Skip to comments.The Last Confessions of E Howard Hunt
Posted on 03/28/2007 11:29:12 AM PDT by meg88
click here to read article
Beyond the inconsistencies (he was in, he was out)in the son's tale, don't you wonder where the 'copied' diagram of the chain of command and the 'grasping' tape-recorded confession went to? Why aren't they offered as evidence?
Does anyone doubt that the author and Rolling Stone paid Mr. Hunt for trashing the memory of the father he called, "that fu--er" at one point?
I thought the second guy was supposed to be Woody Harrelson's daddy.
Besides, only the third guy looks like a "hobo". The other 2 look kinda preppy.
LBJ in the fall of '63 was headed for prison. Word had already leaked to him that he was being replaced on the '64 ticket by NC Governor Terry Sanford. LBJ was going to be called by the Senate (Ken Keating R-NY was leading the investigation) sometime before Christmas, about his relationship with Bobby Baker.
Johnson was headed for a big fall; the only way he could save himself was if he were President. As POTUS, during some of the most tense days of the Cold War he knew that Congress would not touch him.
He was right. It worked. The funny thing is, just about the only people who believe the Warren Report today are the media elite.
Yeah, they would be the last to know.
The "magic bullet" theory was called the "magic bullet theory" LONG before High Treason and Stone.
The "theory" was invented by Arlen Specter.
It wasn't Carl Albert (although, like LBJ, he too was a huge crook) it was the man who replaced Johnson as the Congressional representative for his old district in East Texas.
We'll know more in 2013 when the offical documents come out.
It particularly galls the left that Oswald was an angry little commie.
You are totally wrong...the evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming...do you really believe that JFK was murdered by a lone nut assassin (who couldn't shoot) who in turn was murdered by a lone not assassin, up to his eyeballs in Mafia contacts.
That's a story for not very bright children.
Baloney...Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy led by Johnson and Hoover. If you take a little time to read...and not buy elite media propaganda like Posner's book, and Jennings' flacking for the discredited Warren Report you'd lean a few things.
Overwhelming conspiracy evidence?
All these years and no one has leaked anything.
The lone nut assassin was a good shooter, actually, as evidenced by his receiving marksmanship awards while in the military.
If you believe this "conspiracy", I have another good one I'm sure you'll fall for: 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration to cover up evidence of corporate scandals and to get us into a war for profit.
Another one you'll like: The British Sailors being taken hostage is a hoax so we can have a catalyst to attack Iran.
Looks like St. John has figured out how to make some money from his father's death.
I'm sorry to be so callous, but almost 40 years on, and most of the players already dead, what does any of this matter, except to a man who believes he's OWED something for what he considers his part in helping his dad?
Yes. The evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming. I have read all the books...even Posner's piece of crap...Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, both in the motorcade said shortly before their deaths that two shots came from the front...they were positive. Bobby Kennedy, ten days before his death told Frank Manciewicz that when he got into the White House he was going to reopen the investigation.
Johnson knew it was going down, so did Hoover...read for yourself, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by Waldron...it's all there...but it doesn't count because the MSM won't cover it.
The article says only one of the key players is still alive, why not ask him about this story?
Just because CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/NPR/PBS won't cover it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It's been in a hundred books. Take some time and read.
OK, you have corrected me. I can't remember the dude that was winking. It's not this particular photo, but I will find it and post it. Not that it proves anything, just interesting.
It's a free country, you can believe what you like, and your belief doesn't have to be based on facts.
However, the facts of this event demonstrate that all of the shots that struck the limo and its occupants were fired from about the location of the book depository window.
That doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy involved. Since Oswald was killed, we obviously don't have his account.
The shooting of Oswald by a nightclub owner with mob ties is extremely suspicious. But Ruby died without giving any specifics.
So there may well have been a conspiracy to use Oswald as the instrument to kill Kennedy.
But the "grassy knoll" gunman is just a fantasy used to sell books and movies.
