JFK - 50 years ago

[Bean Bag]

This Friday will mark the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.  An event that changed America forever.

Why do they say that?  Have you ever wondered?  I have.  Did it change America?  Really?  He wasn't the first President to die -- or be assassinated.  (Remember Lincoln?)  Was it because JFK was just so totally awesome and the country so behind him?  Or smitten perhaps, with the fantasy of "Camelot?"  

No.


JFK was in trouble in 1963.  His reelection in jeopardy.  The whole Camelot thing came later, after his death.  Still... how did this "change America forever?"  The real story is told in this book:  
Camelot & the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism

Basically... it changed AMERICAN LIBERALISM.  Not America.  It's because JFK was killed by a COMMUNIST.  A communist killed JFK.  A communist.  And the Left in this country couldn't process that.  Joseph McCarthy was supposed to be the great evil.  Not one of their own.  So they began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way.

Kennedy -- by today's standards would be quite Conservative.  He cut taxes and believed in American military strength.  With Kennedy died the old Democrat Party.  A once good party.  And the carcass of the old Democrat Party was feasted on by a blood-thirsty demonic (I love saying that!) brand of Leftist.  The pro-communist.  The pro-socialist.  The pro-progressive.  That's why it changed America.  The Democrat Party became the DemoRat Party -- at war with America.  



Anyway... reflect on this event how you must, just thought some truth would be helpful while you do.  It was of course a true tragedy.  In more ways than the media will be telling you.  

[Jason]

Kennedy wouldn't be touched by the GOP today, let alone the Democrats.

[bluesno1fann]

50 years ago today. Sad.
This was an interesting read. I actually think this theory is quite legit:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/celebrity/article/-/19951509/shocking-jfk-theory/

[Mikie]

50 years ago today. Sad.
This was an interesting read. I actually think this theory is quite legit:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/celebrity/article/-/19951509/shocking-jfk-theory/

This is complete bull sh*t. And a very good example of one more assassination conspiracy nut trying to make a fast buck from a book with one more possible angle that hasn't been covered thoroughly by the Warren Commission. There's been hundreds of conspiracy books out there since '63.  Most of them pull from the same list of about 10 theories with an edge on one, trying to justify why their theory is the most feasable. This latest book (noted with a link above) is as stupid as the theory that limo driver William Greer turned around and shot Kennedy in the head with a 45. Before it was even published, it was reviewed and quickly rebuked by assassination buffs.

Encourage you to read the Warren Commission's findings. Then just a couple out of the miriad of other books by so-called 'authors', 'investigators', and 'experts' who try to debunk the Warren Commission's findings. Then read Posner's and Bugliosi's books. See what you come up with.

Oswald is still rolling over in his grave laughing at all the conspiracy theories.....

[Mikie]

JFK was in trouble in 1963.  His reelection in jeopardy.  The whole Camelot thing came later, after his death.

I woudn't say Kennedy was "in trouble" politically at the time of his death. There are many more sources for Kennedy's popularity polls and how they specifically related to the challenges that faced him in the years of his presidency. An exceptional source is the American Presidency Project for the polls of 1961-1963:

8/29/63 - 62% and
10/09/63 - 58% where Kennedy's popularity leveled off and stayed until his death.

09/10/1963 09/10/1963 56%
10/09/1963 10/09/1963 58%
11/08/1963 11/13/1963 58%

Comparing JFK’s popularity to other presidents, JFK maintained a respectable level in comparison with all his successors. And the average popularity rating of President Kennedy was 70 percent…when seven out of ten Americans look favorably on the president, that is a good showing. According to records of Kennedy's own polls and the one's that are public, President Kennedy's concern about his popularity and his resulting effectiveness did drive him to campaign trips such as Florida and Texas that Fall of '63. Kennedy’s popularity poll results were based on exactly what TIME Magazine projected, his ability to translate popularity into support by devoting his time and energy. At the end 58% of American voters believed he was doing a good job. He was on the campaign trail as a leader, a strong defender of America, a conservationist and peace candidate. He was in Texas to help "mend fences" between Republicans AND Democrats. All he needed was time.

