If anyone is in the New York area on November 22, and is a JFK fan, please try to drop by this commemoration of his life.

“WE REMEMBER NOVEMBER 22, 1963...”

A 40th ANNIVERSARY COMMEMORATION OF THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY:

A MARATHON PUBLIC READING OF JIM BISHOP’S
THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT

7 A.M., SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22 - 8 A.M., SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2003

THE GREAT HALL AT COOPER UNION, COOPER SQUARE,
EAST GREENWICH VILLAGE, N.Y.C.

(7 EAST 7th STREET/ASTOR PLACE SUBWAY STATION, #6 TRAIN)

FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

READERS INVITED

JFK112263112203 at hotmail.com

NEWS RELEASE

From: We Remember November 22, 1963…


Rubenstein Associates, Inc.

Public Relations: 212-843-8085

Contact: Jim Grossman

For Immediate Release

40th Anniversary of President Kennedy’s Assassination To Be Remembered

In 24-Hour Public Reading of Jim Bishop’s Book, "The Day Kennedy Was Shot"

On November 22, 2003, the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy will be memorialized in a unique day-long public reading of the late Jim Bishop’s book, The Day Kennedy Was Shot. The reading begins at 7 a.m. Saturday, November 22, 2003, and continues until 8 a.m., Sunday, November 23, 2003, at The Great Hall at Cooper Union,

7 East 7th St, Manhattan (Astor Place Station, Train #6).

The event, sponsored by an Ad Hoc Citizens Committee chaired by S.E. Canning, Robert Grady Harp, David and Sarah Liston, and Dr. Howard Charles Yourow, is open to the public, and admission is free. The reading of Bishop’s historic, 678-page, hour-by-hour account of the Kennedy assassination will be accomplished in real time, with each participant reading for approximately 20 minutes. Readers will include Representative Charles Rangel, dean of the New York Congressional delegation; Newsday columnist Dennis Duggan; designer Martha Stewart; actor Joel Grey; John Brademas, President Emeritus of New York University; Kitty Carlisle Hart; actress Diandra de Morrell Douglas; New York City Councilman Bill Perkins, as well as many other public figures and a cross-section of citizens.

The public marathon reading of Bishop’s acclaimed book is the creation of Dr. Yourow, a Bronx, New York, lawyer and educator.

“ Two generations have swiftly come and gone since the tragedy,” Dr. Yourow says, “but the impact of Bishop’s writing as I read the book again was so powerful, that the ancient idea of reading aloud, in real time, came to me as an epiphany. A public reading,” he adds, “ becomes a moment of remembrance as well as a way to inform the generations who have followed mine about what happened to all of us on that day.

“In addition, the day-long reading is a fitting way to remember that the Kennedy assassination was a seminal event in the evolution of the contemporary age of mass media – the first multi-day, ‘round-the-clock national and international coverage of a major news story by the TV networks. Who among us will ever forget Walter Cronkite, removing his thick, horn-rimmed glasses, his tear-choked baritone announcing the bulletin that the nation’s leader, President Kennedy, was gone? ”

#

Everyone needs to watch "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", on the History Channel replaying at 12am - 4 am est. or buy the tapes. You will be shocked as I was at who was behind it in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the cover-up that followed ," the perfect assassination", then Vice- President Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas. That to this day our own government is still continuing this insane cover-up of the most tragic and treasonous event in 20th century United States History!!! This series of events was probably the motive behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in 1968. I believe the theory presented in this program by the people who were a part of the plot in 1963, and who have bravely spoken out now 4 decades later, so that we may know the truth of the Assassination of our 35th President.

[ November 17, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: tlkoss ]

Cover-ups? Conspiracies? Really, tlkoss, you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. The History Channel's shows are just different points of view. They're not intended to prove anything.

For the last 20 years, I've been suspious of Kennedy's Assassination, and disliked LBJ. Because Kennedy's sudden assassination and LBJ's immediate swearing in, aren't just coincedence. And our government has hidden the truth from us for 40 years!!!!! MIB BTW, I haven't read Tom Clancy Novels!!!!! I have an interest in history and Kennedy's Assassination.

[ November 17, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: tlkoss ]

I have been just as suspicious of the Kennedy assassination as much as anybody. Several years ago I took a great interest in it and read several books about it. As crazy and outlandish as it may seem, I concluded that the most likely scenario was that Oswald was solely responsible. And I'm not sure how LBJ's immediate swearing in has anything to do with the assassination.

[ November 17, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Pat, LBJ had his political cronies in Texas, including the Governor at the time, the Dallas police, City officals, the Attorney General, County Processcutor. LBJ, convinced Kennedy to go to Dallas, he was livid over Kennedy's decision to pull out of Vietam, and the 'Bay of Pigs' disaster that didnot remove Castro from Cuba.