His jacket was bunched up-that's why the wound appears lower on the back of his jacket in relation to the exit wound. Everybody knows this, but conspiracy buffs refuse to mention thes things. Just like the "doctored" photo of Oswald holding the rifle. There might be something to that if there had been only one photo, but there were several poses with the rifle, and they were taken by his wife. Again, conspiracy buffs ignore this. And we are supposed to believe that all the gruesome autopsy photos have also been "faked" because they reveal that the fatal head entry wound was in the back of the head and exitied from the upper front right. Sheesh.
I used to be a JFK conspiracy buff, too. I now believe one lone commie punk named Oswald did the killing.
Another conspiracy "fact" that is not true. In the marines, he qualified as a sharpshooter. On a later test, he qualified as marksman. So the worst you can say is that he hovered between sharpshooter and marksman. In any case, he was a decent shooter.
When I think back to my conspiracy buff day, I realize that the reason I believed all thos theories is that I was drawing conclusions based on untrue "facts".
If you think the MSM, as a whole, doesn't also believe in the conspiracy theory, then you are living in dreamland.
It's the MSM, along with teachers, "historians" and Hollywood-types who have fomented this "conspiracy" nonsense all these years.
Some things are simply what they are.
Reminds me of the old saw: Generals are killed by snipers; privates are killed by random fire. It's very difficult to accept the possibility that JFK was killed by a lone gunman who frankly made a lucky shot.
No, I fits that LBJ was a life long manic depressive with a strong streak of paranoia. When Uncle Walter deserted him, the Kennedy clan started sniping at him from all sides, and his own aids started turning their back on him, he went into a funk that he never recoverd from. LBJ didn't want to be President anymore --- in fact, he didn't even want to live any more.
I'm just surprised that there are people in here who have fallen for the Camelot Fairy Tale.
I'll wait for the movie, don't read books on the web.
You don't believe a word of it? This sort of response goes to the heart of my argument against scientism. (Scientism is the belief that the only truths that exist are those that are scientifically demonstrated.) I'm not going to criticise you for not believing this article, of course; what I'm criticizing here is the process by which most people determine the truth.
What is truth? That was Pilate's question to Jesus. Today, we claim to be able to discern the truth without asking God; we rely on something called "the scientific method". To modern people, truth is that which can be supported by evidence. This method works fairly well as far as inanimate objects are concerned; that statement that "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen" is held to be true in a certain sense because anyone can combine hydrogen and oxygen and view the result. But what about other truths? Social, psychological, historical truths? Can these be determined to be genuine using the scientific method?
I don't see how. let's take the JFK assassination, for example. The statement "JFK was shot in Dallas on 22 November 1963" is a historical fact; JFK was alive on 21 November and dead on 23 November, during which time he was in Dallas, and examiners did find wounds consistent with gunshot wounds. On that we all agree. But who shot him? And why? We cannot determine the answers to these questions using the scientific method. There is no impartial court of cosmic data examiners in the sky who have analyzed the scientific facts of the case and come to a conclusion. Instead, what we have is a government-approved "finding" created by a panel of political insiders the Warren Report. Now, the Warren Report might be the Gospel truth about the JFK assassination but it also might not be. Yet for most people, the Warren Report is the truth, and that's that. We accept a certain version of events as true on the basis of authority alone.
That's fine as far as it goes. But it is important to realize that the Warren Commission's job was not to investigate the murder of the President of the United States. Its job was to prevent the shock and chaos created by the assassination from causing disruption of the social and political order of the United States. Bearing this in mind, it becomes easy to see why the Commission ultimately issued the finding that the JFK assassination was the result of a "lone nut". Let's say you're a member of the Commission, and you are presented with a clear, color 8mm sound film of LBJ hiring Lucien Sarti to kill JFK. Do you publish it for all the world to see?
Hell, no. Why not? Because you are an authority figure. If the American people hear from you that the President was killed as part of a coup d'etat instigated by his own Vice President, they'll go nuts. They will stop trusting in the government. They will lose all their psycholical bearings. The financial system will undergo a critical loss in investor confidence and crash. The military will no longer be certain who (if anyone) is their Commander-in-Chief. Foreign powers might choose such a moment to stike. No, as a patriot what you do in that case is to bury the evidence and say whatever you have to say to keep the country together.