[Heysaboda]

Basically... it changed AMERICAN LIBERALISM.  Not America.  It's because JFK was killed by a COMMUNIST.  A communist killed JFK.  A communist.  And the Left in this country couldn't process that.  Joseph McCarthy was supposed to be the great evil.  Not one of their own.  So they began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way.

......... (wild ravings snipped)....

I'd say your "thesis" is flawed BB because American Democrats readily adopted, and under LBJ PASSED, the majority of Kennedy's agenda, esp. the civil rights act and Medicare, both opposed by Republicants and southern Democrats.

And regrettably, LBJ continued JFK's hawkish attitude towards Vietman.

[bluesno1fann]

50 years ago today. Sad.
This was an interesting read. I actually think this theory is quite legit:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/celebrity/article/-/19951509/shocking-jfk-theory/

This is complete bull sh*t. And a very good example of one more assassination conspiracy nut trying to make a fast buck from a book with one more possible angle that hasn't been covered thoroughly by the Warren Commission. There's been hundreds of conspiracy books out there since '63.  Most of them pull from the same list of about 10 theories with an edge on one, trying to justify why their theory is the most feasable. This latest book (noted with a link above) is as stupid as the theory that limo driver William Greer turned around and shot Kennedy in the head with a 45. Before it was even published, it was reviewed and quickly rebuked by assassination buffs.

Encourage you to read the Warren Commission's findings. Then just a couple out of the miriad of other books by so-called 'authors', 'investigators', and 'experts' who try to debunk the Warren Commission's findings. Then read Posner's and Bugliosi's books. See what you come up with.

Oswald is still rolling over in his grave laughing at all the conspiracy theories.....

Whether that conspiracy is BS or not, I'm convinced that Oswald didn't kill JFK and the Warren Commission is false.
If that was true, then how can you explain the "magic bullet" or how it was impossible for Oswald to fire the 3 shots as quickly as it happened?

[Mikie]

I could spend a long time here trying to explain it and I don't have the time. I've been reading about the subject for about 45 years - a little longer than I've been a Beach Boys fan. There's also few good websites on the internet to get you started. Check out the amateur gun enthusiasts with a Carcano rifle who got off 2 -3 shots in 8 seconds, hitting their target at 75 -100 yards with the correct sized bullet. Sharpshooters have done it over the years. Some guys that aren't even sharpshooters did it. Oswald had Marksmen status in the Marines, which is average. One shot missed but nobody wants to beleive without a shadow of a doubt that the other two didn't even need a lot of skill or took into account that Oswald got "lucky". Many, many witnesses in Dealey plaza all agree on hearing 3 shots, including 2 witnesses on the 5th floor below who heard the shots, the ejection of the shells, and the shells hitting the floor. 3 shells and the Carcano found on the 6th floor found by the cops. One bullet left in the gun chamber. Howard Brennan directly on the ground below seeing Oswald pull the gun back from the window and providing the cops with an I.D that went over the radio. Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints on the gun, the wrapper, and surrounding boxes. Traceability to the magazine and source of his rifle and pistol traced to Chicago the next day. Ballistics testing of Oswald's weapons and bullets provided traceability to the Kennedy, Tippit, and Walker shootings. On and on and on and on goes the evidence of Oswald being the lone gunman. He was hired only a month before at the Depository and found out about the final route Kennedy would take in the newspaper no sooner than 4 days before the assassination. Opportunity presented itself and looser Commie Oswald wanted to make a name for himself in history, and unfortunately he did.

Here you go - this one will answer your questions directly and in detail with subjectivity and journalistic objectivity and plenty of common sense:

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Harvey-Oswald-Assassination/dp/0679418253/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

So will this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

50 years ago today. Sad.
This was an interesting read. I actually think this theory is quite legit:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/celebrity/article/-/19951509/shocking-jfk-theory/

This is complete bull sh*t. And a very good example of one more assassination conspiracy nut trying to make a fast buck from a book with one more possible angle that hasn't been covered thoroughly by the Warren Commission. There's been hundreds of conspiracy books out there since '63.  Most of them pull from the same list of about 10 theories with an edge on one, trying to justify why their theory is the most feasable. This latest book (noted with a link above) is as stupid as the theory that limo driver William Greer turned around and shot Kennedy in the head with a 45. Before it was even published, it was reviewed and quickly rebuked by assassination buffs.



