So, Brendan put out a story about a guy with an impossible death scenario where the guy commits suicide twice. Here’s another hard to believe story from the Smithsonian.
***
“When Secret Service agent Paul Landis spotted an intact bullet resting on the ledge of a seat in the back of the presidential limousine on the day of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, he reportedly pocketed it to ensure it wouldn’t fall into the hands of souvenir hunters or the press. Accompanying first lady Jackie Kennedy into the Dallas hospital where surgeons fruitlessly tried to save her husband’s life, Landis says he found himself next to the president’s stretcher.
Landis believes this “magic bullet,” as it’s nicknamed by skeptics in recognition of its seemingly improbable trajectory and pristine condition, only struck Kennedy—and that it’s the same one he found in the limousine and left on the president’s stretcher. The projectile may have rolled onto Connally’s stretcher at a later point, leading authorities to link it to the governor’s injuries, Landis tells the New York Times’ Peter Baker. If this theory is correct, it could indicate that Connally was hit by a different bullet—perhaps even one fired by someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald, who would’ve had to fire three shots consecutively and accurately in just a few seconds.
“If what [Landis] says is true, which I tend to believe, it is likely to reopen the question of a second shooter, if not even more,” says James Robenalt, a lawyer and historian who consulted with Landis on the book, to the Times. Landis himself has long agreed with the official explanation that Oswald acted on his own. “At this point,” however, he tells the Times that he’s “beginning to doubt myself. Now I begin to wonder.”
Some scholars are skeptical of Landis’ account, which differs from two written statements he provided to authorities shortly after the shooting. Speaking with People’s Liz McNeil and Virginia Chamlee, Steve Gillon, author of a 2010 book on the assassination, says, “Historians are always taught to believe contemporaneous accounts over memory, which fades over time. It is difficult to accept that Landis remembers things 60 years later that he did not remember at the time. There are too many contradictions for this account to be credible.”
On the day of Kennedy’s death, Landis was a 28-year-old Secret Service agent assigned to protect the first lady. He was riding on the running board of a black Cadillac behind the presidential limousine when a shot rang out. According to a November 27, 1963, statement, Landis “heard a second [shot] and saw the president’s head split open.” A few days later, on November 30, he said his “immediate thought was that the president could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was.” At the hospital, Landis stayed “right next to Mrs. Kennedy” until the president’s body was removed in a coffin. Per the Times, he remained in Jackie’s employment for the next six months but then decided to leave the Secret Service. He spent the next decades working in real estate, house painting and manufacturing, rarely discussing what he’d witnessed.
As Landis tried to forget the assassination, public interest in—and debate over—the president’s death mounted. The Warren Commission, which was established by Kennedy’s successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, to investigate the assassination, released its findings in September 1964, reporting that Oswald had fired three shots at the president from a sixth-floor window in the Texas School Book Depository.
The 888-page report suggested that one of the bullets missed the president, while another struck him before continuing on to wound Connally. A third bullet hit Kennedy’s head, inflicting a fatal injury. The commission also concluded that both Oswald and Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner who murdered Oswald two days after the assassination, acted alone, clearing the Soviet and Cuban governments, the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and American organized crime syndicates of involvement in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Initially, the public largely accepted the commission’s report, with 87 percent of Americans polled by Gallup agreeing that Oswald shot the president. But criticism of the commission mounted over the next decade or so, peaking in the late 1970s with the release of the Zapruder film, a 26-second video capturing the shooting in graphic detail, and a congressional report that drew on audio recordings, now believed to be questionable, to conclude that a second shooter took aim at the president from a grassy knoll.
As Gillon wrote for History.com in 2017, “There were now two conspiracies: the conspiracy to assassinate the president and, potentially, an even larger and more insidious conspiracy among powerful figures in government and the media to cover it up.” Despite the release of 99 percent of the once-classified government documents related to the assassination, none of which offered a smoking gun refuting the commission’s findings, a 2017 FiveThirtyEight poll found that 61 percent of adult Americans believe that more than one person was involved in Kennedy’s death.
