Finally a motive; JFK Assassination

[Alan Grayson]

https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/the-man-who-killed-kennedy/332845

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 11:53 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/the-man-who-killed-kennedy/332845

This theory comes from Roger Stone, a certified conspiracy theorist and overall nutcase. Not only is he an avid Trump fanboy he has a huge tattoo of Richard Nixon covering his entire back. 

John K Clark

 

[Alan Grayson]

I know that. View the video and offer a critique if you can. Or do you believe the Warren Commission Report?  AG 

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 22, 2025 at 11:19:30 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

You're so predictable it's sickening. Nixon told Stone that he also wanted to be President, but he wouldn't kill for it. I suppose someone who thinks S's equation can predict coronaries of horses isn't a nutcase? AG 

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 22, 2025 at 11:19:30 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

For example, Stone says that the two mob bosses who were involved in the assassination, Santos Trafficante (FL) and  Carlos Marcello (LA), had their phone taps removed the day after the murder, and the latter had previously been forcibly deported to Guatamala. Moreover, Marcello owned the club Ruby managed. Kennedy told his secretary before leaving for Dallas that Johnson wouldn't be on the democratic ticket in 1964, but he wasn't yet sure who would replace him. Whereas the mob had a motive to murder JFK, the main instigator was Johnson, who was under two major investigation of his corruption, which included a history of bribery and even possibly several murders. The reason for the Warren Commission cover-up, was to prevent a hypothetical world war since Johnson pushed the scenario that the assassination was orchestrated by the Soviets. Stone's book is well-researched. Each chapter has numerous concluding references.

     https://www.biography.com/crime/a64231660/did-the-mafia-kill-john-f-kennedy

According to the 1994 book written by attorney Frank Ragano, who represented Hoffa, the teamster leader asked mob bosses Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello to arrange the assassination of President Kennedy. Ragano also claims that on the day the president was killed, he joined Trafficante in a toast. Ragano recalls a dying Trafficante confessing in 1987 to having a role in the killing, though he says the mob boss eventually came to regret not killing Robert instead of his brother.

 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 2:12 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For example, Stone says that the two mob bosses....

At that point if you know anything about Roger Stone there would be no reason to keep reading. Roger Stone has a long history of lying, he has zero credibility and therefore a logical person should not pay the slightest bit of attention to anything he says. It's very easy for him or for anybody to make noises with their mouth, but some people have a reputation for credibility and some people do not.

 It would be different if Stone were presenting a logical argument but that's not what he's doing, he's claiming he has new evidence, he's claiming  he knows what two bosses conspired to do in private, but I have no way of knowing if those two mob bosses actually did what Stone claims they did, and given his reputation I would judge that to be extremely unlikely.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

oko

[Alan Grayson]

Except for the fact that in this case, his overall claim makes sense, as distinguished from the standard model which makes little sense. For example, do we even really know why Oswald allegedly shot JFK? I do recall from my previous study at the time, that Oswald failed the paraffin test, so it's highly unlikely he fired a gun that day. And several witnesses at the School Book Depository saw Oswald on the 2nd floor, in or near the lunchroom, at the time JFK was murdered. They weren't called by the Warren Commission. Why not? And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK, indicating shot from the front, from the grassy knoll. I also recall from other sources from my previous study, that Marcello was deported summarily by RFK as Stone claims. And we mustn't ignore the deathbed confession of Trafficante recounted by his personal attorney. So, IMO, Stone presents a logical argument, drawing in part, as he says, from other reputable sources, but for the reasons you cite, isn't in the best position to present it. If Stone's argument isn't logical, as you claim, what argument is, the government one which is totally suspect? I assume you're shooting from the hip and haven't viewed the video. And, as I stated, his book is well documented, each chapter with numerous citations. AG

 

[Alan Grayson]

If the Warren Commission wanted to do a comprehensive, legitimate investigation of the assassination, don't you think it would have interviewed Ruby? IMO, it was a scam. Stone, with all his faults, has given us a comprehensive analysis. AG 

 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:02 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> his overall claim makes sense

All stories, if they are any good, make sense; but that is insufficient to determine if they are fiction or nonfiction.  

> Oswald failed the paraffin test, so it's highly unlikely he fired a gun that day.