Encourage you to read the Warren Commission's findings. Then just a couple out of the miriad of other books by so-called 'authors', 'investigators', and 'experts' who try to debunk the Warren Commission's findings. Then read Posner's and Bugliosi's books. See what you come up with.

Oswald is still rolling over in his grave laughing at all the conspiracy theories.....

Whether that conspiracy is BS or not, I'm convinced that Oswald didn't kill JFK and the Warren Commission is false.
If that was true, then how can you explain the "magic bullet" or how it was impossible for Oswald to fire the 3 shots as quickly as it happened?

Oswald may have acted alone, sure. I buy it. But if he did: I'll bet there were A LOT of cat's who suddenly needed their money back

As for American Liberalism changing because of JFK being killed by a Communist? Ha! Hadn't Lee H denounced Communism (as well as Capitalism) by that time? Or he at least was no fan of the Russian brand. Reminds me of someone a bit back suggesting Liberalism be banished from history. Well, history has shown that such a wish has been largely granted. JFK/RFK/MLK/Carter/and to an extent Nixon: all casualties/take-downs by the Right .... Clinton and Obama are mere frauds. Liars and scumbags bought and soild by the big money who know better than to worry about Left/Right. (that's for us idiots) We will likely never see another true Liberal President (last one was JFK: a very flawed one: who came from a family wealthy enough to tell the Right to F*ck off). It will be a long succession of Bush's/Obamas/Cheney's who will wage endless war and line their pockets and their corporate friend's pockets while we all scramble for scraps. You kids ought to be delighted instead of being such sore winners.

[bluesno1fann]

I'm just surprised that people believe Oswald did it.
But that's just my opinion. I don't want to get in a debate or argument, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

[alf wiedersehen]

Gee, if you guys didn't have liberals to bash, what would you do all day?



Just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's elevated from mere opinion to fact.

[Mikie]

I'm just surprised that people believe Oswald did it.

Seriously?  OK, well.........how about if you read through this, then maybe we can discuss further if you have anymore doubt?

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/

[alf wiedersehen]

I'm just surprised that people believe Oswald did it.

Seriously?  OK, well.........how about if you read through this, then maybe we can discuss further if you have anymore doubt?

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but logic and evidence usually has no effect on conspiracy theorists.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Gee, if you guys didn't have liberals to bash, what would you do all day?



Just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's elevated from mere opinion to fact.

They'd do exactly what they've done: invent Liberals in order to bash them.

[Sheriff John Stone]

My parents owned an original hard cover copy of the Warren Commission Report, and I read it several years ago. For decades I believed in the conspiracy theory. Even with all the intertwined and connecting theories, I simply based my OPINION on believing (A) a $12 rifle wouldn't be efficient/sufficient enough (B) Oswald couldn't be THAT GOOD of a shot. The one shot was right through the neck; the other was right on the head. But, even more important, think how nervous a human being would be who was attempting to assassinate the President. Wouldn't their hands be shaking or their nervousness be so bad as to affect their ability to pull off those shots? Trained assassins could pull it off that but an average human being (yes, I know Oswald had training)? And, (C) the single/magic bullet...if you take the bullet fragments that remained in Kennedy's neck and throughout John Connolly's body, and ADDED them to the remaining bullet that was found on Connolly's stretcher, it would equate to MORE than 100% of the total mass of the bullet. That single/magic bullet was too pristine.

All of that being said, I have since changed my mind. I have gradually come around to believing that Oswald acted alone. First, while I used to get excited about the numerous conspiracy theories, I came to realize that many were COINCIDENTAL and not really directly related. For example, this guy knew that guy who ran into that guy who talked to that guy who worked for that guy and so on. But, most importantly, I believe that PEOPLE TALK. People talk about everything. And, after 50 years - and that's a long time, most of the characters involved are dead - nobody came forward, at least to my satisfaction, that could prove that they shot Kennedy. NO deathbed confessions that could stand up. So, without any further proof, I have gradually accepted that Oswald was the lone shooter.