It was only in 2014, when Landis finally started reading about the assassination, that he realized the official account didn’t match up with his recollections. The 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination, for instance, described a bullet being found on Connally’s stretcher.
“They showed a picture [of the bullet] in the book, and my reaction was, ‘Well, wait a minute. That’s the bullet that I put on President Kennedy’s stretcher,’” Landis tells People. “And that triggered some thoughts, and I wondered what to do. How do I straighten this all out?”
After consulting former Secret Service director Lewis Merletti, Landis decided to write a book about his memories of the assassination. “In the intervening seven years, he struggled with his conscience,” writes Robenalt for Vanity Fair. “His guilt, in my estimation, stemmed in part from a creeping concern that others might accuse him of having done something wrong by moving the bullet.” Robenalt, who met with Landis more than a dozen times in the past year at the suggestion of their mutual publisher, speculates that the retired agent was also worried that readers would criticize him for not coming forward to correct the record sooner.
In Landis’ telling of the assassination, he noticed the bullet, which was lodged into the seam of a limousine seat’s cushion, while helping Jackie out of the car. He brought the projectile into the hospital, planning to hand it over to a supervisor, “but in the confusion instinctively put it on Kennedy’s stretcher instead,” according to the Times. An engineer at the hospital later found the bullet while moving Connally’s stretcher, though he was unsure whether it came from the governor’s stretcher or one unrelated to the assassination. The circumstances of the bullet’s discovery led the Warren Commission to argue that it was responsible for both Connally’s injuries and the president’s neck wounds—a verdict supported by more recent forensic tests proving that a single bullet could indeed cause all of this damage.
In the days after Kennedy’s death, Landis offered written testimony of what he’d seen in Dallas, omitting mention of moving the bullet. “He was totally sleep deprived and was still required to work, and was suffering from severe PTSD,” Robenalt tells BBC News’ Kayla Epstein. “He forgot about the bullet.” Though Landis says he planned to share the full story with the Warren Commission, its members never called him to testify.
The implications of Landis’ account differ depending on who one asks. In Vanity Fair, Robenalt argues that his story suggests a bullet “lodged superficially in the president’s back before being dislodged by the final blast to his head” and becoming embedded in the seat. If this were the case, a separate bullet must have hit Connally, meaning the shooter had to fire two shots within less than 2.25 seconds of each other—a challenging but not impossible task based on later forensic recreations conducted by the FBI. “A second shooter must be considered,” Robenalt writes.
Clint Hill, a former colleague of Landis’ who famously jumped onto the back of the presidential limousine in hopes of saving the Kennedys’ lives, is more critical of Landis’ story. Hill tells KFYR’s Justin Gick that Landis originally shared a different anecdote with him in 2014, saying he’d “found a bullet, almost completely intact, which he picked up. He put it in his pocket, and he said he brought it into the emergency room and dropped it off on a gurney in the hallway,” not Kennedy’s stretcher specifically. “It couldn’t have happened the way he now tells the story,” Hill adds.
Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, is similarly skeptical. Speaking with CNN’s Michael Smerconish, Posner says Landis is “absolutely sincere, and he believes” his story. But Posner points out that “we have many instances, not just with the Kennedy assassination, … in which individuals who are witnesses to traumatic events later read accounts or they talk to other people, they see documentaries, and their new memories become part of their old memories.” He adds, “Sixty years later, [Landis is] now telling us how his memory got better, and we all know, unfortunately, that’s just not how it happens.”
Landis, for his part, views his new book as a form of catharsis. As he tells People, “It is just a different level of relief for me [after] I carried this with me for so long.”
“People were coming in,” he recalls to CNN’s Jake Tapper. “It was chaos. At that moment, I thought, ‘Well, this is the perfect place to leave the bullet. It should be with the president’s body. It’s an important piece of evidence.’” Landis claims he tucked the bullet into a blanket by Kennedy’s left foot, assuming it would be discovered before the president’s autopsy. Haunted by what he’d seen that day in Dallas, he all but forgot about the bullet for the next 50 years.
