# Kennedy JFK Assasination



## ww1ace (Dec 8, 2005)

Do you think there was a conspiracy in the JFK murder? He was my favorite president. I am very mad about James Files. An interesting website on this is jfkmurdersolved.com. Please post your thoughts!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 8, 2005)

JFK was killed by more than 1 gunman... The rest is conjecture and fiction....


----------



## Erich (Dec 8, 2005)

Les is quite correct about more than one gunman. JFK was a perv and dickhead and thanks to his ill thought shananagins he led us onto the road toward Nam.

A conspiracy............ no comment


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2005)

We had an earlier thread on this

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2626&highlight=

Here's a great site
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm 

I believe he was killed by a rouge unit of the CIA, Cuban nationals and Carlos Marcello. Kennedy was a major scumbag, used other scumbags to get him into power and to do his bidding. As he gained more political power he double crossed these folks and they whacked him.

I think the Kennedy mystique was the biggest brainwashing of the American people ever undertaken by the media and the political system, despite that no one had the right to take him down the way they did....


----------



## Bustedwing (Dec 8, 2005)

Well, there's probably no way we will ever learn who did it but we can be sure of who did not. There is no possible way the Warren report is accurate and LHO did it ! That leaves a conspiracy. Take the hollywood tripe out of the film and Stones movie probably comes as close to the truth as we will ever know.
And JFK was a major dickhead, his dad the bootlegger bought him his Presedency !


----------



## me262 (Dec 8, 2005)

wow, nice video, thanks a lot!!!
can you imagine that beauty/beast behind a 109/190 in a dog fight?
simply sweet!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2005)

Bustedwing said:


> Well, there's probably no way we will ever learn who did it but we can be sure of who did not. There is no possible way the Warren report is accurate and LHO did it ! That leaves a conspiracy. Take the hollywood tripe out of the film and Stones movie probably comes as close to the truth as we will ever know.
> And JFK was a major dickhead, his dad the bootlegger bought him his Presedency !



I agree, his father was an assh*le. What I laugh at is the situation was questionable from the beginning, hundreds of people were intimidated bullied and even murdered to keep the cover up going...

The only thing Stone omitted from his movie was the mob connection.

A few books...

Contract on America

Crossfire

High Treason

Mafia Kingfish

Conspiracy

Best Evidence


----------



## The Nerd (Dec 8, 2005)

JFK was a bad man...I wouldnt say he deserved to die, but it did our country some good.


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 8, 2005)

I still say Kennedy was a good president. He didn't want to go to Vietnam either. He wanted to end the Cold War. Then ol' fucking Johnson came in and screwed things up! This is what he was........


----------



## Bustedwing (Dec 8, 2005)

Yup, he wanted to bail on Viet Nam. The US has the biggest Armed Forces in the world with lots of toys. The toy makers were indeed worried ! It used to be about simple things like bananas !


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 9, 2005)

Speaking of toys didnt we manufacture(not design) bambs,napalm, ect and ship them to the U.S?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2005)

There was only one shooter. There was no conspiricy.


----------



## Bustedwing (Dec 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> There was only one shooter. There was no conspiricy.



Esplain ? How can you believe that ? Unless your Gerald Ford's nephew or something ?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2005)

Esplain? what is that? A hairlip saying "a plane"?


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 9, 2005)

He means by explaining how you say that there is no conspiracy. Now if you didn't know this, a 222. casing was found on the Grassy Knoll 24 years after the assasination. It could have been planted, but I disagree. It was dug up. James Files said he used a XP-100 Remington that shoots a 222. bullet. For you ballistics people out there, what happens to a human body(or head), when a 222. bullet makes contact? IT EXPLODES INSIDE THE BODY! Now look at Kennedy's head on the headshot. "Back and to the left, back and to the left" Were Kevin Costner's words depicting Jim Garrison in the movie "JFK"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

ww1ace said:


> I still say Kennedy was a good president. He didn't want to go to Vietnam either. He wanted to end the Cold War. Then ol' f*cking Johnson came in and screwed things up! This is what he was........



Kennedy WAS NOT a good president. He came up with a lot of BS that we had to pay for years later. He wanted to go into Vietnam, not to the extent that Johnson committed, but be assured he would of still placed US troops there. There was more illegal covert activity aganist Americans and forigen individuals under the Kennedy adminstration then the Johnson, Nixion, Ford and Carter adminstrations combuned!

Johnson actually got all the Civil rights bills passed that Kennedy was given credit for...



syscom3 said:


> There was only one shooter. There was no conspiricy.



Explain the "Magic bullet." Explain why Oswald waited for the motorcade to turn away from him and get further down the street (he could of sighted Kennedy with a head with half the distance of the alleged shot when Kennedy was directly in front of the school book depository), explain why over 1,000 witnesses who wound up dead or died prematurely - Loyd's of London did a statistical study on that it the odds of so many witnesses dying prematurely in the matter they did (unsolved murders, accidents with no witnesses, etc. are something like 7 TRILLION TO 1), explain why Frank Stugis (a Watergate burglar) was seen at Daily Plaza at the time of the shooting, Explain why it wasn't mentioned that David Ferry (an alleged conspirator identified by Jim Garrison) knew Lee Harvey Oswald when he was a kid, was even in the same Civil Air Patrol squadron, Explain why so many witnesses, from the first day swore that the shots came from he grassy knoll. - Man, I'm just getting warmed up!

There is so much circumstantial evidence on this matter that if it was a one-on -one murder case any 12 man jury would convict with out a doubt *if they had all the evidence presented in front of them.*


----------



## Bustedwing (Dec 9, 2005)

Esplain: Typo, Ricky Ricardo or conspiracy ?????
Ok. I'm no ballistics expert but. Firing a bolt action rifle takes time ( I know) and LHO was supposedly a terrible marksman.
The biggie. All the wounds. JFK apart from his mellon popping had an entry and exit wound in his neck and throat. Connolly had an entrance wound in his back, exit wound in his chest, entrance wound on his wrist and exit wound shattering his ulna and an entrance wound on his leg. The bullet that caused all these wounds was found intact at the hospital ? As Jerry Sienfeld would later say, that is one magic lugie ! If you look at the trajectory from the 6th window to JFK any bullet passing through him should have hit the driver of the limmo, not the passenger. How is it possible that a bullet can change direction in mid air ? The Warren report was a sham designed to cover up how much of a sham American democracy is. There are people running your country you didn't vote for !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

Yep - here's some other information...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

Bustedwing said:


> There are people running your country you didn't vote for !



Powers to be wanted Kennedy gone, I believe it was mainly because of the influence his Dad had over policy. In actuality the 64' election was legit, Kennedy barely won the 60' election, but he won thanks to mob influence in Illinois.

http://www.slate.com/id/91350


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2005)

I really should not comment on this thread anymore but will one more time just out of my disinterest.........this has all been covered in an earlier thread that needs to be brought back up from a year or so ago. Kennedy was hit by more than one shooter as the video's that practically not a soul has been able to view implies. It was a conspiracy within a conspiracy. Kennedy had to be removed for reasons I will not dwell upon. thanks to Truman we "were" interested in trying to save France's face in Nam, Kennedy took us down the road deeper with one of his fat feet stuck and Johnson and Nixon got both feet in. Ww 1 ace don't go any farther with this as I know first hand what I am talking about, so let's let this crap hole of a thread lie shall we ?


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 9, 2005)

Ok, i'll delete it assoon as possible.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2005)

How can Nixon be held responsible for Vietnam. He didnt take office untill Jan 1969.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> How can Nixon be held responsible for Vietnam. He didnt take office untill Jan 1969.



He ended it when it was convenient - right before an election....


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2005)

Another conspiricy no doubt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Another conspiricy no doubt.