[OneEar/OneEye]

There's simply too much that makes the "Oswald acted alone" theory unbelievable.  If one doesn't just patently accept the official story and takes the time to research for themselves, I believe they'll find that those who question that official story are not simply "wacko conspiracy nuts" (as we are often called).  Many credible, well researched books by rational, intelligent people have been written on the topic and are well worth reading. I firmly believe Oswald was the patsy he claimed to be. 

[Mike's Beard]

JFK and his brother pissed off the Mob over Cuba and the crackdown on organised crime , I mean really pissed them off. People that a run afoul of the Mob have a nasty habit of winding up dead. Oswald may have been the only guy firing that day but I don't think he was up there purely by his own accord.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

JFK and his brother pissed off the Mob over Cuba and the crackdown on organised crime , I mean really pissed them off. People that a run afoul of the Mob have a nasty habit of winding up dead. Oswald may have been the only guy firing that day but I don't think he was up there purely by his own accord.

Just think of all the probable plots that were suddenly off when Oswald pulled that trigger (if he acted alone)!

I don't nececarrily have a problem believing those responsible would have trouble keeping quiet. These aren't the type of peoplw who interact/rub shoulders with the general public on a large basis.

[OneEar/OneEye]

JFK and his brother pissed off the Mob over Cuba and the crackdown on organised crime , I mean really pissed them off. People that a run afoul of the Mob have a nasty habit of winding up dead. Oswald may have been the only guy firing that day but I don't think he was up there purely by his own accord.

JFK had pissed off just about everyone - the mob, big steel, the banks, the CIA, the military industrial complex.  He truly was surrounded by enemies.  A recent book I read reveals correspondence between Kennedy and Kruschev that was conducted using the Pope as a go-between so that they could have this dialogue freely without anyone else knowing (these letters had been held in secrecy by the Vatican all these years and were finally made public sometime in the early 2000's I believe).  These letters show that both men were changed by the fright of the Cuban missile crisis, that both truly wished to take the world in a direction of disarmament and peace.  They are heartbreaking when you realize how different it all might have been.   

[18thofMay]

I think once the surface is scratched the reality is too difficult to accept. The forces that drive our destiny are not under our control and certainly not decided by us! It seems Kennedy attempted to give some control back to the general population and for this he paid the ultimate price.

[Slow In Brain]

For a young ex Marine it was so easy to defect from USA to Russia then back home again. That seems strange.

[Bean Bag]

Basically... it changed AMERICAN LIBERALISM.  Not America.  It's because JFK was killed by a COMMUNIST.  A communist killed JFK.  A communist.  And the Left in this country couldn't process that.  Joseph McCarthy was supposed to be the great evil.  Not one of their own.  So they began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way.

......... (wild ravings snipped)....

I'd say your "thesis" is flawed BB because American Democrats readily adopted, and under LBJ PASSED, the majority of Kennedy's agenda, esp. the civil rights act and Medicare, both opposed by Republicants and southern Democrats.

My Thesis is flawed?  It's the author's thesis, not mine.  I do find it compelling, but haven't read the book.  I've often wondered about how the modern Demorat Party got to be the self-serving extremists they are today.

Anyway, I think your thesis is flawed, of course.  However, the author's thesis is correct about one thing.  As I mentioned:  The Left began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way. 

From Wikipedia:  1964 Civil Rights Amendment
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 61–39% (152–96)
Republican Party: 80–20% (138–34)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 66–34% (44–23)
Republican Party: 82–18% (27–6)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 69–31% (46–21)
Republican Party: 82–18% (27–6)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 63–37% (153–91)
Republican Party: 80–20% (136–35)

I think this is exactly the kind of stuff the author was talking about.  You said the Civil Rights Amendment was opposed by "Republicants."  That just doesn't seem to be factual.  That's just a tiny piece of the alternate reality the Left has tried to create.  They have the media and Universities, so that's why you probably think it's ok to help them lie.

There's been a lot of lies about what the Demorat Party is all about.  I have a hunch I'm correct about the Zimmerman fiasco (for a more recent example).  I believe it was a used as a political device in an election year.  They tried to create a racial war in this country!  And for what?!  If I'm right, this is insanity!  Fcking madness.  This should outrage people who claim to care about racial harmony.

This is not a racist country, despite what you've been told.  It's country full of good people, who want to do what's right.  Republicans were not against civil rights.  Nor were many Democrats.  But clearly much of the opposition, was on the Left.

