riots were, but after all, both JFK and LBJ were pretty normal, average, predictable imperialistic presidents operating in the Cold War era, just more liberal. (There was a limit to their liberalism, though. And, we are speaking about the time of rapid economic growth; usually at such times countries and leaders can afford being more liberal.) So it is not that anything major was achieved by JFK's assassination. Am I missing something?

Hence, I tend to cross out "serious" FBI/CIA conspiracy. I also think that in terms of his personal life, JFK was the lamest of the presidential ducks. Assassination of the leader carries a huge unpredictable risk, but anyone's reputation can be tarnished and destroyed.

So we are left with solitary groups and organizations, such as mafia, or the Cuban expats, maybe KKK. But these organizations were not worthy of a major cover-up. There were constant lawsuits against the mafia bosses, just throw the culprit to the press, the rival clan will occupy the space. Same with the rest. Am i missing anything? Was any group worthy of a country-wide coverup?

The only thing that needed to be hidden is how bad the presidential security was. And, if there were lapses in FBI/CIA work, they, too. So could it be so that what we view as the major conspiracy could be the result of minor ones, like, Hoover or McCone not wanting to lose their jobs, and definitely not James Joseph Rowley? So everyone covers lapses of own organization, we see a patchwork of "whiteouts", and together view it like a huge conspiracy?

(Oswald was such a loose cannon that he could act alone or be persuaded by anyone, but that's Oswald.)

 

[Charlot123]

I think a lot of people were against the single bullet theory until it was better explained how it lined up. Also, many people reported hearing shots from two locations, but I just think those were echoes which also accounted for those who thought they heard 4 or 5 shots.

Auditory perception is known to be faulty in humans. I experience it all the time in my house. If the sound comes from your back, close to midline behind your ears, it is impossible to tell whether it is coming from the back or the front. (The same is true for the sounds coming from the front midline.) There is an experiment illustrating it.

So if anatomically "a single bullet" makes sense, this is probably enough.