Now 88, Landis is finally sharing his recollections of November 22, 1963. In The Final Witness: A Kennedy Secret Service Agent Breaks His Silence After Sixty Years, out October 10 from Chicago Review Press, he refutes the Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory, which posits that one of the bullets fired that day entered Kennedy’s body from behind, then exited through his throat before striking Texas Governor John B. Connally Jr.’s back, chest, wrist and thigh. This bullet, per the commission, was later found on Connally’s stretcher.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ex-secret-service-agents-account-of-jfks-assassination-casts-doubt-on-lone-gunman-theory-180982998/
***
I believe it was Landis who also claimed that when Jackie witnessed the fatal blow, she climbed on the trunk to collect what was left of Kennedy’s brains. For what purpose, I don’t recall. Such a heroic story. It couldn’t be that she was just trying to get out of harm’s way, as anyone would, with bullets flying around.
I, for one, would forgive her for that.
I’m guessing whoever it was that came up with the story borrowed it from the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna (St. Elizabeth) who really did collect the body parts of her husband, the Grand Duke Serge Alexandrovich, son of Emperor Alexander II Nikolaevich.
In any case, it’s stories like this that keep people anchored to the past. The truth is so obviously absent, we can’t let it go. After a while, it becomes an obsession: Why <em>can’t</em> we know the truth, is the real question? Is it worse than thinking it was Johnson and his cronies, the CIA, or the Secret Service?
Because some are saying that it wasn’t Kennedy in that car, nor was it Jackie. The Secret Service changed the route and replaced them. These people were doubles. It was staged. The Kennedy double had something in his hairpiece that was set off to look like it had exploded and, of course, the whole thing was captured by Zapruder, and only by Zapruder, whose film popped up years after the fact due to a series of convoluted events.
Jackie’s bangs are interesting, too. Why? She generally wore her bangs parted on the left. As any woman who has ever worn bangs can tell you, it’s not easy to change the side your part is on. You have to train your hair to go a different way. https://people.com/paul-landis-jfk-assassination-claims-the-final-witness-7966788
The day JFK was shot, Jackie’s bangs were parted on the right, not on the left. https://www.businessinsider.com/jfk-and-jackie-at-love-field-2013-11
She could be wearing a wig but it doesn’t look like one.
And how does a woman, with her husband slumped on top of her, manage to turn around, in a pencil skirt, and climb onto the back of a car that’s moving so fast, a running man, in good shape, almost can’t reach it? She has white gloves on, too. Wouldn’t she be slipping and sliding all over that shiny limo? And if Hill shoves her back down into her seat to protect her, why would she not fall backward instead of going back into a seated position on the way to the hospital? She didn’t turn around and crawl back, as I recall. And why do you see a single white rose (or is it an ominous lily)? Where are the <em>red </em>roses Jackie had received, which should be all over the place with all the jostling going on? And, finally, where is Mrs. Connally? Did she get replaced by a plant? https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2117088/zapruder-captured-jfks-assassination-chilling-detail
And who is this, pray tell? https://x.com/WiLiamReed/status/1785028910624772519/photo/3
I might have told you, but my dad used to send me to school in a Rockefeller limo when I missed the bus. He was the District Manager of Tanner Motor Tours and Avis Rent-A-Car (Tucson) at the time and the Rockefellers kept 2 of their limos in his garage. Limos from the early 60s are deceiving from the outside. In the back, they are not particularly comfortable. For whatever reason the floor is raised up to the point where your knees are closer to your chest. It is very difficult to get in and out of them, let alone stand, turn, and climb out onto the trunk with a dead body in your way while a limo is moving. Maybe a stunt double could do it. I don’t know.
When you think of <em>what could be worse</em> than hearing all the theories floating around, it would probably be <em>that it didn’t happen</em>. That’s my theory.