Pat, LBJ had his political cronies in Texas, including the Governor at the time, the Dallas police, City officals, the Attorney General, County Processcutor. LBJ, convinced Kennedy to go to Dallas, he was livid over Kennedy's decision to pull out of Vietam, and the 'Bay of Pigs' disaster that didnot remove Castro from Cuba.

I'm not sure why the fact that LBJ was sworn in so quickly is anything but a positive. It was meant to demonstrate the seamlessness of the democratic process, and to reassure both the country and the world that the nation was not leaderless; to NOT swear LBJ in so quickly would have been an invitation to chaos.

On another note, did anyone see the special on CNN on Sunday night? It reviewed the events of that sad weekend, using actual news reports and visuals of the news being spreading that day. It was fascinating to watch the impact the news had that day, and I was struck by how gripping and emotional it still seemed forty years later.

It must have been 15 years ago, on the 25th anniversary of the assassination, when one of the TV networks - I think it was CBS - devoted most of a day to showing the original news coverage, from the time of the assassination to the funeral, including several hours of uncut funeral footage. It was one of those things where I was channel surfing and started watching it, and couldn't pull myself away. It was the first time I really understood how the tragedy gripped the nation, and that it was the first time live TV coverage pulled the nation together to witness history.

tlkoss, the "LBJ was behind it" theory has been around for 40 years. My mother, who hated JFK and was pregnant with me at the time of the assassination, swore that it was LBJ's doing from day 1. However, in all that time, no real evidence has been presented to the public; only theories, speculation, and varying interpretations of what little evidence exists. TV shows and movies can present the information in ways to make you believe almost anything. Your comment about the assassination and the swearing in being a coincidence makes no sense. Um... When a president dies, the v.p. is sworn in and becomes the president. That's the way our government works. Did you expect him to wait a couple of weeks and plan a huge gala inauguration day or something?

Didn't LBJ pretty much walk on the backs of dead people all the way up the political ladder? It seems like I remember seeing something about that in a TV mini-series once. Because of the Vietnam conflict, I think I would have had a serious crisis in belief had I been alive and a democrat during the Johnson years. Here in Texas, LBJ's b-day is a state-paid holiday for state employees.

Enough LBJ bashing, already.

While he was certainly no angel, I have not seen anything which would lead me to believe he had anything to do with JFK's death. He was a brilliant, passionate and deeply flawed man, but he was not an assasin.

As far as fascinating but polarizing presidents go, only Clinton nears him. If you're interested, I recommend the Caro biographies of LBJ highly.

Does the History Channel show explicitly indict LBJ as a conspirator? I doubt it... we'd have heard more.

As for this alleged Kennedy "decision to pull out of Vietnam," is there ANY documented evidence of this? And please don't cite Oliver Stone.

As unfortunate as JFK's murder was -- he certainly saved our asses in the Cuban missile crisis -- as Malcolm X said, "the chickens came home to roost" for that Cold Warrior, whose reign included attempted assassinations of foreign leaders by the US. By the time the 50th anniversary rolls around, I think there'll be a lot less sappy sentimentalization since many fewer living adults will remember the event. (Only 1/3 of the US population was alive then.)

Remember, there are two asses in assassin.

Barr McClellan (Bushie's press secretary's dad) has written a book called Blood, Money & Power: How L. B. J. Killed J. F. K. McClellan's other son is director of the FDA. Texas needs to get out of Washington!

[ November 18, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Back in 1987, after I graduated college. I was fortunate enough to interview Jean Hill. Is was the lady in the red coat you see in all the films of the crime back in 63. She was the closes civilian to the car when the president was shot.
I was able to interview her because she was a friend of a friend of my mom, who at that time, lived in Dallas. And since I was getting my resume' tape ready, I thought, what the hell. Up to just six months from the time I interviewed her, her phonelines were tapped and her house under servialance. Needless to say, it was amazing to sit there and listen to her. I got almost three hours of video. Though most of what she said was already known, I still felt like I got the biggest scoop in history.
"Three shots, three. Two from the front, one in back." In fact, she saw the flash from one of the forward shots. When I asked her who was responsible, she nodded her head and said Johnson. As I sat there, I got more and more spooked about the whole thing. Almost to the point that I wished I hadn't done this. But looking back at it, glad I did.
Now the big question is; Do I still have those four video tapes?

I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but I will say that this series has been fascinating. As a lawyer, I look behind the witnesses' statements for other indicia of their credibility and find a mixed bag, but certainly enough, from a purely legal point of view, to raise serious questions of fact that need answering. Kudos to the History Channel for putting together this excellent series.

BTW - I shook LBJ's hand when he visited NW Indiana back in October '64 while running for reelection. I was 14 at the time and thought I was the luckiest kid in the world! At times during these shows I felt like I wanted to get up and pull a Lady Macbeth. "Out, damn spot!"

