JFK Assassination: Unproven Theories Persist

Who Killed Kennedy? From Communist Oswald to the Federal Reserve

What if the most investigated political assassination of the 20th century still lacks a definitive answer? The debate always returns to one name: Lee Harvey Oswald, an avowed communist who lived in the Soviet Union. For some analysts, this is the key—a suspected KGB handler with sensitive data like U-2 spy plane details—and other theories merely distract from the obvious. For others, the problem is the opposite: a man with that profile doesn't fit as an agent for anyone.

This is the first fracture. Some see a silenced Soviet lead; others, a too-noisy scapegoat. Underlying it all is the suspicion that US security forces failed or looked the other way at Dealey Plaza.

Could Oswald Have Fired Alone Given Those Trajectories?

The technical objection appears early and persists: Oswald couldn't have made those shots with those trajectories. This is the core of the so-called single-bullet theory, the pillar on which the Warren Commission built its lone-gunman version. Critics argue there were multiple shots from different positions and that the official reconstruction requires an impossible path.

On this point, late testimony emerged in September 2023. A Secret Service agent who was with Kennedy that day broke his silence to say he recovered the first bullet, lodged in the rear seat, and threw it onto the president's stretcher thinking doctors would find it. According to his account, it then bounced between two stretchers amid the chaos. The revelation, published by 20minutos, peine the debate without settling it.

Executive Order 11110 and Money Control

There is a second line of argument, more economic than forensic. According to the version repeated in the thread, on June 4, 1963, Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, which ordered the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in US currency through the public Treasury rather than the Federal Reserve system. For defenders of this hypothesis, here lies the true motive: the president was interfering in the business of issuing money.

The thesis has circulated for decades and has never passed the test of documentary proof. But it explains why the assassination is also read as a financial settlement, not just a political one. At the harshest end of this current, the conclusion is stark: either the world belongs to four families, or any other reading is labeled communism.

From Bay of Pigs to Vietnam: The Military and the Deep State

The third path looks to Washington, not Moscow. It points to a hardline military core and defense contractors who saw Kennedy as an obstacle. The argument presented: that on November 23, 1963, after the president's death, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, met with military leaders to authorize the opening of operations in Vietnam. Defenders of this hypothesis also emphasize conservative resentments trinc the Bay of Pigs and changes in army command.

The objection is quick: Kennedy had already pacified Cuba and was in full détente, so killing him to go to war makes no sense. Others respond that Vietnam was precisely the business at stake. Memorandum 273 of 1963 circulates in these discussions as a central piece of the narrative.

Mafia, Three Shooters, and Witnesses Who Never Testify

The fourth leg points to the Mafia. According to one of the most repeated versions, Meyer Lansky killed Kennedy, with Oswald as a straw man. The story speaks of three shooters—one who didn't fire, one for distraction, and one who delivered the fatal shot—and a casino empire that, already in 1960, moved $18 million in assets in Cuba and $3 million in annual revenue.

The rebuttal is forceful: Lansky was an accounting brain never directly involved in violent crimes, let alone killing a president. They add that killing Oswald before he testified points more to internal matters than a Soviet maneuver. And the uncomfortable data always looms: a widely cited book mentions up to one hundred witnesses dead under strange circumstances.

District Attorney Garrison and the Thesis of Fake Communism

Against the Soviet lead, another current holds the exact opposite. Some cite District Attorney Jim Garrison, who peine an official case on the matter, to defend that Oswald's communism was fake and that his defection to Russia was organized by US intelligence itself. Whoever knows more about the issue, it is suggested, is the then-Governor of Texas, who also received a cold bullet; if those who know what peine stay silent to protect their country, there will never be certainty.

A Repeating Pattern: Blaming the Troublemaker

The discussion derives into something more general. Some observe a pattern: when the suspect belongs to a certain ideological orbit, alternative theories flourish; when they don't, no one asks for them. The accusation of seeing communists everywhere, the recourse to the Federal Reserve, Freemasons, the CIA, the FBI, Johnson... the list of alleged perpetrators is so long it invites irony.

What admits little dispute is that the case remains classified and the official investigation is heavily criticized for aiming more to create confusion than to identify perpetrators. With that material, everyone chooses their culprit. It is the comfort of a case that never closed: there is always room for whoever you dislike most.