 

Not quite. The paraffin test revealed positive results on Oswald's hands, suggesting the presence of nitrates, which could be from firing a gun. However, a test of his right cheek showed no reaction, making the results inconclusive. And the paraffin test is obsolete because today it is considered unreliable. 

> And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK,

That was explained by Nobel prize winning physicist Walter Alvarez in a paper he wrote in 1976. Here is his conclusion from the abstract: 

"a theoretical and experimental investigation of the "backward snap" of the President's head immediately after he was killed yielded the surprising result that it was consistent with a shot fired from the rear, the speed at which the camera was running, and a previously undetected deceleration of the President's automobile just before the final shot." 

And then Alverez gets more graphic and says this: 

"I differ from most of the critics in that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain matter observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected."

And remember Walter Alvarez was not a Roger Stone style crackpot, he was a Nobel Prize winning physicist. 

The full paper can be found here: 

A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film

 > indicating shot from the front, from the grassy knoll.

Nope.  

> several witnesses at the School Book Depository saw Oswald on the 2nd floor, in or near the lunchroom, at the time JFK was murdered.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially when a highly emotional event is involved. And the lunchroom was very near the spot where the gun was fired.  

> And we mustn't ignore the deathbed confession of Trafficante

Right, if you can't trust a mafia boss to tell the truth who can you trust?  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wah

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 4:40:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:02 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> his overall claim makes sense

All stories, if they are any good, make sense; but that is insufficient to determine if they are fiction or nonfiction.  

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue. Keep in mind that this isn't mathematics where there are usually definite solutions. Do you buy the story of the lone assassin whose motive we still don't know, who was not an expert markman, who fired a bolt action rifle three times in about 6 seconds and succeeded in killing JFK? Why wasn't Ruby called to testify? It seems to me that his mission was to prevent a trial of Oswald, where the rules of evidence apply, and was ordered to do this by his mob boss who owned the nightclub he managed, Carlos Marcello. AG 

> Oswald failed the paraffin test, so it's highly unlikely he fired a gun that day.

 

Not quite. The paraffin test revealed positive results on Oswald's hands, suggesting the presence of nitrates, which could be from firing a gun. However, a test of his right cheek showed no reaction, making the results inconclusive. And the paraffin test is obsolete because today it is considered unreliable. 

> And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK,

That was explained by Nobel prize winning physicist Walter Alvarez in a paper he wrote in 1976. Here is his conclusion from the abstract: 

I am aware of that interpretation, but I believe what I see, and it's JFK being shot from the front. Moreover, that's what doctors at the hospital reported, and their reports were repressed. Stone wasn't the first to report this. AG 

"a theoretical and experimental investigation of the "backward snap" of the President's head immediately after he was killed yielded the surprising result that it was consistent with a shot fired from the rear, the speed at which the camera was running, and a previously undetected deceleration of the President's automobile just before the final shot." 

 

And then Alverez gets more graphic and says this: 

"I differ from most of the critics in that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain matter observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected."

And remember Walter Alvarez was not a Roger Stone style crackpot, he was a Nobel Prize winning physicist. 

The full paper can be found here: 

A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film

 > indicating shot from the front, from the grassy knoll.

Nope.  

Witnesses reported hearing a shot from the grassy knoll. They can't summarily dismissed. AG

> several witnesses at the School Book Depository saw Oswald on the 2nd floor, in or near the lunchroom, at the time JFK was murdered.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially when a highly emotional event is involved.

It is sometimes unreliable but not "notoriously" IMO. People are routinely convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony. The Warren Commission could have called them to testify under oath and cross examination. It's telling that it did not. AG 

And the lunchroom was very near the spot where the gun was fired.  

I'm pretty sure the lunchroom was located on the 2nd floor, whereas the alleged shot was fired from the 6th floor. AG 

> And we mustn't ignore the deathbed confession of Trafficante

Right, if you can't trust a mafia boss to tell the truth who can you trust?  

I think we can believe Trafficante's attorney that the mob boss said what he reported. What could be the motive of Trafficante lying on his deathbed? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

I suggest you ask AI's opinion about the assassination, and additionally about Stone's analysis. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Are you aware of Philip Nelson's book which makes the same claim as Stone, that LBJ orchestrated JFK's assassination? AG

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620876108/ref=mes-dp?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=lBKof&content-id=amzn1.sym.476b1b7d-c787-4147-8a3c-fdef209103a1&pf_rd_p=476b1b7d-c787-4147-8a3c-fdef209103a1&pf_rd_r=07AXEFKPCTP3PGGMVB9V&pd_rd_wg=pTNMU&pd_rd_r=a42ee7cb-94ff-4d43-976a-67043a76c56d

 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you buy the story of the lone assassin

Yes.