I'm glad a few of you have come to the belated realization that *anyone* who's politically savvy enough to reach the presidency is relatively amoral. That's quite different from unsubstantiated declarations that "LBJ did it," which is tabloid-level brainlessness.

[ November 19, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Well, here is a fact that has been documented on film -- he used to pick up one of his dogs by the ears. What an ass****!
Bow-wow!

I'm sure if you guys just work really hard you can find a way to blame the Kennedy assassination on God, President Bush and Fox News, in whatever order. Come on, give it a try...

Faux News Channel wasn't around in 1963...Bushie was, though! Wow, I hadn't even pondered that idea! Gee, thanks!!!! God was too busy that day.

A little inconvenience like that shouldn't stop a good conspiracy theory.

The History Channel has provided a different perspective by shedding light on little known events that took place after Kennedy's assassination. But I will say, and as many experts have also said 'we may never know all of the events that took place prior to and following, along with the motives for the Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November 22, 1963'. May his soul and the soul of his brother Robbie Rest in Peace somewhere up above.

[ November 19, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: tlkoss ]

Hey, what about Joe Jr., who was shot down while defending this country, or sister Kathleen, who was also shot down during WW II? The family has taken a lot of hits, a lot! And then there's poor JFK Jr., who I'd hoped would someday be one New York's or New Jersey's U.S. Senators. What about the most glamorous first lady we have ever had, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, whose grace, composure and strength after her husband's assassination before her eyes remains one of the most moving examples the world has ever witnessed.

The ones I always feel for are Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, and Baby Teddy....

[ November 19, 2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Great movie. Not great history, but great movie. The inspiration for JFK is one L. Fletcher Prouty. In the movie, Donald Sutherland played the part of L. Fletcher Prouty, although the IMDB site says that Sutherland's character was "X (unknown general in black)." Suuuuure he was.

L. Fletcher Prouty: Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?

Prouty also felt there was a CIA connection to Jonestown. Mark Lane, author in 1966 of "Rush to Judgment," was Jim Jones's attorney.

As for me, I find the Zapruder film quite disturbing. I saw a show about the assassination on DC's channel 26 tonight during which I saw footage of both Kennedy and Oswald being shot.

Evern after forty years it's upsetting.

Kennedy Assassination Home Page

Sorry, twin ... we usually agree, but it's not even a good movie. Plus there's its weird emphasis on the homo element... Kevin Bacon's hustler did supply some of the little juice it had; "Mr. Garrison, you a fahnnnn lookin' man..."

Spare me the prayer-steeped mourning after 40 years... I feel like I'm being forced to stare at my mom's old mass-market painting of Jack and Bobby with a saintly glow around their heads! (And I think, politically speaking, RFK's murder was the greater tragedy, as it likely would've spared us Nixon and 4 more years in Vietnam.)

And Faux News certainly WAS there, at least according to Scott Hall (akaMonty) ...

Anyone see the PBS special on the media coverage in Dallas? Bob Schieffer was particularly appalling in his glee over his paper's scoop on the Oswald shooting photo, not to mention his certainty that a "left-wing nut" did the deed. What an ass****.

Remember, tragedy plus time equals comedy.
(photo adaptation by George Mahlberg)

So: they got to you too.

On one of the blogs I read, there was an item that said that a recording has been found of a conversation in the White House between JFK and someone wherein JFK clearly discusses getting out of 'Nam. Sorry, I read about 40 blogs a day, I can't remember which one it was. If I run across it, I'll link it here.

JFK was killed because the military industrial complex wanted him out of the way so that they could profit from Vietnam. Isn't that clear to everyone? Or was it The Mob, pissed off that JFK and RFK were coming down on them? Or......

I'm not a conspiracy theory-type, but the "Lone Gunman" theory has never held for me because a) Oswald was a fairly poor marksmen when in the military and it was shown that it was physically impossible for him to have fired the 3 shots in the time required; I *think* the rifle he used, he had to cock it after each shot--oh quit giggling--and he simply didn't have time to do that.

And, in sort of a repeat of the Reagan bio-pic controversy, some people close to LBJ are spittin' mad about this documentary.

[ November 20, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Jim, your reason was the reason why I originally thought that the lone gunman theory was bogus. With technological improvements since the assassination, some people have analyzed the Zapruder film and came to the conclusion that there were at least 8 seconds between the first and third shot, instead of 5 seconds or less as originally thought. So with this new time frame, there apparently was enough time to cock the gun three times.

As for Oswald being a poor marksman, perhaps he practiced shooting after the military and was more motivated to be a better marksman. Or he was simply "lucky" and was able to hit his target 2 out of 3 times.