But even that scenario doesn't strike at the heart of the queation. What IS Truth? Is it what we see on TV? Is it what the government tells us? Is it what the history books say? How can we know? Back to the JFK affair: a good question to ask oneself is "What evidence would it take to convince me 100% that JFK was shot from the front?" Color photos of a second gunman? Photos can be faked. A sound recording? Ditto. The testimony of witnesses? Dozens have testified to hearing shots from the Knoll. They could be mistaken, delusional, or lying. So much for evidence.
We need to admit it: in some cases, no amount of evidence, no matter how incrminating it might be, would be enough to get Oswald off the hook. In fact, for most people, even a signed, notarized affadavit stating "I had Kennedy killed" written on White House stationery and signed by LBJ would not be enough. Do you see my point?There IS no 100% certain way to know the truth regarding the JFK assassination OR ANY OTHER HISTORICAL EVENT.
Therefore, the scientific method is useless in determining historical truth. As thinking people, we are forced to examine ALL the evidence ALL and then apply our reason and intuition to come up with a statement of belief that seems to fit. We cannot KNOW exactly what happened to JFK on that fateful November day; the best we can do is pick from a menu of interpretations and choose one to believe in.
And, in a larger sense, this is true for life.The scientific method proves nothing; evidence taken on authority can be faked, and even directly-observed evidence may not be true (since our senses can food us). So how do we know what we know? The only things we can know are those things that do not rely upon evidence or observation. We can know that we ourselves exist, because we do not "see" or "hear" ourselves; we ARE ourselves. And we can know that God exists through reason and (for a blessed few) through personal Communion. Everything else the sun, gravity, that chair over there we accept on the basis of faith.
You're wrong. I don't want to post them here --- they are gruesome, but if you care to look, you can look at the autopsy photos and see the bullet entry and exit wounds.
There is no excuse for swallowing these damn myths anymore, or making the hustlers who push them wealthy. The documentation is public domain.
"In fact, E. Howard swore to Laura that he knew nothing about JFK's assassination; it was one of her preconditions for marriage."
That is one of the funniest lines I have ever come across in all of my 43 years of reading.
I have a Mannlicher Caranco 91/38, not a bad little rifle, but I can't see anyone using a scope could get off three rounds at a moving target.
Oswald was a Marine and if you know USMC training, it's indoctrination that the Marine and his rifle are a unit .. a combined killing machine.
I suspect Oswald would have been happier with an M-1 than with a cheap import. Or even a Star Gaugae '03 Springfield if he could afford one
On the other hand, I can't see Bobby K. just letting go of his brother being killed.
That's simply not in our Irish nature.
The Warren Report? A lot of garbage and filler (Dental records? lol)
I saw the photo... the "guy" was Congressman Albert Thomas, from Houston and he was a better friend of Kennedy than of Johnson. Thomas was old (he was a WWI vet) and had wanted to retire in 1962 and Kennedy talked him out of retirement to make sure the Democrats held that seat. As to the photo, is he winking? I can't tell ... his face is mostly out of focus. And is LBJ even looking at him, or was he looking at Lady Bird? I don't know that either.
And what if it were a wink --- what the hell does that mean? Considering the man had just taken the oath of office as the President of the United States under horrible circumstances, how would one at least acknowledge that fact? Seems cheers and high-fives would be out of place and the cabin of that 707 was a little tight for formal reception lines.
This conspiracy stuff drives me nuts and with the internet today, it only took me 30 seconds to look it up yet there are kook web sites out there who do identify the guy as Carl Albert. Like all conspiracy crap, they are long on innuendo and short on facts.
1. Why would a scope make an difference on the number of rounds you could get off?
2. The "target' was not a deer bounding through the woods. It was slow moving in nearly prefect alignment with the line of fire.
Visit the School Book Depository some time. You can stand there in the 6th floor and look out from the window directly next to the one Oswald fired from. I don't claim to be a great marksman, but I could have hit that target 2 out of 3 and in fact, the angel and distances have been recreated many times and even average marksmen have done it.
I don't know one way or the other but wasn't Oswald a Marine?
I'm pretty sure he could shoot and that shot has been easily replicated with the exact same type rifle.
That doesn't mean I don't buy into the second spitter theory.
You were doing pretty good until the part where you said we can know that god exists through reason but we only know the sun exists through faith. You are turning words upside down for your amusment, I guess.