No fact - he began bombing the crap out of North Vietnam when the Paris peace talks fell apart in early 72'. He could of done the same thing within 6 months in office, instead he added over 4 more years on to the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2005)

At the time, we thought the NV were negotiating in earnest. We were hoodwinked by them of course, but we didnt know it at the time.

Nixon was not responsible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> At the time, we thought the NV were negotiating in earnest. We were hoodwinked by them of course, but we didnt know it at the time.



Possibly....


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2005)

we had already formed a 0 trusting policy with the north nam shits, it had already been proven earlier in the war. Sys, I never said Nixon was responsible for Nam, look at my post again. Truman started it, JFK continued it. Johnson then elevated it due to inside pressures and Nixon then continued and ungracefully bowed out at not a good time.

this is bringing back some bad memories ... enough !


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 9, 2005)

I don't know whether to keep this going or stop it. I think it is a pretty trueful and thoughtful opinionization. What do you want me to do?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Well considering you can not lock it, I guess you will wait till one of us admin locks it.

Whoever said Kennedy was a good President is missing a screw or something. Kennedy was very corupt, and dont forget his ties to organized crime.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

I respect Erich's concerns...

If this thread is locked or not, it doesn't matter to me. There is a ton of information about this subject where one could investigate and make their own decision. I vividly remember November 22, 1963 and the days after (although I was very young). You don't have to look too far behind "Camelot" to see the whole thing was a farce, I just hope someday this is all put to rest and the whole truth comes out...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Agreed FBJ.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 9, 2005)

Personelly I dont think he was such a bad president, a pussy, criminal of course (but he is a politician) 

I think JFK's policy on Vietnam was split to appease the Hippies in San Francisco and to appease the "Silent Majority" he never had a straight answer on what is to be done about vietnam and I think thats what pissed alot of people off, he accomplished some amazing things for the U.S, such as the Moon Landing, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and if he was still alive at the time he would have been the one to sign the Civil Rights Act not Lyndon Johnson. I dont think JFK deserved to be assasinated, but it seems to me that alot of people seem to veiw JFK in the same way that canadians veiw Pierre Trudeau.

Now I dont know what you guys think about Clinton but I liked him, he is in my mind a somewhat perfected version of JFK, still cheated on his wife though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

I did not stand Bill Clinton. He did a lot for foreign policy, but he did nothing for the US in my opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

Kennedy was a good BS'er (like Clinton). He told the people what they wanted to hear and would many times covertly do something else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Exactly they were the same, except I dont think Clinton was in organized crime. Clinton did nothing more that make speaches and apease other people.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 9, 2005)

just a wild guess i don't think many of you guys are democrats


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Nope.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2005)

I actually was a Democrat many years ago. I worked for a congressman (who paid me under the table, as a minor, I made his re-election signs) who was indited during the "Ab-scam" sting. After that I lost faith for any one who say "I'm for the working man." You look at most of the Dems (Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton) they're all rich, do you think they're really in tune with "The common man?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 9, 2005)

the first thing i do now when voting is check out the guys cv and see if he ever actually worked at a labour type job


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 10, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Personelly I dont think he was such a bad president, a pussy, criminal of course (but he is a politician)
> 
> I think JFK's policy on Vietnam was split to appease the Hippies in San Francisco and to appease the "Silent Majority" he never had a straight answer on what is to be done about vietnam and I think thats what pissed alot of people off, he accomplished some amazing things for the U.S, such as the Moon Landing, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and if he was still alive at the time he would have been the one to sign the Civil Rights Act not Lyndon Johnson. I dont think JFK deserved to be assasinated, but it seems to me that alot of people seem to veiw JFK in the same way that canadians veiw Pierre Trudeau.
> 
> Now I dont know what you guys think about Clinton but I liked him, he is in my mind a somewhat perfected version of JFK, still cheated on his wife though.


 I agree with you that Kennedy wasn't that bad of a president


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2005)

The World was Brainwashed with Camelot....

"The public image of the Kennedy White House was one of glamour and high culture. Jackie Kennedy set the fashion world abuzz with her clothes, invited famous thinkers and artists to visit the White House, created a "White House Fine Arts Committee," and, in general, made the most of her role as First Lady. The beautiful Jackie, the handsome, vigorous president, and their young children, Caroline and John Jr., seemed to be a model First Family. Beneath the surface, though, things were not so pretty. Jackie felt lonely and isolated from her husband, who was occupied with affairs of state and with his almost compulsive womanizing. His most prominent mistresses during his White House years were the film star and international sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, and a woman named Judith Campbell Exner, who was also the mistress of a mob boss. But there were many others in addition, including those with whom JFK had countless brief, semi-anonymous flings. All of this was kept secret from the general public, of course, as was JFK's continuing struggle with Addison's Disease–*papers were loathe to risk lawsuits by publishing rumors, especially when the Justice Department was in the hands of JFK's brother Robert. *

But Worse...

The Kennedy brothers, assisted by the slightly unstable, paranoiac FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, had no qualms about using their power against their political opponents. Illegal wiretapping, something Hoover had been practicing for years, expanded drastically under JFK. Robert Kennedy used the wiretaps against the Mafia and other underworld types, but also authorized spying on public figures.

And More...

The first election JFK won was his grandfather Honey Fitz's congressional seat. Critical to the win was Joe's money. It didn't hurt when a second Joseph Russo was placed on the ballot. The first Joseph Russo was a leading contender for the House seat but the two Russo names split his vote total. JFK's election to the U.S. Senate was again largely the result of Joe's money and connections. Bobby Kennedy was his brother's official campaign manager. 

During the Democratic primaries for the 1960 presidential election, JFK's most important victory came in West Virginia. Large sums of Kennedy money--at least $2 million ($11 million in today's dollars) and possibly twice that--bought votes. The paymasters included JFK's brothers, Bobby and Ted Kennedy. The primary was effectively stolen from Hubert Humphrey. 

At the democratic convention, JFK came in with enough delegates for a first ballot nomination. He made a surprise choice of Lyndon Johnson as a running mate. No one, including JFK, had wanted Johnson on the ticket. LBJ was a close friend of J. Edgar Hoover, who had provided him with much information about JFK's personal life. JFK admitted in private that he chose Johnson because, "those bastards are trying to frame me." 

Prior to the 1960 election, the CIA had unassailable evidence of a Nixon bribe; a copy of a check for $100,000 that had been deposited in Nixon's checking account in a California bank. This was given by a former business partner of Albert Göring (brother of Field Marshall Hermann Göring). The men in the upper echelons of the CIA disliked the dishonorable Nixon—who had publicly and vehemently disavowed ever accepting any bribes—and strongly favored JFK in the election. 

In the 1960 presidential election, Joe Kennedy made a deal with Sam Giancana. This former Al Capone hit man was the most influential gangster in the powerful organized crime syndicate in Chicago. The deal was for Giancana to get out the JFK vote among the rank and file in the mob controlled unions and siphon campaign funds from the corrupt Teamster's union fund. What Giancana would get in return is unknown. JFK's stolen win in Illinois was crucial to his narrow general election victory of less than one tenth of one percent of the popular vote. 

In 1960, Hoover was five years short of the mandatory retirement age for government workers (70). Through illegal wiretaps, he knew the election corruption went far beyond Illinois. Allegations of fraud were filed in eleven states. The day after the election, JFK announced he would reappoint Hoover as FBI director. Another JFK appointment was his brother Bobby as Attorney General. This choice was forced on Jack by his dad. With his brother the Attorney General, the investigation into election fraud was stopped in its tracks. Nothing was done after the Justice Department forwarded a report to the Attorney General that the Illinois election was stolen. 

