Contrasting opinions and the influence of the media have imposed confusing threads of thought upon the assassination of John Kennedy. There are some key facts in the case, however, which provide insight and which are supported by reliable information on the subject. When those key facts, supplied by independent researchers and historical documents, are addressed, an underlying simplicity points to reasonable conclusions.

For anyone not willing to study the subject long enough and deeply enough, the assassination of John Kennedy will always pose more questions than answers. A similar effect is felt by most people when they first see algebra, or when a new life experience begins. As in any situation, people can do their own thinking on the topic at hand, or they can let others do it for them. In my childhood, I had little other choice than to let others do my thinking for me on this disturbing subject; I had no previous experience to compare the event with, and adults were the ones designated to impart wisdom and truth anyhow. But as the tremendous events of the day of the assassination followed me throughout the stages of my life, I began to listen, read, doubt, question and reason on my own. By the time I reached adulthood my child's view of the subject had entirely changed; the elusive core of that world event, so oddly disturbing then, had grown a face far more stark and grievous than the one I'd seen before. It was a face that was made more vivid by new details revealed by additional, stronger light. In my following of this subject I found that one of the best ways people can let others do their thinking for them is by trying, first off, to answer the question: Who Shot JFK? That famous query should be most famous for its simplistic ineffectiveness toward the subject.                                                                                                                                       Especially in the case of the John Kennedy assassination, the proverbial cart must come after the horse or the attempt to ride will be to no avail. With no overall grasp of other main elements of the case, an attempt to correctly identify who shot Kennedy will simply lead down roads that have been built across other roads that have been concealed within a forest that has been carefully manufactured in a factory that has been...ad infinitum. Thus is supplied a helpful defensive weapon for those who were responsible for initiating, executing, and covering up the crime. This usefulness to them is seen in the matter of identities. For example, the first roadblock encountered on the who-shot trail will be the mysterious Mr. Oswald, a former CIA agent fitted with doubles, even a triple bearing his name before and after the assassination. Following that thread of research from the very start is a tangled forest in itself. And it leaves the case of Oswald as an assassin unproven by its supporters. Then there are the extremely ridiculous shooter identities, such as the one insisting that the driver of the car in which the assassination occurred turned suddenly around, shot John Kennedy in the head, then sped off to the hospital. No reasonable account is given for what happened to the murder weapon, or how the killer could possibly have escaped detection by all onlookers, or for what his I.Q. must have been to try a stunt like that with witnesses inside and outside the Presidential car. The who-shot trail as a first line of search leads to a lot of miscellaneous noise in the frequency band which serves the interests, in varying degrees, of those who have or who had the most to hide in the case.

True crime investigation searches for motives as well as suspects. The first solid question for consideration in this case is: WHY WAS JOHN KENNEDY MURDERED? That line of thought opens the way for gathering objective information, such as the political and social climate in which the crime occurred, the power and political position of the dead man's enemies, their known connections and network of associates, and their undisputed political and personal motives as active players on the world field at that time. Following this line of thought uncovers a trail of data which answers important questions about the cause and nature of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

IN PLACES HIGH AND DARK

Even without close examination it soon becomes apparent that the assassination of John Kennedy is a case of history repeating itself upon a basic theme. The underlying threads in the historical fabric of political assassination are ultimately traceable to the issue of the use and possession of two earthly resources: money, and power. No newer insight than that is needed to invoke two relevant questions in this case which give accurate direction to sincere inquiry. First; Who had the most to lose by the implementing of President Kennedy's domestic and foreign policies? Second; Who had the most to gain by his removal from office? Reviewing only a small portion of the available documentation on the subject makes it clear that John Kennedy had many powerful foes. Recently I came upon a criticism of one JFK assassination researcher which complained about the broad selection of probable conspirators listed by a certain author. The logic of such a listing of enemies is supported, though, by a focused look at some of the policies and activities that Kennedy started or intended to put into effect. In 1960's America, a powerful feature of that Cold War Era was an entrenched anti-Communist climate of fear and hatred which exercised a continuous dynamic influence upon political and social life. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and Cuba were major forces at the center of this world situation. Early in 1961, an unsuccessful CIA attempt to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro left Kennedy distrustful of the CIA. He responded by firing three top CIA officials and wrote National Security Act Memorandums 55 and 57. NSAMs 55 and 57 were to diminish the CIA's power to control covert operations. The orders in the documents removed the CIA's control of Special Forces in Vietnam and paramilitary activity; it was relegated to a defensive role in support of the military and had to receive approval for its activities. Those orders also put the CIA out of the direct advisory chain to the President in such operations and placed the military Joint Chiefs of Staff in that position. Whether or not Kennedy would have followed through on his idea of dismantling the CIA, NSAMs 55 and 57 put the CIA on notice that its former position of power was vulnerable and they won Kennedy no friendly feelings in that quarter.