Because she'd just seen he husband's head explode while she was staring straight into his eyes from almost nose to nose distance?
I have a Mannlicher Caranco 91/38, not a bad little rifle, but I can't see anyone using a scope could get off three rounds at a moving target.
I do not have one, so I cannot test how quickly one could shoot it. But remember that the first shot would already have chambered.
I do not know how well Oswald's Marine indoctrination went. He fit the classic loner-chip-on-his-shoulder mentality, so I doubt he was a good Marine.
Nope. We can know God exists through reason alone, by any of several logical means. (St Anselm's, for one; Descartes, for another; I leave it to you to look up the specifics. Search under "ontological proofs of God".) We can also know God directly, from direct experience, without the use of reason or the senses.
As for the sun: we do not know it exists. We can see, feel, and measure the Sun's output, but we cannot demonstrate that these observations bear any relation to any object outside our own minds. For all we know we are cosmic sleepers, dreaming about something called a "sun". For all we know we are disembodied brains floating in some vat and "living" in a Matrix-style computer simulatied world. Any piece of evidence that you can cite for the existence of the sun could be faked or simulated. Of course, I believe in the existence of the sun (and the physical universe along with it), but belief is not certainty; it is an act of faith. I have faith that what my senses show me is a real world, but I can't "prove" it.
And who is the "me" my senses show these things to, anyway?
I think she was trying to pick up pieces of his head? Kind of tells me the point of impact was from the front.
I looked it up and saw it, as well. It seems to me that he is winking, and you can tell that LBJ is smiling (even though you can't see the front of his face, you can tell that he is smiling because of the way the side of his face look, if that makes sense). What does it prove? Nothing, really. Nothing at all. Yes, "high fives" would be out of place, for sure.
As for conspiracies in general, I find many to be unconvincing but all are fascinating. But if you are taking the position that all are "crap," I believe you are wrong. I believe in a bare few of them, and a plot to kill JFK is one, for sure. Cuban exiles and Mafia types, in particular, had good reason to participate in the plot to kill JFK.
In February, 2001, the writer, C. David Heymann, asked Cord Meyer about the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer: "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed , " he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
Cord Meyer died of lymphoma on 13th March, 2001.
Supposedly Oliver Stone is keeping himself healthy for that day
That must have been wuite a marriage!
Congress committee in late 1970's concluded there was a "likely" conspiracy.
So say you. Also, I haven't fallen into anything. I have read just about every book written on the subject, I lived 40 miles from Dallas in 1963, Oswald's daughter was in my 1st grade class, and I've met his brother, Robert Oswald. There are too many things that happened that do not add up. All you have to do is watch the Zapruder film, and it is obvious that the fatal shot came from the front. The police officer riding behind the car and on the left was sprayed with blood and brain tissue. That would not happen with a shot from behind. Numerous other things do not make sense if Oswald was the "lone assasin".
Come on. Post your best evidence that makes it "for sure." The Conspiracy Industry can't even decide if it was Nixon, LBJ, The Mafia, Castro, the FBI, CIA, the South Vietnamese or some husband of a broad that Kennedy shagged. But they're all "sure" that there was a plot.
The only things I am sure of is that any conspiracy that involves more than two people will never stay secret, and that the Warren Commission report fits all of the facts available --- then or now. People have been shooting at it for over 40 years, and no one has yet demonstrated that it is wrong on any of its material conclusions.
I have seen no evidence to make me "sure" of anything other than publishing conspiracy theories can be 'fun and profitable' no matter how far out they are. There is a market of suckers who will buy them.
Whether there was a conspiracy to kill JFK or not, LBJ's reaction is immaterial. If we heard today or tomorrow that B.J. Clinton or Ted "The Hero of Chappaquiddick" Kennedy was assassinated, don't you think it possible, or even likely that some of us might smile or wink? That would not mean we were involved, mind you.
Not many people have witnessed what Gen. Patton described as "putting your hand into a bunch of goo that a few moments before was your best friend's face". I think that a sheltered debutante like Jackie would likely evacuate the premises forthwith after what she'd witnessed. I do not subscribe to the "picking up pieces of head" scenario. But, you feel free to do so if you wish.