His life was definitely in danger. https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/noartistknown/dallas-texas-november-21-1963-a-famous-handbill-circulated-in-dallas-the-day-before-president/photograph/asset/5448048
And there are two popular books saying he had a double (although, it’s been “fact checked” to death so it couldn’t possibly be true, right?) https://x.com/Nancy023922191/status/1684045552995143681
<em>Something</em> was being planned which ties in with my other story about the mafia which I’ve already told you.
(And in case you’re wondering, no, I haven’t told George any of this. I doubt he’d listen to me. He normally nods off about this time.)
But there are<em> reasons </em>for every well kept secret, and it’s interesting that within a year or so of RFK Jr. joining the Trump team, Roger Stone and RFK Jr. (both Libertarians, I believe) are repeating the same old “party lines:” Johnson and the CIA did it. In other words, JFK didn’t just opt out which, frankly, would be understandable, as he never wanted to be president in the first place and, well, there was Bobby to take over.
However, opting out wouldn’t be very Kennedyesque of him and we need Camelot as part of our country’s story.
This is an election year like none other. There is no losing this one so if <em>this</em> is the secret, it’s not coming out anytime soon.
Something to think about, anyway. Could we live with a different Kennedy story? I don’t know the answer to that one.
Brendan says
Vovan And Lexus | “Prank with Mike Pompeo”
https://rumble.com/v5h2n0j-prank-with-mike-pompeo.html
[Video – 19:46]
Brendan says
What is particularly interesting that Pompeo asserts that,
on the creation of the OCU, “I was in the middle of that”.
[From timestamp – 14:50]
George Michalopulos says
BTW, is CNN turning on Kamala Harris?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQW82MaJE
This is worth 3 minutes of your time.
Loras Camzekes says
Why do alien abductions always happen when leaving a bar? Irish suffer from extensive Corzacov dementia thanks to alcohol brain damage, hence their tendency to conspiracy theories. Did you know that at their time of supposed great spirituality, the primary cooking oil of Russians was hemp which induced schizophrenia? What should Brittany Griner say? Checov exposed the hypocrisy of Russian spirituality really being abusive drunkedness instead. Hidden in plain sight, you ignore the facts, but like Walter Duranty seek out Potemkin villages to delude you about savagery surrounding those villages. And all the miraculous Greek icons are located where there were Greek pagan oracles, deluded by inhaled seeping gases? The ancient Greeks knew about absorbing hemp as they used it for their sails. Even Uspensky’s book on Icons admits Lucan icons were unheard of in early Christianity. Please, Please, have your wife resume her clozapine schizophrenia medicine. Alternative, she can have Paliperidone every three months.
Gail Sheppard says
So what have you been smoking?
George Michalopulos says
Loras, I must come to my wife’s defense as you presume too much. If I may, she’s one smart cookie. We don’t engage in ad hominem attacks here. I wonder where you get your information.
That said, I highly recommend Fr Steven de Young’s book The Religion of the Apostles for an excellent account of how Christianity upended pagan narratives and were righted by Orthodoxy.
Zeri Rivers says
The word ad hominem suffers from ad hominem misuse. Ad Hominem means “as everyonbe knows”. You really wanted to say “ad personam”. Likewise sycophant means slander in Greek and French but flatter in English.
Gail Sheppard says
It’s not misuse to refer to name of an informal fallacy, regardless of how it originated. – I’m not exactly sure to whom the original comment was directed, especially given the rest of the content, but saying “Please, Please, have your wife resume her clozapine schizophrenia medicine. Alternative, she can have Paliperidone every three months” is insulting, especially to a pharmacist!
Brendan says
‘ The word ad hominem suffers from ad hominem misuse. ‘
The word ‘ad hominem’ is two words.
‘ Ad Hominem means “as everyone knows”. ‘
Not according to the OED [Oxford English Dictionary],
which offers the following:
‘ Originally Logic and Philosophy (in philosophical use often contrasted with ad rem).