During the election, JFK railed against the "missile gap", a supposed shortcoming of U.S. nuclear missile capability compared to that of the Soviet Union. Through briefings with high ranking officials Kennedy knew no such gap existed, but it became an issue to the electorate worried about nearby Cuba. JFK was more vocal in bashing Cuba than his opponent, Vice President Richard Nixon. Both of them knew of Eisenhower's top secret plans to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro and to invade Cuba though Nixon, as VP, couldn't bash Cuba too much or it would jeopardize that plan. Eisenhower and Nixon had hoped that the Castro overthrow would occur prior to the 1960 election. Under the direction of the Eisenhower administration, the CIA involved the Mafia in plotting the assassination of Fidel Castro as early as August 1960. The CIA contact, Johnny Rosselli (believed to be personally responsible for 13 Mafia murders), was a top man directly responsible to Sam Giancana. Giancana was supposed to arrange the Castro hit in October 1960 for Eisenhower and Nixon while he was also working to steal the election for Kennedy. Giancana made no attempt to kill Castro before the election. 

Castro was preparing for an invasion based on JFK's tough talk, his awareness of invasion plans, and the expected Republican response to JFK's accusations that they were soft on Cuba. Nixon believed JFK's manipulation of the Cuba issue beat him in the election. He saw Kennedy men as "the most ruthless group of political operatives." In his memoirs, Nixon wrote: 

From this point on I had the wisdom and wariness of someone who had been burned by the power of the Kennedys and their money and by the license they were given by the media. I vowed that I would never again enter an election at a disadvantage by being vulnerable to them – or anyone – on the level of political tactics.
The lesson he learned appears to have led Nixon to the presidency, a re-election, and the disgrace of a forced resignation. 
The Kennedys planned to have Jack as president for two terms followed by Bobby as president for two terms. To move Bobby closer to the presidency for the 1968 election, the Kennedys planned to dump Vice President Lyndon Johnson from the 1964 ticket. In 1963, they supplied documents about Johnson and some of his illegal financial dealings to Republicans. 

And More...

In public, JFK took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. His popularity soared to an 83% approval rating. In private, he blamed the CIA and the military brass for the debacle and drew the circle of decision-makers ever tighter around himself and Bobby. Though inexperienced in foreign policy, the Kennedys began back channel communications with Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev and spent the next 18 months negotiating foreign policy secretly. Bobby Kennedy, just 35 years old, within the first six months of JFK's presidency had become the president's legal advisor, political advisor, protector, best friend, and most influential foreign affairs advisor.

The Kennedy administration accomplished little in domestic legislation. For the first two years of his administration, Kennedy did not respond to calls from black leaders for passing comprehensive civil rights legislation. The Democrats held a narrow majority in Congress and many of the Democratic seats were held by Southerners who opposed such legislation. JFK needed the white Southern vote to win re-election in 1964 so his approach to civil rights was a cautious, noncommital one. In February 1963 Kennedy submitted a watered down civil rights package to Congress, but he did little to promote its passing and it quickly expired. Anguished by the (televised) violence of Southern segregationists against those promoting civil rights, Kennedy announced on June 11, 1963 that he would send comprehensive civil rights legislation to Congress. The legislation had not yet passed when JFK was assassinated. Kennedy's efforts to cut taxes and increase funding for education died in Congress, leaving his administration with a legacy in which no significant legislation was passed. (Note: This material was drawn largely from PBS's website as Hersh had little to write about regarding legislation pushed or passed through Congress by Kennedy.) 

John Kennedy seemed to have it all; looks, charm, intelligence, a sense of humor, power, and the Kennedy fortune. He was a man's man and a woman's man. He was also impatient, self-absorbed, zealously loyal to his family, a womanizer, an adulterer, physically unhealthy, dishonest, and extremely reckless. John Kennedy was a notorious penny-pincher who never carried cash and thus was never able to pay his share of a restaurant or bar bill. 

JFK adored his father and maternal grandfather, his brother Bobby was his closest friend, but he had little time or use for his mother nor for women as peers in general. He often called women he knew "kid" because he couldn't remember their names; even the names of his lovers. Hersh speculates that JFK's craving for women and compulsive need to shower (as often as five times a day) may have been linked to a lack of mothering. 

He not only considered women as less than equals, he often referred to the poor, the blacks, and the Jews, as "poor bastards". He showed almost no empathy and, like the majority of people of his time, accepted inequalities based on race, gender, and religious belief. 

Though he won a Pulitzer Prize for his autobiography Profiles in Courage, it is likely the book was largely ghostwritten and it is the case that his dad's money kept it on the bestseller list and Joe's connections won it the Pulitzer. 

JFK had an undistinguished legislative output in the Senate, but his looks and personal appeal and Joe Kennedy's planning, connections, and money were behind marketing efforts that made him a national celebrity. 

During JFK's presidency, his desire and demand for loyalty resulted in his capable staff serving him poorly as they preferred to please him rather than enlighten him. 

What the public saw in JFK was an attractive, glamorous, hardworking President devoted to country, wife and family. Four former secret service men who were assigned the Kennedy presidential detail were interviewed for The Dark Side of Camelot. They reported they saw a president obsessed with sex, willing to take enormous risks to gratify that obsession, a president who came late many times to the Oval Office and who was not readily available for hours during the day." 

Bottom line, he was a rich spoiled scumbag (My opinion)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 10, 2005)

Unfortunately that seems to be the type of personality that a, craves that kind of position and b, what it takes to get there in the political climate in our government. 

As a President he was mid level - then again they all are in the first term while setting up for the second term. 

As for conspiracy, I think there was a lot more to it that has never been publicized but not necissarily a conspiracy.

wmaxt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 10, 2005)

Since We are on the subject of presidents, I found this pic so I just had to show it,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> As for conspiracy, I think there was a lot more to it that has never been publicized but not necissarily a conspiracy.
> 
> wmaxt



You're right to an extent - based on what I seen and read, it wasn't a conspiracy, it was a coup!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 10, 2005)

The great thing about conspiricy theories is it keeps people occupied with things to write about!

And so what if JFK was a womanizer.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 10, 2005)

Womanizer Huh, I can see why he cheated on jackie, my god! she was a bitch.

Seriously would you guys pass off the chance to have Marylin Monroe?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The great thing about conspiricy theories is it keeps people occupied with things to write about!


True, but in the case of the JFK assignation the American people were Buffaloed by the press and government they couldn't see the conspiracy as it was right in front of them (Ruby killing Oswald 2 days later)


syscom3 said:


> And so what if JFK was a womanizer.



True, but even today, the media still wants to paint this wholesome family legacy of this guy and his family, they were all a bunch a scumbags and it's amazing that Teddy (The curly Joe of the brothers 3) is still in politics living off our tax dollars.

At least the womanizing aspect of this guy is out of the bag, the media made him a saint and he was far from it!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

I dont give a shit what they do in there personal lives, but damn it do something for the people!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2005)

YEP!! And JFK actually did little for the "people." To him many of us were just "Poor Bastards!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Yeap he lived in his own little Kingdom.


----------



## trackend (Dec 11, 2005)

I personally don't believe that there was any conspiracy I think it was simply a nut with a gun. Its just that the idea of the most powerful man on the planet just getting done by a weirdo don't sell books or make good TV or Films the same thing has been perpetuated by Princess Diana's death she died because some tit was driving too fast, and for no other reason.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

I do believe that there was a conspiracy. I believe the CIA and the crime underworld was involved. I think the whole Marilyn Monroe thing is intertwinded with the Kennedy assasisation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2005)

trackend said:


> I personally don't believe that there was any conspiracy I think it was simply a nut with a gun. Its just that the idea of the most powerful man on the planet just getting done by a weirdo don't sell books or make good TV or Films the same thing has been perpetuated by Princess Diana's death she died because some tit was driving too fast, and for no other reason.



Unlike the princess Diana death, there was contrevorsy and unanswered questions from the beginning. Dozens of witnesses witnessed shots from the grassy knoll some even saw the gunman. These same people were later ignored or treated pretty bad by the authorities. 