[guitarfool2002]

You knew i couldn't stay out of this for long...actually this is the first I'm cracking open this thread.

And it's bizarre but not surprising to read some of the misinformation and outright falsehoods...but I'm not here to judge, nope.

Let's just say if Kennedy were a "democrat" today, his stance on lowering taxes in order to stimulate the economy by itself would revoke his membership in that party, or at least put him speaking at their next convention sometime around 2:30 in the afternoon on the Tuesday schedule. That is if his name were not "Kennedy"...

All that aside, let me say I'm like Mikie in that I've read and watched and re-read and watched again many reports about the JFK case.

Oliver Stone...what can we say? He created a masterful film, for filmmaking's sake. But it's so full of holes, inventions, fantasies, and outright bullshit that it so badly tainted the waters for millions who believe the character "Colonel X" was real, and buy into Stone's fantasy as if it were reality.

Stone has been debunked time and time again by...wait for it...FACTS.

As have many conspiracy theories. Like the supposedly mocked-up photo of Oswald holding the rifle with the papers...only, the problem there is that multiple photos surfaced in the decades since from that same roll of film. So there goes the "mock up" theory.

BUT...

I did hear one of the most plausible, perhaps the closest to the *truth* as we may ever hear apart from the horse's mouth. And those horses are dying off if they're not gone already.

WHAT IF....

Oswald was the shooter. He fired the rifle from the open window. Some of the shots hit the targets, but they were not the "kill shot".

WHAT IF...

There was a young Secret Service agent riding security detail in one of the follow vehicles. You've all seen the films. Cars full of VIP's and agents guarding them riding in the trailing motorcade vehicles.

WHAT IF...

That agent heard shots ring out, and as was protocol and training for such an event, that agent grabbed for his weapon, which happened to be an AR-15/M-16 type of gun. Military grade, standard issue stuff.

WHAT IF...

People watching the parade from the street noticed an agent riding in a following vehicle stumble back as the chaos started to unfold after the Oswald bullets hit Kennedy and the governor...THEN another shot was heard.

WHAT IF...

That agent as he went for his weapon to defend the motorcade as was his job happened to fall back, and his weapon *accidentally* discharged as his finger was near the trigger, and in the jerking motion of the car he lost his balance, creating a chain-reaction effect which led to the weapon being fired.

WHAT IF...

That bullet which was accidentally fired by that agent who some parade goers saw stumble as he rode on the car was the "kill shot" which the Zapruder film captured striking Kennedy's head.

WHAT IF...

The chaotic scene at the hospital which according to doctors and witnesses included a cadre of Secret Service men milling around where they should not have been, going as far as to threaten doctors and staff in the hospital, and in general doing things many thought were "out of character" after such an event...

WHAT IF...

The cover-up came from the Secret Service in order to play a game of CYA to protect themselves and their interests?

What If?

Again, that theory takes into consideration both the view that 1. OSWALD was the lone assassin firing the shots and 2. There WAS a cover up, but not in the way most assume.

There is a book about that. The author managed to track down the agent who apparently fired the shot accidentally.

It could add up.

Search for that book, check it out, and consider that as more of a possibility than any of the theories going around since the 60's.

Two more:
The Warren Commission report was a travesty of incompetence and omission.

Oswald is on camera saying he was not a Communist...but he was a Marxist. It would seem he soured on the actual implementation of Communism, yet held fast and true to his Marxism. Of course there's a conspiracy theory disputing that, but judge for yourself.

And it was odd last month to witness two infamous "anniversaries" of tragedies...both JFK and the Jim Jones "Jonestown" mass murder.

And it's ironic how both key figures in those tragedies were avowed and very vocal/loyal Marxists.

Hmm. 

Anyway, check out the book about the accidental kill shot, and see if that adds another angle to all the theories.

[Moon Dawg]

This Friday will mark the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.  An event that changed America forever.

Why do they say that?  Have you ever wondered?  I have.  Did it change America?  Really?  He wasn't the first President to die -- or be assassinated.  (Remember Lincoln?)  Was it because JFK was just so totally awesome and the country so behind him?  Or smitten perhaps, with the fantasy of "Camelot?"  