[1]
adverb
1588–
With reference to the conduct of an argument: in a way that aims criticism at the proponent of a position rather than (directly) at the position in dispute, as by impugning their character or motives or by arguing that the position is inconsistent with other things its proponent presupposes or asserts or does.
Cf. ad feminam adv., ad personam adv., argumentum ad hominem n..
1588
I was long sithence taught by Rodulph Agricola in his notable bookes, de Inuentione Dialecticæ, to dispute rather ad Rem, than ad Hominem.
J. Harvey, Discoursiue Probleme concerning Prophesies 8
1684
As to the second part of the Proposition,..it may be proved ad hominem against any Epicurean that should deny it.
R. Boyle, Experiments Porosity of Bodies ii. viii. 132
1738
It is fair to take up a suitable Character, and argue ad hominem.
W. Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses vol. I. p. xxxiv
1819
The first sentence..as applied ad hominem, must be thought to leave Lord Erskine’s antagonist without a word to say.
Times 13 October 3/3
1862
He employs no grievous words that stir up strife… His pen addresses itself ad rem, and not ad hominem.
M. Evans, Biogr. Sketches Pioneer Preacher Indiana 324
1923
Argued ad hominem, who in America has bought them?
Musical Quarterly vol. 9 139
1986
Departments at the Institute were designed ad hominem around the interests of the laboratory head.
Dædalus Spring 46
2001
Qualms about Kusturica’s films..had little to do with the films themselves. The attacks..were intoned ad hominem rather than ad rem.
G. Gocić, Notes from Underground i. 45
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “ad hominem (adv.),” June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/6856754047.
[2]
adjective
1599–
Of an argument, criticism, etc.: relating to or aimed at a person rather than (directly) addressing the position in dispute; spec. (a) that impugns the character or motives of the proponent of a position rather than addressing the position proposed; (b) that criticizes a position or argument on the grounds of its (alleged) inconsistency with other things its proponent presupposes or asserts or does.
Most commonly used to describe arguments which impugn the character or question the abilities or motivations of the person involved, typically with the implication that arguments of this kind are fallacious or unfair. In philosophical discourse also used more neutrally of arguments which criticize a position taken by a particular person by calling into question the consistency of that position with regard to other positions taken or premises asserted by that person.
1599
This is an argument..which logicians call, ad hominem.
R. Parsons, Temperate Ward-word vi. 79
1633
Some arguments, and answers are ad hominem, that is, they respect the thing in quæstion, not simply, but as it commeth from such a man.
W. Ames, Fresh Suit against Human Ceremonies i. x. 105
1749
The Argument here alleged is only one ad hominem.
D. Hartley, Observations on Man i. iii. §2. 359
1783
He sallies out with irony and ad hominem arguments,..cutting and thrusting at the Irish volunteers.
New Review vol. 3 44
1819
If we were disposed to select one part of the Bishop’s reply,..it would be this ad hominem branch of his argument.
Eclectic Review vol. 11 609/1
1860
The universal burst of indignant denunciation which..followed this ad hominem question, told the gratified speaker how well his remarks had counted.
D. P. Thompson, Doomed Chief viii. 160
1923
How the considerations of general welfare..are..concretely presented in the form of ad hominem appeals in the pamphlets written for the edification of the electorate!
Political Science Quarterly vol. 38 382
1986
He frequently indulges in abusive ad hominem criticism of specific philosophers.
J. Newman, Mental Philos. J. H. Newman i. 4
2004
In politics..and in the media the ad hominem argument and personal attack has become the first and last refuge..for many angry but misguided critics.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Nexis) 9 July b6
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “ad hominem (adj.),”
June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9518597255. ‘
It would seem that George has the rights of the matter.
Brendan says
I see the cryptic clues but not the crossword frame,
the pieces of cloth but not the tapestry,
the trees but not the wood.
However, there were no suspicious circumstances…
Gail Sheppard says
Until we have some answers, we don’t know what is suspicious. That there are “secrets” is a given.