 

> whose motive we still don't know,

Yes we do, Oswald wanted to kill Kennedy because he thought Kennedy was being unfair to communist Cuba, and of course because Oswald wanted to be famous. And thanks to ballistic evidence, we know that 7 months before the Kennedy assassination, Oswald used the same 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that he would later use to kill President Kennedy in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate right wing Major General Edwin Walker. Walker only received a minor injury. 

> who was not an expert markman,

Oswald was not good enough to be considered an "expert marksman" by the Marines but he was good enough to be considered a "sharpshooter", and the Marines had very high standards. And it was not a difficult shot for a man with a high powered rifle that had a 4 power telescopic sight, Oswald was only 260 feet from Kennedy when the shot was taken.

> Why wasn't Ruby called to testify? 

First because Ruby was already charged, but not tried, for a related murder, and because of the fifth amendment he could not be forced to testify. And then because Ruby was a very sick man who died of cancer just three years after Kennedy and Oswald.   

>>> And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK,

>> That was explained by Nobel prize winning physicist Walter Alvarez in a paper he wrote in 1976. Here is his conclusion from the abstract: 

> I am aware of that interpretation, but I believe what I see, and it's JFK being shot from the front.

But you never saw the bullet, all you saw was the way Kennedy's head moved, and from that deduced a direction where you think the bullet must've come from. However your deduction was flawed because you failed to remember that a bullet's exit wound is always much larger than its entry wound. And you failed to take into consideration the momentum produced by the jet of brain matter shooting out of Kennedy's head which contained far more momentum than what the bullet had. Walter Alverez, being an experimental physicist and one of the very best, understood how real things behave, not just over simplified examples in physics textbooks. So he remembered both of those things.  

> Witnesses reported hearing a shot from the grassy knoll. They can't summarily dismissed. AG

I think they can be because in an urban environment it's difficult to tell what direction a short loud sound came from due to echoes produced by large buildings.

> I think we can believe Trafficante's attorney that the mob boss said what he reported.

 

Right, because the only one more believable than a mob boss would be a mob boss's attorney.  

 >What could be the motive of Trafficante lying on his deathbed?

If he actually said that, a very big if, then he may have done so to enhance his posthumous reputation, he wanted to be remembered as an important man of substance who pulled the strings behind the scenes. Now let me ask you a question. If you're a mob boss then for your entire adult life your default answer when asked any question is always to lie, so why would such a man tell the truth?   

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

trr

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 1:10:12 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you buy the story of the lone assassin

Yes.

 

> whose motive we still don't know,

Yes we do, Oswald wanted to kill Kennedy because he thought Kennedy was being unfair to communist Cuba, and of course because Oswald wanted to be famous.

If fame was Oswald's objective, he would have admitted to the crime, instead of denying he was responsible. AG

 

And thanks to ballistic evidence, we know that 7 months before the Kennedy assassination, Oswald used the same 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that he would later use to kill President Kennedy in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate right wing Major General Edwin Walker. Walker only received a minor injury. 

Good point. Nonetheless, it seems peculiar how the police located Oswald in the movie theater. How did they manage to find him so quickly if he wasn't a "patsy"? AG 

> who was not an expert markman,

Oswald was not good enough to be considered an "expert marksman" by the Marines but he was good enough to be considered a "sharpshooter", and the Marines had very high standards. And it was not a difficult shot for a man with a high powered rifle that had a 4 power telescopic sight, Oswald was only 260 feet from Kennedy when the shot was taken.

Not what Stone claimed. He said Osward was a "marksman", one level below "sharpshooter, two levels below "expert". What does AI say on this issue? AG 

> Why wasn't Ruby called to testify? 

First because Ruby was already charged, but not tried, for a related murder, and because of the fifth amendment he could not be forced to testify. And then because Ruby was a very sick man who died of cancer just three years after Kennedy and Oswald.   

