by Barry Krusch
In the beginning chapters of the book I have included URLs to all the primary documents, which in the eReader edition of this book, link directly to the document, so you can verify on the spot that what I have said exists actually does. (Of course, websites can go down, and links can be changed, so if a link does not point to the document that I say it does, please let me know).
Why “Who Killed JFK?” Is Not The Right Question
We are now about to enter the book itself. Before we move to the first part of the book, the Preface, I want to discuss another issue which comes up.
I already told you one question that people ask me when I mentioned that I was working on a book on Lee Harvey Oswald. Only a few people ask me that question. Everyone else asks me this one: “Okay, if Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy, who did?” That is a fair question, and believe me, I would like to answer that question, but before answering, I have a question for you: “What is your standard of proof? If I have evidence, am I supposed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?”
If the answer to that question is “yes,” then I would say you’re going to be waiting a long long time for evidence that is going to enable anyone to achieve that standard. Much evidence has been destroyed, the vast majority of witnesses are already dead, or very soon will be, so with no truly reliable evidentiary base, I think that proving the actual identities of the killers beyond a reasonable doubt is going to also be impossible.
Does that mean that we can never know who killed the president with reference to any standard of proof? No, not at all; I think if we shift the standard of proof, we can definitely make out a short list of suspects, the ones most likely to have shot the President. And that will be good enough to take action.
Eventually we are going to realize in addition to asking who is on the short list of suspects, that there are even more, even better questions to ask, as follows:
Is it more important to know who fired the shots, or who called the shots?
Should the question be “Who killed JFK?” or “What killed JFK?”
Was it an individual who planned the assassination, or a group?
If it was a group, is that group still in existence today, even as we speak?
Is the government structured in such a way that a group like that could hijack the government without us knowing?
If that group is still in existence today, is that group so important and tied-in to the government that it can make sure that it will never be investigated by the government?
Has the government cooperated with this group over the years to cover up the true identity of the murderers?
If Oswald didn’t kill JFK, why does the first layer of evidence say that he did? And if a second layer of evidence proves that he didn’t, why doesn’t the government acknowledge the existence of the second layer, and why do they only discuss the first?
If this group was powerful enough to assassinate the President and create the illusion that Oswald was responsible, and that group is still in existence today, do they have any other treasonous plans up their sleeves and/or on the drawing boards?
There is one absolutely critical thing to note about the questions above. If there was such a group, and that group is still active, would it matter the names of the people in the group at the time? I think you can see, it would not! So, we don’t need to spend a lot of time wasting time arguing about who was in the group and who was not, all we need to establish is that in fact there was such a group. That’s what counts!
And one final question:
If we are convinced that there is no case against Oswald, what are the next steps?
What Are the Next Steps
Back in the old days, before I learned what I’ve learned in the process of writing this book, I probably would have, like numerous other people, called for a new official investigation by the government, and called for all previously unreleased documents to be released.
I now realize that either of these approaches would be a mistake.
In the first place, we don’t need any new government investigations. Government investigations can’t be trusted, and if you don’t believe that now, you will after reading this book. As far as a call for more documents goes, we don’t need any additional documents to show that the case against Oswald is dead, and I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that any existing documents possessed by the government are going to be pointing to the real perpetrators of the assassination. Also, given the illegitimacy of many of the documents that we already have, I don’t believe all the documents that will be released can be trusted, and validating the documents would be a time-consuming, time-wasting, and ultimately hopeless task.
The bottom line is that people will waste a lot of time asking the wrong questions and looking for information that will be impossible to get (because the evidence is destroyed), and therefore we can’t conclude anything beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one is going to agree on an alternate standard of proof anyway.
To me, if you want to discover what their next steps should be, you should be asking yourself the following question:
“If I was 100% convinced that the same group that was behind the assassination of President Kennedy was still in power today, what action would I take?”
That’s really the question, isn’t it? Notice how now the responsibility has shifted away from the government to you.
If you were 100% convinced of that, what action would you take?
Surprisingly, and shockingly, I think the answer of many people would be “no action.” They would say something like “you can’t fight City Hall,” “the system is too big to take on,” “I just don’t have time for that,” and then they would go back to manufacturing their duct tape bags.
I think you can see that that one would be pretty much a nonstarter. The government loves people who don’t take action when action is called for. That’s how government — or, more precisely, the people who have hijacked the government — gets away with murder.