No.


JFK was in trouble in 1963.  His reelection in jeopardy.  The whole Camelot thing came later, after his death.  Still... how did this "change America forever?"  The real story is told in this book:  
Camelot & the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism

Basically... it changed AMERICAN LIBERALISM.  Not America.  It's because JFK was killed by a COMMUNIST.  A communist killed JFK.  A communist.  And the Left in this country couldn't process that.  Joseph McCarthy was supposed to be the great evil.  Not one of their own.  So they began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way.

Kennedy -- by today's standards would be quite Conservative.  He cut taxes and believed in American military strength.  With Kennedy died the old Democrat Party.  A once good party.  And the carcass of the old Democrat Party was feasted on by a blood-thirsty demonic (I love saying that!) brand of Leftist.  The pro-communist.  The pro-socialist.  The pro-progressive.  That's why it changed America.  The Democrat Party became the DemoRat Party -- at war with America.  



Anyway... reflect on this event how you must, just thought some truth would be helpful while you do.  It was of course a true tragedy.  In more ways than the media will be telling you.  

 Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were all killed long before the age of mass media, while JFK's death was processed by millions in an entirely different way. Here's another bulletin for you: The assassination of an American president would always be a traumatic event.

 As for political troubles, JFK was indeed down a bit in the polls, but he would have still defeated Barry Goldwater, although not by the landslide LBJ did.

 You are correct in stating that the liberalism of JFK might not mesh with the liberalism of say EMK, but again we are talking about differences in context and era. JFK was never fully trusted by the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party, in part because of his reluctance to condemn McCarthy, etc.

[Dunderhead]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but logic and evidence usually has no effect on conspiracy theorists.

All of History is essentially a sort of conspiracy theory.

The JFK assassination has never seemed like that much of a mystery to me, the information is all out in the open. I sometimes see it asserted that if there were in fact a conspiracy, how could such a massive undertaking with so many participants possibly be covered up? It's hard to keep a secret between two people let alone the number of individuals alleged to be involved with the Kennedy assassination. The thing is though, that's exactly what happened, that's why the conspiracy theories exist at all, because over the years numerous people with connections to the plot have let information about it slip out. Howard Hunt for example, the Watergate burgler who blackmailed the President, made a bunch of comments before his death in which he pretty much spelled out the whole thing. But for every particular piece of evidence in support of either side, there is always some doubt or question of authenticity or motive. The people who don't want to believe a conspiracy find any reason to discredit every instance like Hunt's confession they can, saying that he was old and senile and that his statements were untrustworthy, whatever plausible excuse they can find, and then they continue to say "well if there was such a large conspiracy, how could they keep it a secret."

People who are really obsessed with "finding the truth" either way always strike me as pretty silly, the most ardent debunkers are really just a sort of conspiracy theorists themselves. The general shape and tenor of the whole assassination seems to have been pretty well figured out since the 60s. I think people just allow their prejudices about our leaders and our government get in the way, because they don't want to admit to themselves that high level political figures (including Kennedy) are deeply pathological individuals, and that the modern presidency from LBJ to Obama has been primarily held by some incredibly narcissistic and sociopathic minds. LBJ really was a monster, and I find it pretty easy to believe that he would have seized on existing anti-Kennedy resentment  as an opportunity to make his move. The Bay of Pigs caused Kennedy to open his eyes to the real scope of the entire US intelligence community and how many pots they had their hands in and how they were misleading and manipulating him even to carry out plans that had been in development since WWII. People didn't want him fucking anything else up, like the plan for Vietnam they had already spent a decade ramping up to, and LBJ took advantage of the anxiety.

I don't really know exactly what happened, where every conspirator was every second of every day in the weeks leading up to the assassination, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every piece of evidence, it's not really all that interesting to be honest, people end up not being able to see the forest for the trees. Like, I don't even think it's very important knowing who the individual shooters were, they were probably just some low-level guys who didn't even know what they were doing. The Government hasn't kept the assassination a secret, they haven't "covered it up" through silence, they actually did just the opposite, they've created so much disinformation and evidence and papers and reports and testimonies, that it's impossible to "prove" what happened one way or the other, but overall what happened is pretty clear if you don't get too hung up on things.