Forty years of Lies - Oswald and the Kennedy Assassination

The official story of the assassination remains pretty much unchanged from just a few days after events of forty years ago: one man with an almost broken-down rifle, no expertise, no resources, and no motive killed the President, and he was himself killed by a man with the darkest background simply out of sympathy for the President's wife. Those with no vested interest and critical faculties intact can never accept such a fable explaining the brutal work of a well-planned conspiracy.

If you can write false history of an event so large as a Presidential assassination, what truly are the limits?

el - Part of how I spent Thanksgiving evening was talking with my brother about the showing on the History Channel of the six hours of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. I reached the conclusion before 1974 that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy based on a Dan Rather hosted television investigation that was supposed to prove he had. The best evidence they could come up with to even make it possible for Oswald to kill the president was that an expert rifleman after much practice was able to use a similar rifle but with a corrected sights to place 3 bullets in moving targets one meter square targetat that distance, ignoring tree leaves, in the amount of time Oswald had. It was a coverup. Since then there is much more evidence that there was an evil conspiracy. I had recorded the History Channel special for him and Amy but the decision to visit him was at the last minute and the tape wasn't available.

You should be able to order the best of the episodes I saw here here - Final Chapter - but comments on both Amazon and other forums says that sales have suddenly been suppressed due to "legal issues." This could relate to Oswald's New Orleans mistress, the mysterious Dallas , or the evidence linking LBJ to the assassination. Other episodes, here or from Amazon here are available.

You might try Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK for a very recent popular book on this subject.