So, what action do you take? Well, I have listed a number of possibilities in my book Peak Oil And What To Do About It, a book which could also be called The National Debt And What To Do About It, or could also be called The Kennedy Assassination And What To Do About It.
If you don’t have time to read that book, and the ideas within it, take these as a brief takeaway:
Cancel your cable. Get a Roku and Netflix and Hulu accounts. Congratulations, you just saved around $50 a month, and now have an 5-7 additional hours free a week which are not spent watching commercials. You’re going to need that time.
Now that you can’t watch CNN and Fox News anymore (lucky you!), you can get your information from Netflix documentaries and by reading books: much higher quality sources of information because they were not produced on ridiculously short deadlines. Here are some Netflix documentaries I highly recommend:
Flow
The Corporation
Inside Job
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
The Best Government Money Can Buy
Unprecedented
Uncounted
Outfoxed
And here are some excellent books:
Dissolving Dollars
Web of Debt
The Creature From Jekyll Island
The Long Emergency
Into the Buzzsaw
Of course, these are just a few ideas for you, I am sure that you will have no problem in discovering your own topics of interest. The main thing is this: the issues that you think about as important should be driven by what you actually think important, and not by what the box is telling you to think.
If you follow this strategy, and all your neighbors do the same thing, eventually you and your neighbors are going to stop thinking about the items that are on the agenda of the day as defined by The Associated Press and The New York Times. You won’t be thinking about whether or not “Obamacare” is a good or bad thing, or whether the best candidate is Palin or Romney or Trump or Gingrich
, and you are going to start thinking about questions that the media does not talk about very much, questions that actually require answering, like “how come the national debt always seems to be going up and up and there is never any solution?” and “if the Democrats and Republicans are opposed, why do they always seem to agree to raise the debt and to fight wars that people don’t want?” and “why are we being held hostage to high oil prices when we should have had an energy policy developed over forty years ago that would have gotten us off of the need to use oil, using alternative energy sources such as solar thermal, solar photoelectric, wind, geothermal, etc.?” and “why is the city trying to privatize my water supply, which will ultimately raise my rates?” Lots and lots and lots of other questions you should be thinking about, and having conversations with your neighbors about. It’s where your brain time should be if you want to get the answers to those questions.
Here is one answer to all those questions: never, ever, ever, ever again vote for a Democrat or Republican! Now, when I say never, I mean never. You must absolutely sever the umbilical cord that connects the master planners in Washington with the politicians of the district you live in. You want the politicians that you vote for to represent you, not put into place the agendas created by someone in Washington, DC, New York, or wherever these people live. Instead, you’re much better off voting for a third-party, if there is one, but a far better strategy is simply to write in the name of a candidate. This is not necessarily a plug-and-play strategy, there are nuances involved, just read the Write-In America FAQ document included inside Peak Oil And What To Do About It. If you sever that umbilical cord, you will simultaneously be severing the vacuum cleaner hose that is sucking bills out of your wallet, which takes us to the next point.
Do you want more reasons to not vote for a Democrat or Republican? How about this: both parties have given us a $15,620,637,197,295 national debt!
And that figure became obsolete even before I was able to paste the screen capture. It’s higher now. Go to http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ for the latest figures.
There, I just gave you over 15,000,000,000,000 reasons not to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Now, if that is not enough reasons for you, I will give you one more. Let’s follow a chain of logic related to the Kennedy assassination.
Let’s say that hypothetically there was some group that was responsible for planning the assassination of the President. I think it is pretty obvious that the members of this group were not patriots!
Now, if that was the case, after the election of President Johnson, the members of this group, who were not patriots, got control of the government. Having gotten control of the government, they were in a position to consolidate their power. Because the television stations in the United States are licensed by the government, the government had control over the people who own those licenses, and if they happened to broadcast the “wrong” information, the government could take those extremely valuable licenses away. Consequently, the broadcasters would broadcast officially approved material defining the agendas of the day, and before you know it everyone would be dancing to the beat of that drummer.
A group like this, who we know are not patriots, could basically be using the government for whatever purpose they wanted, like siphoning off dollars from the public treasury and delivering them into their own pockets. Where do those dollars come from? Ultimately, from you, either visibly through higher taxes, or invisibly through higher inflation (cutting of services is also a type of inflation. For example, notice how your medical deductibles have been going up over the years, and your co-pays have increased, while the percentage insurance pays for procedures has decreased? Ever notice how the amount of coffee in that coffee can went from 16 oz. down to 11 oz. without you even knowing it?).