I recall some murmurings from Rudy while he was in prison, that he had some information the Warren Commission would be interested in, but needed protection. He was fearful of being murdered in prison if he talked. AG 

>>> And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK,

>> That was explained by Nobel prize winning physicist Walter Alvarez in a paper he wrote in 1976. Here is his conclusion from the abstract: 

> I am aware of that interpretation, but I believe what I see, and it's JFK being shot from the front.

But you never saw the bullet, all you saw was the way Kennedy's head moved, and from that deduced a direction where you think the bullet must've come from. However your deduction was flawed because you failed to remember that a bullet's exit wound is always much larger than its entry wound.

No, I didn't forget that, but what I'm pretty sure I read is the claim that the wounds were doctored, and a small entry wound was initially observed in the front, near the throat. AG

 

And you failed to take into consideration the momentum produced by the jet of brain matter shooting out of Kennedy's head which contained far more momentum than what the bullet had. Walter Alverez, being an experimental physicist and one of the very best, understood how real things behave, not just over simplified examples in physics textbooks. So he remembered both of those things.  

> Witnesses reported hearing a shot from the grassy knoll. They can't summarily dismissed. AG

I think they can be because in an urban environment it's difficult to tell what direction a short loud sound came from due to echoes produced by large buildings.

> I think we can believe Trafficante's attorney that the mob boss said what he reported.

 

Right, because the only one more believable than a mob boss would be a mob boss's attorney.  

 >What could be the motive of Trafficante lying on his deathbed?

If he actually said that, a very big if, then he may have done so to enhance his posthumous reputation, he wanted to be remembered as an important man of substance who pulled the strings behind the scenes. Now let me ask you a question. If you're a mob boss then for your entire adult life your default answer when asked any question is always to lie, so why would such a man tell the truth?   

I don't agree that admitting he was part of a plot to assassinate JFK would  have enhanced his posthumous reputation. I also don't agree that Trafficante's attorney is totally untrustworthy. After all, we have an example of a mob attorney who is now considered trustworthy; Michael Cohen. AG 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

 

"a theoretical and experimental investigation of the "backward snap" of the President's head immediately after he was killed yielded the surprising result that it was consistent with a shot fired from the rear, the speed at which the camera was running, and a previously undetected deceleration of the President's automobile just before the final shot." 

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 8:12:20 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 1:10:12 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you buy the story of the lone assassin

Yes.

Even IF Oswald was the lone assassin, it was still obviously a plot, since it's well documented that LBJ ducked just before the shot(s) were fired. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 26, 2025 at 7:33:30 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 8:12:20 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 1:10:12 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you buy the story of the lone assassin

Yes.

Even IF Oswald was the lone assassin, it was still obviously a plot, since it's well documented that LBJ ducked just before the shot(s) were fired. AG 

What you claimed in one of your posts that eye witness testimony is "notoriously unreliable", this doesn't apply where several witnesses can corroborate their testimony. At least two witnesses claim Oswald was on the 2nd floor, near the lunchroom, when the assassination occurred. You'd think the Commission would want to hear their testimony. That they weren't called is strong indication IMO, that the Commission wasn't interested in doing a genuine investigation, but just wanted to rubber-stamp a preexisting scenario of Oswald being the lone assassin. AG

That LBJ ducked just before the assassination occurred shows he knew the where and when of the event. And since he had the most to gain by killing JFK, makes him the most probable suspect as the prime orchestrator. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 5:41 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That LBJ ducked just before the assassination occurred ...

I see no evidence of that. But I wish I could because I'm no fan of LBJ.  

You should watch this video, it will answer most of your questions: 

JFK Assassination Single Bullet Theory

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

\l2z

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 28, 2025 at 5:14:21 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 5:41 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That LBJ ducked just before the assassination occurred ...

I see no evidence of that. But I wish I could because I'm no fan of LBJ.  

It was claimed by Stone, and he cites Nelson's book for the evidence. I need to get Nelson's book. AG

LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, July 1, 2013

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620876108/ref=mes-dp?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=lBKof&content-id=amzn1.sym.476b1b7d-c787-4147-8a3c-fdef209103a1&pf_rd_p=476b1b7d-c787-4147-8a3c-fdef209103a1&pf_rd_r=07AXEFKPCTP3PGGMVB9V&pd_rd_wg=pTNMU&pd_rd_r=a42ee7cb-94ff-4d43-976a-67043a76c56d