One more thing. When Kennedy was hit with the fatal shot (third bullet), his head actually moved forward first, before going backward. Supposedly, with this evidence by itself, you can't conclude where the bullet came from.

Anyway, as I said the lone gunman theory makes the most sense to me. But I'm still open to a conspiracy. But if there was a really good coverup, then we'll never know about it.

[ November 20, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

ABC is airing an anniversary thing (I think tonight) about the assassination, with what is supposedly the most high-tech computer animation of the whole event, which apparently concludes that the fatal shot came from the school book depository. For what it's worth.

Also, I saw an interview with L.H. Oswald's brother on the Today Show on Monday of this week. He visited his brother in jail the next day, and has drawn his own conclusion that L.H.O. acted alone. He sounded pretty convincing. Of course, the conspirators must have gotten to him. wink

Pat125, thanks for the info. I mean, to be honest, I'm not all that interested in the whodunnit aspect of this or especially all the "Camelot" stuff; I was a month away from my 4th birthday when he was assassinated so I don't have any emotional connection to the event. It is interesting to me though to see the conspiracy theorists twist themselves in knots.

Side note: when I worked for the school district here in Los Angeles, I got a tour of the Ambassador Hotel, which the district is going to turn in to schools. We went to the pantry where RFK was assassinated; he didn't have a chance, it's that tiny. But there's serious questions about the single shooter theory there too.

On TV this week, I'm most interested in the JFK documentaries by Robert Drew airing on the History Channel Saturday morning, including "Primary" and "Crisis."

It's been years since I read the "whodunnit" stuff in depth. My guess is Oswald was one of 2 shooters, and I don't have any idea who the conspirators were. "Rogue elements" of the intelligence agencies appeals to me most, but who knows.

I love conspiracy theories -- my favorite form of fiction. The best in U.S. history is that Sec. of War Edwin Stanton was the man behind the assassination of Lincoln, the attempt on Seward and the never-carried-out one of Andrew Johnson all on that same night in April 1865. And then there's a truly fantastic one that implicates the Pope!

Back to JFK (and speaking of fiction) -- Nigel Hamilton in today's NYTimes fantasizes about what U.S. history the past 40 years had JFK not been shot. ... is reelected in '64 ... can't get Civil Rights Act passed for a few years ... LBJ / RFK ticket wins in '68. LBJ dies of heart attack; RFK selects MLK Jr. as VP. Bush the Elder is elected earlier than 1988, but is forced to resign over Iran-Contra.

Link to op-ed page (reg. req.)

[ November 21, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

DCBucky, have you ever read Foucault's Pendulum (by Umberto Eco)? Now, that's a conspiracy theory.

I really am not sure what to believe. As a friend of mine says - "Oswald may have been the only person NOT shooting at Kennedy that day." Or he may have actually been the shooter, who really can say?

I don't think a conspiracy of this magnitude could be maintained this long, particularly when you realize how easy it was to undermine the Nixon White House during the much less dangerous Watergate cover-up.

However, there are a lot of unanswered questions - even if Oswald could fire off the three shots in the time allotted, it would have been close, and he was shooting through a mass of tree branches. The positions on the grassy knoll simply would have been a better angle.

My favorite theory, though, was one advanced by Time magazine probably a decade ago - that Oswald WAS a bad shot, and actually missed his target - John Connolly. If he were aiming at Connolly (who he had much more reason to hate, apparently) and simply missed, hitting Kennedy, that could make sense.

There are so many conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's murder I'm beginning to think the little green men we shot down over Roswell did it...

The one thing I'm actually torn on is the existence of the Zapruder film. It's truly a remarkable historical document and we have it now for the ages - but it doesn't allow this wound on the American psyche to heal. Every time it shows the President of the United States having his brains literally blown out it rips open the wound - conspiracy theories and all. If we just had photos, or drawings to work from the horror of the event would not be as clearly defined in the exact same way for the entire populace. Are we better off to have this film? The Historian in me says - "yes!" - but the American who so dislikes what this event really means on all of it's levels says "no!"

From a historical perspective if we had actual footage of Christ dragging his cross and being crucified that would be an amazing thing - but would it have prompted holocausts and mass murder in his name centuries before it actually did? It's not an argument I claim to know the answer to. History needs this kind of documentation to stay alive for us all - but at the same time some things should be allowed to fade - for the betterment of the psyche.

The aliens that crashed at Roswell were little grays. That's what Mulder says.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/incidentsroswell.shtml

[ November 21, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Bill W. (and others) I found that bit about the tapes of JFK and Robert McNamara planning on an exit strategy out of 'Nam. It's at Salon, with their ad policy: and
There's a lot of ambiguity and there's always the "Well.....a lot could have happened between 11/63 and 1965" line (just ask Johnson), but I think this pretty conclusively lays to rest the "Kennedy wanted out" question.

[ November 24, 2003, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]