Oswald defected to the USSR and later returned with a Russian wife who's father was in the KGB. It seems this was also silenced for the longest time....

Jack Ruby - a known mobster with underworld ties, owner of a strip club, why kill this "nut" Oswald? He had nothing to gain and although known to have a temper, it just doesn't add up....

If all these "wackos" and "mis-guided' witnesses had been investigated from the get-go, I'd be willing to accept the Warren Commission's findings, but when witnesses were threatened and intimidated by the Dallas PD and FBI, that's where things get very fishy....


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2005)

Hussars, u need to change ur avatar... Thats not appropriate..


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 16, 2005)

I think so too! Don't scare the little one's hussar!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 16, 2005)

Too late, I'm scared!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

What was the avatar anyhow?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 16, 2005)

What you see there, only flashing the bird.
It's scarey anyway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Ah okay, I remember that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2005)

Kinda childish anyways, but since I asked nicely, he was considerate enough to crop it out...


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 18, 2005)

That bird is a mean one!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

What?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 18, 2005)

I think he is talking about the HS-129 in Les's sig...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2005)

Or "the bird", aka the middle finger, which is what they were talking about on the previous page...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

That is what I was trying to figure out.


----------



## ww1ace (Dec 18, 2005)

Yeah, that's what I meant, sry guys, was in a big hurry


----------



## ww1ace (Jan 2, 2006)

Why? People like me like to find the truth, as I came across the website of jfkmurdersolved.com


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

ww1ace said:


> Why? People like me like to find the truth, as I came across the website of jfkmurdersolved.com



That's a good site, I don't believe the stuff about Bush SR. He WAS NOT a ranking CIA puke in 63'.


----------



## ww1ace (Jan 5, 2006)

Yeah me neither. My grandpa said probably that many people have confessed to his murder. Then I told him about the bullet that Files had bitten into.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

Here's some other good info

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/02/stabilized_zapruder_.html

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Good sites there, interesting info.


----------



## ww1ace (Jan 9, 2006)

70 to 29


----------



## ww1ace (Feb 4, 2006)

Related to Kevin Costner, anyone seen the "Untouchables"?


----------



## ww1ace (Feb 8, 2006)

Things I have understood from Files:
#1:Oswald was not involved
#2:There was a person at the Knoll(Files)
#3:The head wound was massive because Kennedy was hit by two bullets at the same time.
#4: Rosseli was a part of the CIA, but there was no mob or government hit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

ww1ace said:


> Things I have understood from Files:
> #1:Oswald was not involved
> #2:There was a person at the Knoll(Files)
> #3:The head wound was massive because Kennedy was hit by two bullets at the same time.
> #4: Rosseli was a part of the CIA, but there was no mob or government hit.


Oswald as involved - as a patsy...

Johnny Rosseli was in the mob and worked for Sam Gincana. Sam Gincana and Carlos Marchello were being hounded by Bobbie Kennedy. Both of these guys may of helped the CIA during the 1950s.

Read Contract on America, it tell of the Mob involvement...

My belief the hit was done by a rouge CIA unit. Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt (both Watergate Burglars) were part of it....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

Found this site, its got some great info for those of you who are into this...

JFK MURDER SOLVED


----------



## drgondog (Jul 5, 2007)

Bustedwing said:


> Well, there's probably no way we will ever learn who did it but we can be sure of who did not. There is no possible way the Warren report is accurate and LHO did it ! That leaves a conspiracy. Take the hollywood tripe out of the film and Stones movie probably comes as close to the truth as we will ever know.
> And JFK was a major dickhead, his dad the bootlegger bought him his Presedency !



I knew Bill Decker and his Deputy Harry Koch personally and I know Don Byrd former Sheriff of Dallas very well. They were all in the middle of the investigation and the aftermath.

In their opinions LHO absolutely a) pulled a trigger and b.) hit Kennedy and probably John Connally. They were not certain that a second gunman was present - or not present... just that they never found evidence of a second shooter. There were people all around the Grassy Knoll in front of the caravan leading to Interstate 35 - no one positively heard a shot behind them as far as I can tell

Their questions focused on the first and fourth shots (Kennedy neck shot as described by Ms Connally, and the 'miss')

I could believe either theory but find it difficult to imagine that LHO could get four very well aimed shots off with that stupid Italian carbine- but even more difficult that sooooo many professional investigators in FBI and Dallas could be connected and buy in to a cover up, much less members of the Warren Commission - too many conflicting political agendas with nothing to gain?. 

If mob, don't you think Bobby would have honed into that, if Right Wing conspiracy LBJ would have a field day with GW in 64 Election.. Ditto if Soviet or Cuban trail.

Too many stretches for me to accept on face value that there was a second shooter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

drgondog said:


> There were people all around the Grassy Knoll in front of the caravan leading to Interstate 35 - no one positively heard a shot behind them as far as I can tell.



The Newmans (and several dozen others) tried to testify that they heard shots at the grassy knoll (Mr. Newman was a former Marine and had his family "hit the ground as shots whizzed over their heads). Some of these folks were bullied, badgered, threatened and even murdered.

This is a very complicated subject but when you start looking at all the objective evidence there are too many loose ends to say LHO acted alone. Just the fact that he was a deserter, defected to the USSR, married a girl who's father was a KGB officer and then was allowed to return to the US with no prosecution (Especially during those cold war days) is mind boggling.

Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana, Cuban Exiles, former CIA agents, and other mafia members who the Kennedys double crossed after their election all had the motives, means and will to kill JFK. The only reason why this has remained an enigma is because those who carried out the hit hated the man and have little remorse for what they did.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 5, 2007)

I read this in 'The 20th Century' by David Wallechinsky;

"In fact, Kennedy conspiracies have become an industry unto themselves. A convention is held each year in Dallas to swap theories and sell gruesome memorabilia, such as Oswald's coroner's tag, Ruby's gun, and bootleg autopsy photos, and a magazine, the _Grassy Knoll Gazette_, exists as a clearinghouse for wild theories".

Surely not!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Graeme said:


> I read this in 'The 20th Century' by David Wallechinsky;
> 
> "In fact, Kennedy conspiracies have become an industry unto themselves. A convention is held each year in Dallas to swap theories and sell gruesome memorabilia, such as Oswald's coroner's tag, Ruby's gun, and bootleg autopsy photos, and a magazine, the _Grassy Knoll Gazette_, exists as a clearinghouse for wild theories".
> 
> Surely not!?



While this shows the extent opportunist will go to so they can make a buck, it only brings discredit on those who want to find the truth about this subject. I've been to Daley Plaza a few times and its amazing some of the street merchants you'll see there.

Bottom line if one looks into this more the evidence is overwhelming that there was a consparicy.


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

"No conspiracy"!!!!

Only one shooter! -> Oswald!

I think he was alone and he had no supporter (I'm only 99% sure in this fact).

Ruby: also alone, no conspiracy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> "No conspiracy"!!!!
> 
> Only one shooter! -> Oswald!
> 
> ...



Explain this, and its only the tip of the iceberg....


_"The Dallas police took a paraffin test on Oswald’s face and hands to try to establish that he had fired a weapon on November 22. The Chief of the Dallas Police, Jesse Curry, announced on November 23 that the result of the test “proves Oswald is the assassin.” The Director of the F.B.I. in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in charge of the investigation stated: “I have seen the paraffin test. The paraffin test proves that Oswald had nitrates and gunpowder on his hands and face. It proves he fired a rifle on November 22.” Not only does this unreliable test not prove any such thing, it was later discovered that the test on Oswald’s face was in fact negative, suggesting that it was unlikely he fired a rifle that day. Why was the result of the paraffin test altered before being announced by the authorities?"_

Sixteen Questions on the Warren Report
People running up the grassy knoll after hearing shots....