Now, if we assume that a group like this could get power over the government, then it could certainly get control over the Republican and Democratic parties, right? Nothing a few campaign contributions can’t solve! We know they had the money for those contributions, because the firehose of government spending was pointed directly at their swimming pools.
And, if a group like this got control of both the Republican and Democratic parties, then any candidate who you voted for that was a member of those parties would have to follow the party line so that they would receive contributions that would enable them to be elected to office, which means that they too would have to dance to the beat of the drummaster in Washington.
And you are going to elect these people to office? Are you crazy?
Now, I’ll make you a deal . . . if you read this book, and you conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually the assassin of the President, forget the advice I just gave. But, if you read this book and conclude that there is no way that anyone could say that they were convinced that there was a Case Against Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, then take my advice!
Deal?
What You Can Do To Spread The Word
When you finish this book, you will no longer have the illusion that there is a case against Lee Harvey Oswald. But you will be surrounded by the people who do. That won’t change until you let them know. To let them know, you need to take some action. Post something about this on your Facebook page, your blog, send out in an e-mail. Even better, review this book on Amazon, or review other books related to the Kennedy assassination, and link to this book. Tell them Volume 1 is free on the 22nd of every month.
Are you getting the idea that I want people to read this book?
Acknowledgments
The book you have in your hands you would never have had in your hands were it not for the work of hundreds of Kennedy researchers who did the basic legwork and discovered numerous key documents that had been buried in all kinds of places. The bulk of the work for me was simply discovering the pieces of the puzzle they were able to uncover, and then putting those pieces together to form the big picture related to the case (although I definitely was able to make quite a few discoveries of my own, as you will see).
We all owe these individuals a big “thank-you,” for the research and insights that they provided. The researchers and authors I most relied on are listed below:
I also want to thank the people at the website The Education Forum who provided so many observations that found their way into this book, and some other individuals as well:
Thanks for reading. Now to the book.
Foreword
“. . . if you knew the facts you would be amazed.”
– Jack Ruby, March 16, 1965. 1
Prepare to be amazed.
You might think that this is a book about the Kennedy assassination. And, at one level, it is. But more importantly, it is really a book about the perception of reality — or, more accurately, what people claim to be the perception of reality. What people claim to be true isn’t always the case, and in this case, that is everything!
Yes, what people claim to perceive as reality can indeed be changed; scary thought, huh? Consider the following experiment by Solomon Asch, reported in 1951: 2
In Asch’s experiment, subjects were asked to make a very simple determination: decide which line on the right was the closest in length to line X on the left.
Not too difficult — the answer is simple — line B.
But now imagine that you are in a room and you are the fourth person to be asked the question. And, to your amazement, when asked the question, each person in front of you instead says that the answer is “line A.” What will you do, stick to your guns, or go along with the crowd?
When Solomon Asch performed this experiment in 1950, he found that a significant percentage of people conformed (or pretended to conform) with the majority opinion as listed in the table below: 3
What Asch learned is that people will claim to conform their judgments based not on what they themselves perceive as reality, but on what others claim to perceive as reality.
It is important to be clear here: the confederates in front of the subjects did not actuall
y believe what they were saying. However, the subject had no way of knowing that. The problem with the subjects who conformed with the false view of reality is that they not only doubted their own judgment — evidence right in front of their eyes — but they also had a misplaced faith in the judgments of others well-undeserving of trust.
The Asch experiment is the key to understanding Kennedy assassination analysis as it has developed over the years. Consider the following multiple-choice question related to the Kennedy assassination, and think of the answers as choices in an Asch–like experiment:
Based on the evidence developed so far, which statement is the most likely to be true?
There was no conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.
There was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.
We can never know whether or not there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.
Now, only one of these answers can be correct. The contention of this book is that the only answer consonant with the evidence is B, and yet this answer fails to conform with the judgment of the establishment media. School textbooks, newspapers, television programs, historians, all will tell you that the answer is A, and if they are pressed with much contradictory evidence, may be moved to C, but they will rarely admit B.
Notice how much trickier is this situation versus the Asch situation. In the example of the 3 lines, it is perfectly obvious what the correct answer is, and so it is very easy to tell fact from fiction. However, with the Kennedy assassination, things are not nearly as clear-cut on the surface, and even if they are clear-cut once you examine the evidence, your evidence-based perception will come under fire from a media-driven world whose members, Asch-protégés all, are constantly telling you otherwise.