Taking note of the power and wealth being horded by the private and foreign-owned American banking system, Kennedy enacted Executive Order 11110 in 1963 as a first step toward freeing this country and its citizens from the grip of greedy financial institutions. This directive could well have eliminated the profit control of the entire banking system because it took away the Federal Reserve's power to loan money to the U.S. government with interest. The government could print and use its own money, which was backed by national silver reserves. In time, this Directive could have also diverted high national debt through the use of new debt-free currency. EO 11110 was therefore an attempt to reform world finance and to undo the unconstitutional creation of money by central banking systems. The national and personal credit debt crisis of today reflects the withdrawal of succeeding Presidents from this still valid Directive.

In 1962 Kennedy successfully introduced a Congressional Act whereby two investment options creating double profits were reduced to one. The result to the Texas oil industry was a 50% reduction in annual profits. Then, early in 1963, he proposed tax reforms which would strip away profitable loopholes for the wealthiest. Furthermore, the oil industry had enjoyed a profitable 27% oil depletion allowance worth millions of dollars annually for decades. Kennedy announced in 1963 that he was considering a repeal of the allowance, wiping out that profit source as well. Still further, it has been widely suggested by some historical sources that John Kennedy's victory in the 1960 Presidential election was due in part to Mafia support. Whether or not one wants to believe that, his energetic attack upon organized crime is definitely a matter of public record. The reaction of the American Crime Syndicate--burning hatred toward John Kennedy--has never been a secret. These reforms were put forth by Kennedy without regard for political pressure, popularity, or favors; he applied the reins of executive power with a straightforward decisiveness that was interpreted by some as arrogance. In June 1963 Kennedy gave a speech against secret societies which amounted to a public reprimand of some of the world's most powerful people, in effect shining a flashlight on them.

In the midst of a heavy fog of anti-Communist sentiment and activity, this 35th President more and more shifted his view of how best to deal with communistic nations. He enacted a nuclear Test Ban Treaty as part of his vision of a peaceful world community shared by nations with diverse political and social ideals. The military establishment, the CIA, and the anti-Communist groups of the political right strongly disapproved of this official move away from war. In the spring of 1963 Kennedy began to see his dealings with Cuba and its leader in a different light. By the fall of that year Cuba's leader expressed a strong desire to open up a dialogue with Kennedy. Secret preliminary contact began with a view to future negotiations which continued past mid-November. During this time period, the CIA continued to be deeply involved in plotting the overthrow of the Cuban government and the murder of its leader in contrast with Kennedy's plans. It was also in 1963 that Kennedy began speaking publicly in favor of agreeable relations with the Soviet Union. In the eyes of political extremists--and there were plenty around--Kennedy was nothing short of an empowered American Communist who had betrayed his country. Against this background in October of the same year, Kennedy wrote NSAM 263. NSAM 263 announced his intention to withdraw from Vietnam. An initial withdrawal of 1,000 soldiers was planned by the end of the year. To anti-Communists and to the military, intelligence and industrial communities of the political right, NSAM 263 was evidence that this President had completely flown the coop. He would'nt be bribed. He would'nt be manipulated. He was wary of deceit. And he would'nt be changed.

Before Thanksgiving Day in November of 1963, Kennedy was murdered. It is suggested by some researchers that a plot headed by very powerful figures of the Jewish political-underworld network in response to Kennedy's pursuit of nuclear power control was the core of the manifold conspiracy that led to his death. It is suggested by many researches that the CIA, with its long record of underworld crime connections (including major drug dealers and mercenaries) played a major role in the assassination. It is also suggested that Cuban oil and oil in Southeast Asia along with international drug trafficking played a central role in the assassination. The drugs-money-oil-arms element in this crime is historically linked to CIA operations, Foreign Mafia and Jewish interests. It is definitely known that the American Mafia wanted to recover the Cuban gambling and prostitution rackets and that this was not possible with Cuba's leader alive and on friendly terms with the United States. What has been called the military-industrial-intelligence complex is cited by many researchers as a primary force in the promotion of war for profit, and for the political-social domination of the free world. Finally, it is suggested by some researchers that the deepest layer of the conspiracy and assassination of John Kennedy is identified with a handful from among wealthiest European and American families. This refers back to the Federal Reserve, cited earlier in connection with Kennedy's 11110 Directive. His Vice-President has not been excluded from compliance with the above-mentioned communities.

Whether or not all or only one of these options apply, there is no doubt that John Kennedy had foes in places high and in places dark. His political outlook put him at odds with fundamental forces of his generation. His speeches, his writings, and his legislation show that he had a vision of his country and the world that could only be realized by the removal and exclusion of two very basic forces governing human existence---greed for power, and greed for money. The political-social forces of Kennedy's time proved to be as real as the nuclear force and the force of gravity are. Unleashing or going against them can bring disastrous results. With so many dangerous opponents surrounding him and his vision, it might be counted as notable that he survived as long as he did.

In the assassination of John F. Kennedy one world view was traded for another. This is not disputed. But the question of whether or not he was removed from office by a conspiracy is. Most people believe in the conspiracy option. Some believe the murder was committed by one man alone. The weight of the evidence uncovered in this case leans more one way than the other. In Part 2, some of that evidence is presented.

A few books offering views on the assassination include: A HERITAGE OF STONE, by JIM GARRISON; SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, by LARRY HANCOCK; KILLING KENNEDY, by HARRISON LIVINGSTONE; JFK: CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, by CHARLES CRENSHAW.