*AND...*

_"Carlos Marcello (Calogero Minacore) was born in Tunis, North Africa, on 6th February, 1910. Marcello emigrated to the United States and in 1929 was arrested for bank robbery by the police in New Orleans. These charges were later dropped but the following year he was convicted of assault and robbery and was sentenced to the State penitentiary for 9 years (served 5 years). 

In 1938 Marcello was arrested and charged with the sale of more than 23 pounds of narcotics. Despite receiving another lengthy prison sentence and a $76,830 fine, Marcello served less than 10 months in prison. On his release from prison Marcello became associated with Frank Costello, the leader of the Mafia in New York.

By the late 1940's, Marcello had taken control of Louisiana's gambling network. He had also joined forces with Meyer Lansky in order to buy some of the most important gambling casinos in the New Orleans area. By this time Marcello was the undisputed leader of the Mafia in New Orleans. He was to hold this position for the next 30 years.

On 24th March, 1959, Marcello appeared before the Senate Committee investigating organized crime. Serving as chief counsel to the committee was Robert F. Kennedy; his brother, Senator John F. Kennedy, was a member of the committee. In response to committee questioning, Marcello again invoked the fifth amendment in refusing to answer any questions relating to his background, activities, and associates.

After becoming president John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as U.S. Attorney General. The two men worked closely together on a wide variety of issues including the attempt to tackle organized crime. In March 1961, the Attorney General took steps to have Marcello deported to Guatemala (the country Marcello had falsely listed as his birthplace). On 4th April, Marcello was arrested by the authorities and taken forcibly removed to Guatemala. 

It did not take Marcello long to get back into the United States. *Undercover informants reported that Marcello made several threats against John F. Kennedy. He told Edward Becker that a dog will continue to bite you if you cut off its tail. Whereas if you cut off the dog's head, it would cease to cause you trouble. Becker reported that Marcello "clearly stated that he was going to arrange to have President Kennedy murdered in some way." Marcello told another informant that he would need to take out "insurance" for the assassination by "setting up a nut to take the blame". *
Just before Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, Jack Ruby made contact with Marcello, and another Mafia leader, Santos Trafficante, about a problem he was having with the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA). Ruby also visited New Orleans that summer. So also did the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. 

After the assassination of Kennedy the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated Marcello. They came to the conclusion that they "did not believe Carlos Marcello was a significant organized crime figure" and that Marcello earned his living "as a tomato salesman and real estate investor." As a result of this investigation the Warren Commission concluded that there was no direct link between Ruby and Marcello."_


*The Warren Comission ignored much this information. As stated on the moon landing thread, why dismiss this information? What harm would come if this was at least investigated?*


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

Oh come on...

I have my opinion, you have your one.
And it is always senseless, to discuss against the majority in a conspiricy thread.

These were only informations from informants. Less or more no hard facts. Nothing like fingerprints on a weapon or so.
Marcello didn't like Kennedy.
And he said, he would like to kill him.
How many persons didn't like Kennedy at this time in your country?
To some friends, I said once, if I would meet Osama Bin Laden with a weapon in my hand, I would kill him.
If Osama will be killed from someone somewhere...
Will the commission start to dicuss, if I am the assassin? 
Three person visit New Orlean.
Nice.
At the same time? Do they visit the places? How long did they stay in this Town? What was the reason to visit this town? 

Three of the pilots of 9/11 were living in Hamburg (Germany), you perhaps know. I'm living in a town 200 km away S/W of Hamburg. A friend and his family is living in Hamburg, now 20 km north of this town. I visit him and his family several times. I was on a demonstration against the 2. Gulf war! (The Iran Irak war is the first one). Like another million germans.
Am I a member of 9/11?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Oh come on...
> 
> I have my opinion, you have your one.
> And it is always senseless, to discuss against the majority in a conspiricy thread.
> ...



You're pointing to generaliztions. There were and still are dozens of these coincidences that just needed to be investigated and those in power just choose to ignore them or discredit them and that alone shows me something. There is too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss this as "just a conspiracy."




T4.H said:


> Three of the pilots of 9/11 were living in Hamburg (Germany), you perhaps know. I'm living in a town 200 km away S/W of Hamburg. A friend and his family is living in Hamburg, now 20 km north of this town. I visit him and his family several times. I was on a demonstration against the 2. Gulf war! (The Iran Irak war is the first one). Like another million germans.
> Am I a member of 9/11?



No - unless you ever flew with them, met with them for terrorist purposes, supplied them money, ect. The people who made the threats against Kennedy were hardened criminals and were not to be taken lightly. The people shown as participants in the assassination were involved in illegal and covert actions way before Nov. 22, 1963, and that's what makes them different from a protester as you portray yourself with regards to your example.

BTW I don't know if you read the full thread, I don't like any of the Kennedys, but I would like the truth to someday be revealed and no single bullet did what the warren Commission claims.


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

Yes I'm generalizing.
Why?
Because it is always the same story.
If a famous person dies on a "interesting" way, you always have the "same" conspiracy discussions.

Just look on another story.
Death of Diana.
Fact:
The driver was drunken and has taken drugs.
Diana was sitting in a car together with a driver, who smells like a bourbon distillery. 
I'm pretty sure, that she smelled this.
They didn't fasten there seat belts. Every else has to do it. Only the guard did it, he survived.
They tried to break the all time speed record in the middle of a town and espacially in a tunnel(joke!).
They slightly collide with a car. This car driver disappeared. Mysterious...
And than the rest of the story.
100 and more? conspiracy theories till now?

Assassin assault by the Fiat driver? Who was this guy? The guard is the assassin?
SAS?
They let her die on the way to the hospital?
etc.
I didn't belive in a conspiracy in this case.
And this case is also a little bit mysterios. 
Another story, the "same" conspiracy discussions.

I belive, there was no conspiracy in the JFK assassination, only one crazy guy. You have another opinion.
I did not accept your oppinion. I accept, that you have a different oppinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Yes I'm generalizing.
> Why?
> Because it is always the same story.
> If a famous person dies on a "interesting" way, you always have the "same" conspiracy discussions.


In this day and age - in 1963 there was little sensationalizing of celebrities as seen today. The evidence is more mechanical than passionate...


T4.H said:


> Just look on another story.
> Death of Diana.
> Fact:
> The driver was drunken and has taken drugs.
> ...



And none of that adds up, just loose here say and speculation. There is no mechanical evidence too ever support a conspiracy.



T4.H said:


> I belive, there was no conspiracy in the JFK assassination, only one crazy guy. You have another opinion.
> I did not accept your oppinion. I accept, that you have a different oppinion.


And you are correct. The only thing I've done on this thread is present some questionable situations, the reader has to make their own opinions.

This is a very complicated subject and it took me a long time to accept that this was a conspiracy. All I ever ask is for anyone to look at some of the unexplained.


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2007)

I cannot comment on the existance of a conspiracy theory or the potential for a second shooter. All I can say is that we had a programme on shooting about two years ago and it was proved that the shots could be fired in the time available and with the accuracy required.

They did this in the simplest way by getting a shot with the same rifle to shoot at a similar distance at a slowly moving target in the same time. The only difference was the presenter (a well known millitary historian) didn't miss with any of his shots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Glider said:


> I cannot comment on the existance of a conspiracy theory or the potential for a second shooter. All I can say is that we had a programme on shooting about two years ago and it was proved that the shots could be fired in the time available and with the accuracy required.
> 
> They did this in the simplest way by getting a shot with the same rifle to shoot at a similar distance at a slowly moving target in the same time. The only difference was the presenter (a well known millitary historian) didn't miss with any of his shots.


Several shooters have duplicated Oswald's alleged attack - it could be done.


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And none of that adds up, just loose here say and speculation. There is no mechanical evidence too ever support a conspiracy.



No hard facts? I think, this you mean with "mechanical evidence".
Where and who is the driver of the whithe Fiat? Why it was never found? 
Why they needed more than one hour, to bring Diana with the rescue car into the hospital? Only something around 1 or two KM away? etc...
Most of these facts could be explained of course.

Most of the conspiracy facts could also be explaind for the JFK assassination.

But in both cases, many persons have there "own" conspiracy theory. And they belive in this! Of course, it is always more interesting (also financial) to belive in a conspiracy theory.

I have also my cases. They are different from your ones.
Olaf Palme assassination together with the submarine "problems" before in Sweden. You remember, "Wiskey on the rocks", after this the dozens of submarines sighted before the coast. The badly damaged submarine by a water mine, which stayed under water for 48 h, before it was repaired. etc. I'm pretty sure, the other submarines were no russian ones.

Belgium: Dutrux...

Kidnapping of Heinecken (Netherlands), the assassination of less or more all kidnappers till now.

The Lufthansa robbery...All thiefs were killed till now...who has now the money...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Most of the conspiracy facts could also be explaind for the JFK assassination.



WRONG - witnesses, forensic evidence, photographs, and even statements by some of JFK's closest people gave conflicting and contradictory statements at the time of the assassination. An example





JFK's Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff indicating on 11/22/1963 how the fatal shot was inflicted. 





Dennis David, who saw JFK's wounds on autopsy photos, indicates where he saw an entry wound.




T4.H said:


> But in both cases, many persons have there "own" conspiracy theory. And they belive in this! Of course, it is always more interesting (also financial) to belive in a conspiracy theory.


 True and unfortunately those who would rather make money off this rather than bring out the truth are the real hindrance of the final story being revealed.



T4.H said:


> I have also my cases. They are different from your ones.
> Olaf Palme assassination together with the submarine "problems" before in Sweden. You remember, "Wiskey on the rocks", after this the dozens of submarines sighted before the coast. The badly damaged submarine by a water mine, which stayed under water for 48 h, before it was repaired. etc. I'm pretty sure, the other submarines were no russian ones.
> 
> Belgium: Dutrux...
> ...



I've read about Olaf Palme, don't know about the other stuff...


----------



## T4.H (Jul 6, 2007)

Uppssss....

my error...

Not Dutrux

Belgium: Marc Dutroux!
Marc Dutroux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sad story....


Lufthansa:
Lufthansa heist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2007)

From much earlier,

*


ww1ace said:



For you ballistics people out there, what happens to a human body(or head), when a 222. bullet makes contact? IT EXPLODES INSIDE THE BODY! Now look at Kennedy's head on the headshot.

Click to expand...


"When on a launching pad, the thrust goes downward, but the rocket goes up".*

According to one book, Kennedy's head movement was an example of 'Thorburn's' position and the 'Jet Effect', calculated by the Nobel Prize laureate Dr Luis Alvarez.

Thorburn's position-produces an instantaneous up and out movement of the arms in response to a blow to the spinal column. Kennedy may have been reacting to the first bullet when his hands were supposedly going for his throat. As a result, the president could have been hit 3.5 seconds before Connally, more than enough time for Oswald to recock the gun and fire again.

The 'jet effect' produces thrust in the opposite direction to the bullet. In the presidents case, the explosion of blood and brain tissue out of the right side of the head produced more momentum than the bullet itself, causing the head to move in the opposite direction-backwards and to the left. Shooting tests with dummy heads confirmed the Alvarez hypothesis.

This hypothesis was meant to dispel the speculation that a bullet came from the grassy knoll in front. Computer enhancement shows that Kennedy's head initially moved forward 2.3 inches and then jerked backward but not because of force from the front.

Regarding Oswald, he died a murderer. History seems to have forgotten patrolman J.D.Tippit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Graeme said:


> From much earlier,
> 
> *
> 
> ...




It still doesn't explain this...






Oswald was never tried for his crime although Tippit's murder was a tragedy.

_"Earlene Roberts, the only witness, testified that Oswald arrived at his rooming house at "1pm or a little later", stayed in his room for "3 to 4 minutes", and that she last saw him standing at the bus stop out front. This places Oswald stationary at 1026 N. Beckley at no earlier than 1:05 pm. 

How long would it have taken Oswald to reach the corner of 10th and patton on foot? I was in Dallas a while back and had an opportunity to take this infamous walk myself. I first tried the route described in the Warren Report, which is south on Beckley to Davis, east to Crawford, south to 10th, and then east alont 10th to just past Patton, where the shooting occurred. Walking at a healthy clip and carrying a stopwatch and a pedometer, I measured it at slightly under 1.2 miles and took 16 1/2 minutes. The Warren Report measured it at "about .9 miles" (only as the crow flies) and stated "if Oswald had left his rooming house shortly after 1 pm and walked at a brisk pace, he would have reached 10th and Patton shortly after 1:15 pm. Considering this, and studying a map,I vowed to do better. Oswald was no jock, and I'm in pretty good shape, and I was determined to match his time. As there were no witnesses to the route Oswald took, I next tried Patton straight northwest to Davis, then west to Beckley and north to my starting point, dodging traffic lights and jaywalking all the way. I managed to cut my time to 14 1/2 minutes and the distance to 1.1 miles, but I still would have missed the shooting by at least 5 minutes. Before the day was through, I tried two more round trips, drawing a lot of stares along the heavily populated route. I was not able to better my time without running and I'm certain that if Oswald would have ran this route on that day of alertness and suspicions he would have drawn a lot of attention, as he did around the Texas Theater. 

Mr. Myers places the time of the shooting at 1:14:30, which is probably too late anyway, since one of the principle witnesses (Helen Markham) was on her way to catch a 1:12 pm bus when the shooting occurred. Mr. Myers explains that we all know that buses run late therefore the witness would have had no reason to be to her bus stop on time. Interesting reasoning. 

Next Mr. Myers has our track star (Oswald) spotted well beyond 10th and Patton by a witness (Jimmy Burt at 10th and Denver) who said Oswald was walking west on 10th from the direction of Marsalis Avenue. Denver is a block west of Patton and Marsalis is a block west of that. This would require Oswald to circle a couple of blocks past the shooting scene and be spotted on the way back at least a minute or so before the shooting. I am certain from my own experiences that this was not possible. In Mr. Myers scenario Oswald would have missed the murder of J.D. Tippit by at least ten , and probably more like fifteen, minutes."_

JFK Assassination Discussion


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2007)

I don't know which is more impressive, your knowledge on this subject, or the speed at which you can respond/type?! 
Did you type all that in 12 minutes?

I can only regurgitate from books. The one in front of me states;

"At least half a dozen people saw either the murder of the officer or Oswald fleeing with a gun in his hands, and the noose quickly tightened. Panicked, Oswald ducked into the Texas Theatre on Jefferson Avenue without stopping to buy a ticket, prompting a cashier to alert the police. Within minutes squad cars sealed the theatre's exits, and officers turned up the lights inside to scrutinise the patrons. Oswald, asked to stand, said, "Well it is all over now," then punched a policeman and attempted to fire his gun again before being subdued. As he was carried out past an angry mob of more than 200 people, Oswald shouted "I protest this police brutality!"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Graeme said:


> I don't know which is more impressive, your knowledge on this subject, or the speed at which you can respond/type?!
> Did you type all that in 12 minutes?


  I just have some site filed...




Graeme said:


> I can only regurgitate from books. The one in front of me states;
> 
> "At least half a dozen people saw either the murder of the officer or Oswald fleeing with a gun in his hands, and the noose quickly tightened. Panicked, Oswald ducked into the Texas Theatre on Jefferson Avenue without stopping to buy a ticket, prompting a cashier to alert the police. Within minutes squad cars sealed the theatre's exits, and officers turned up the lights inside to scrutinise the patrons. Oswald, asked to stand, said, "Well it is all over now," then punched a policeman and attempted to fire his gun again before being subdued. As he was carried out past an angry mob of more than 200 people, Oswald shouted "I protest this police brutality!"



He also adamantly claimed he didn't killed anyone - "I'm a Patsy" was his cry.

Sorry for the long post below, it just adds more fuel for the fire...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

DID MRS. MARKHAM IDENTIFY OSWALD AS TIPPIT'S KILLER?
Michael T. Griffith
1997
@All Rights Reserved

Revised and Expanded on 3/12/2002

Did the Warren Commission's star witness against Lee Harvey Oswald in the Tippit slaying, Mrs. Helen Markham, really see Oswald shoot Tippit? Did she actually identify him as the killer at a police lineup? 

Attorney Mark Lane testified under oath to the Warren Commission he had talked to Helen Markham, the Commission's star witness in the Tippit shooting, and that she had said the shooter was:

1. short,
2. a little on the heavy side, and,
3. his hair was bushy
Lane's report of his conversation with Mrs. Markham caused a furor because obviously the description she gave him did not fit that of Tippit's alleged killer, Lee Harvey Oswald. Mrs. Markham, however, denied she had ever even talked to Mark Lane, but it turned out she was lying. Lane had taped his conversation with Markham and turned the tape over to the Commission. In fact, at one point Mrs. Markham denied the voice on the tape was her voice! The tape, of course, showed that Lane did not pose as some kind of law enforcement officer.

Why is Mrs. Markham an importnat witness? Because she was the only person the Commission could produce who claimed to have seen Oswald shoot Officer J. D. Tippit. But did Mrs. Markham actually identify Oswald as Tippit's killer? There are doubts that Oswald was the man Mrs. Markham saw shoot Tippit, assuming she even saw the killing and was able to recall what the assailant looked like. Let us begin by considering the transcript of her phone conversation with Mark Lane.

Transcript start:

LANE. But, well, just, could you just give me one moment and tell me. I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair.
MARKHAM. No, no. I did not say this.
LANE. You did not say that?
MARKHAM. No, sir. 
Comment: So a news reporter (Hugh Aynesworth from The Dallas Morning News) had interviewed Mrs. Markham and reported in a published article that she had described Tippit's killer as short, stocky, and with bushy hair. Now, whom should we believe, the reporter or Mrs. Markham? To put it another way, should we believe Mrs. Markham, who lied about having spoken with Lane, who falsely claimed Lane posed as some kind of a law enforcement officer, who denied the voice on Lane's tape was even hers, who indicated no one came out to Tippit for about 20 minutes (when in fact the ambulance came and removed Tippit's body within 5-10 minutes of the shooting), who said Tippit tried to talk to her (when all indications are that Tippit died instantly), and who said Tippit was still alive when he was placed into the ambulance (was this the same Tippit who was lying lifelessly in a pool of blood when seen by Benavides and Bowley?), or should we believe the news reporter? It's important to note that the newspaper journalist was not the only person to whom Mrs. Markham described Tippit's killer as having bushy hair. Mrs. Markham said the same thing to Officer J. M. Poe when he interviewed her shortly after the shooting (Dale Myers, With Malice, Oak Cliff Press, 1998, p. 118 ). Let's return to the transcript:

LANE. Well, would you say that he was stocky?
MARKHAM. Uh, he was short.
LANE. He was short.
MARKHAM. Yes. 
Comment: Oswald was not really "short." At 5'9" Oswald was of average height, and one could say he was a "tall" 5'9" since he was sometimes taken to be 5'10" or 5'11". In fact, Oswald was taller than Mrs. Markham. However, some people would describe a 5'9" man as short (or perhaps "a little short").


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Pt 2.

LANE. And was he a little bit on the heavy side?
MARKHAM. Uh, not too heavy. 
Comment: "Not too heavy"? Tippit's killer was "not too heavy"? In contrast, Oswald was almost skinny. In fact, many would say Oswald was slender. He was not heavy at all.

LANE. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?
MARKHAM. Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too heavy, uh-uh. 
Comment: Markham seems to have been waffling a bit here. In any case, while Tippit's killer might not have looked "too heavy," Oswald didn't look the least bit heavy. One can't help but wonder if Markham's description to Lane as "not too heavy" only proves that initially she did describe the man as being "stocky" or "kind of heavy," just as the reporter said she did. One wonders if Mrs. Markham was simply trying to back away from the description she gave to the reporter because she realized it did not match Oswald. On the other hand, in fairness to Mrs. Markham it should be noted that Officer J. M. Poe said Markham told him the killer had a slender build (see below).

LANE. He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather bushy hair, kind of hair?
MARKHAM. Yes, just a little bit bushy, uh huh.
LANE. It was a little bit bushy.
MARKHAM. Yes. 
Comment: So Mrs. Markham said the killer's hair was "a little bushy." But Oswald's hair was straight. In fact, in photos taken of him at the police station, which was after he had scuffled with police at the theater, his hair appears fairly well groomed. One could say it was slightly uncombed on the front top side, but that's about it. I can't see anyone describing it as "a little bushy." Additionally, and this is an important point, Oswald's hair would not have appeared at all uncombed at the Tippit scene, assuming he was even there, which has yet to be established.

As mentioned, when Officer J. M. Poe interviewed Mrs. Markham, she told him Tippit's killer had bushy hair. She said the killer was "a white male about 25 years old, 5'10", slender build, bushy hair, wearing a brown jacket" (Myers, With Malice, p. 118, emphasis added). The jacket that the police claimed Oswald discarded after allegedly shooting Tippit wasn't even close to being brown in color. The police initially said the jacket they reportedly "found" was white. The jacket that was finally submitted as evidence was gray with a slight touch of blue.

*Interestingly, Mrs. Markham was not the only witness who said Tippit's killer had "bushy" hair. When Sgt. Gerald Hill arrived at the murder scene, a witness came up to him and said the man who had shot Officer Tippit "had on a jacket and a pair of trousers, and brown bushy hair" (7 H 47-48; Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 117, emphasis added).*
Let's skip ahead a bit as Mrs. Markham began to talk about her conversations with the Dallas Police Department (DPD):

LANE. Did you say that he was short and a little bit on the heavy side and had slightly bushy hair?
MARKHAM. Uh, no, I did not. They didn't ask me that. 
Comment: The "they" here are the Dallas police. So the police didn't ask if the killer was a bit on the heavy side and had slightly bushy hair. This is not at all surprising, since, amazingly, they had already, somehow, ruled out all other suspects, as well as the need to look for other suspects. They had their man, though to this day no one can explain why the Dallas police would have legitimately wanted Oswald in the first place so soon after the assassination. It seems that certain elements of the DPD were tipped off about Oswald prior to the assassination.

LANE. And when you were there, did they ever ask you anything else about Oswald? About whether he was tall or short?
MARKHAM. Uh, yes, sir. They asked me that.
LANE. And you said he was short, eh?
MARKHAM. Yes, sir, he is short. He was short. 
Comment: He was of average height. He was taller than Mrs. Markham. He was sometimes thought to be 5'10" or 5'11". Again, though, some people might call a 5'9" man "short." I don't think most people would do so, but some might view a man of that height as short.

LANE. He was short. And they asked if he was thin or heavy, and you said he was a little on the heavy side?
MARKHAM. And he was, uh, uh, well not too heavy. Uh, say around 160, maybe 150. 
Comment: Mrs. Markham's weight estimates aside, note that she once again said he was "not too heavy." But Oswald, on the other hand, was not the least bit heavy. One can't get too much mileage out of her use of the phrase "not too heavy." The point is that Oswald was not the slightest bit heavy. He was, if anything, slender and almost skinny.

LANE. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a little heavy?
MARKHAM. Uh-huh. 
Comment: Let's read that again, bearing in mind that the context of the question was what she had said to the police:

LANE. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a little heavy?
MARKHAM. Uh-Huh. 
Comment: So Mrs. Markham admitted telling the DPD that Tippit's killer was "a little heavy." This contradicted what she reportedly told Officer Poe. Oswald was not the least bit heavy. It took Lane a while to get her to admit it, but he finally got her to acknowledge that she did tell the Dallas police that Tippit's assailant was "a little heavy." Did she just err in describing the killer's build when she spoke with Officer Poe, and did she in fact really believe the assailant was somewhat heavy?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Here's the rest of it....

Did Markham Identify Oswald?


----------



## mkloby (Jul 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here's the rest of it....
> 
> Did Markham Identify Oswald?



Interesting - that transcript reads like me lying to my mom when I was 8 years old about getting in trouble in school.

"yeah, well sort of, a little bit, kinda, but not really, actually no..."


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2007)

> Dennis David, who saw JFK's wounds on autopsy photos, indicates where he saw an entry wound.



The above is intriguing. From frames of the famous footage and various books, Kennedy's head appears to literally 'explode'. Half the poor mans head disappeared;
"...blowing off part of his skull and destroying the right front section of his brain".
At the Parkland Memorial Dr Malcolm Perry performed a tracheotomy (which obliterated the neck wound) and he was placed on artificial respiration.

Despite the gross anatomical damage, the man above can discern a "small hole" from a "postmortem photo"? Where are those photos now?

The autopsy was/is the problem;
"A great deal of the controversy and madness surrounding the assassination could have easily been prevented if a thorough autopsy* had* been performed. The brief postmortem examination, which should have taken two or three days, was rushed through in a few hours because Bobby and Jacqueline Kennedy insisted on staying at Bethesda Naval Hospital during the autopsy, and they reportedly made it known that they wanted it done quickly. Also, it is believed that Kennedy's brain, which would have provided answers to many questions about the head shot (and which was discovered missing from the the National Archives in 1966), was believed to have been disposed of by Robert Kennedy for fear it would become "a lurid public exhibition"

Postscript regarding Tippit. Abraham Zapruder gave $25,000 (received from _Life _ magazine, for his colour footage of the assassination) to Tippit's widow. In 1999, the U.S. government paid Zapruder's family $16 million for the film, which was declared a permanent possession of the American people.

When do we move onto King and Bobby


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Graeme said:


> When do we move onto King and Bobby


Anytime....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Interesting - that transcript reads like me lying to my mom when I was 8 years old about getting in trouble in school.
> 
> "yeah, well sort of, a little bit, kinda, but not really, actually no..."




It sure does....

This is one consparicy theory I have followed for a number of years because every corner of it has problems when you look at the official story. If one looks outside the box and reads about the Kennedys, their father, their connections, its no wonder JFK got "Whacked," in plain simple terms.

Its kind of funny - Graeme brings up MLK - the King family including Coletta Scott King (prior to her death) publicly stated that they believed James Earl Ray DID NOT kill MLK.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Despite the gross anatomical damage, the man above can discern a "small hole" from a "postmortem photo"? Where are those photos now?



Take your pick....


The Autopsy Pictures

The headwound according to witnesses


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2007)

*INCREDIBLE*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

It is. As stated, in every corner of this there is contradictory information with regards to the Warren Commission report and eye-witness testimony. I saw this the other day...

The Kennedy Assassination: Was There a Conspiracy? - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 7, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> What do you think about Robert Kennedy's assasination? I've seen a couple of documentaries about it and to say the least there was something shady in the investigation. Witnesses harassed, etc.


The LAPD did not want another fiasco so they quickly gathered evidence so well they actually destroyed critical evidence. Despite the signs of those times I'd find it ironic that another "nut" would come out and pop RFK just for his anger over RFK's support for Israel. Sirhan Sirhan was a Lebanese Christian and displayed some real bizzare behavior prior to the assassination. Two theories exist.

1. Sirhan was brainwashed and was the sole gunman
2. A security guard behind Kennedy was his killer.

"Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination is greatly overshadowed by his brother John’s in the American consciousness.

But the inconsistencies in the official account of the RFK case are just as well-documented, damning, and thoroughly covered up.

The evidence, when looked at objectively and with an open mind, points to a wider conspiracy and cover-up by forces including the U.S. government and LAPD.

At the time of his assassination, Robert Kennedy was well on his way to becoming the next president of the United States. He was a populist candidate, loved by minorities and the working class.

He spoke eloquently about peace, equality and justice. He would have likely tried to put an end to the Vietnam war and to limit or even abolish the CIA.

Robert F. Kennedy was shot in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles just after giving his victory speech in the California primary for the Democratic presidential nomination. Not even 5 years after the killing of his brother, RFK, a progressive, highly popular candidate for president, was also stopped by a bullet to the head from a supposed “lone nut.”

While these circumstances are highly suspicious in themselves, we will see that as with the JFK assassination, the most basic facts–the trajectory of the bullets, the location of the supposed assassin, the nature of the injuries–are completely inconsistent with the government’s story.

Evidence
• Powder burns on Kennedy’s clothing and skin revealed that all three of his wounds were from a gun fired from 0 to 1-1/2 inches away. Sirhan’s gun could not possibly have done this; according to the witnesses Sirhan’s gun never got closer than three feet away. 1

• LA Coroner Thomas Noguchi, determined that the fatal shot came from about an inch away, right under Kennedy’s ear. Thus the shot came from behind Kennedy, while Sirhan was several feet in front of him. In his autobiography Noguchi stated, “”Until more is precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.” 7

• Three CIA operatives have recently been identified in photographs and video and placed at the Ambassador Hotel the night RFK was killed. The agents, David Morales, George Joannides, and Gordon Campbell worked together at the infamous Miami CIA station, JMWAVE. 9

• According to the BBC, “even under hypnosis, [Sirhan] has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time…Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University, believes Sirhan may have been hypnotically programmed to act as a decoy for the real assassin.” 9

• Sirhan Sirhan’s revolver held a maximum of eight bullets. Kennedy was shot four times: one shot entered the head behind the right ear, a second one near the right armpit, a third just below the second and a fourth that went through Kennedy’s jacket but did not hit his body. Five other people were shot in addition to Kennedy, one of whom was shot twice. Barring any more “magic bullets,” that is a total of 10 bullets. Additionally, witnesses and photographs reveal that several ceiling tiles were pierced by bullets, making it nearly impossible that Sirhan was the only gunman.

• Thane Cesar was a security guard who was pressed up against Kennedy’s back right side and was holding Kennedy’s right arm in his left hand as Sirhan jumped out and fired his first two shots. Witnesses reported seeing Cesar fire back at Sirhan, one even specifying that Cesar “accidentally” shot Kennedy. ” 

While this site has good information, I disagree with their 9-11 consparicy stance in other sections of the site. In comparing a 911 conspiricy to the Kennedy Assassination there's as much holes in it as the Warren Commission report.

That's where I part company with "Conspiracy Theorist."

TruthMove - RFK


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

Here's some other "stuff."

Disappearing Witnesses

I think the author Jim Marrs said Loyds of London put the odds of one in six million of these people witnessing "something" and turning up dead shortly thereafter.


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 7, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> Good info FlyboyJ. I recall one more thing, a female witness who saw two persons, a woman and a man, leaving the Ambassador Hotel via back door. The woman was saying to the man "We shot him, We shot him". Later that witness was told by the police/FBI that she actually heard "they shot him, they shot him".


Yes, and that witness was badgered and bullied by the LAPD...


----------



## Graeme (Jul 7, 2007)

From FLYBOY above.

Just to comment on two points;



> • LA Coroner Thomas Noguchi, determined that the fatal shot came from about an inch away, right under Kennedy’s ear. Thus the shot came from behind Kennedy, while Sirhan was several feet in front of him. In his autobiography Noguchi stated, “”Until more is precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.” 7



In 1968, an investigator on Sirhan's defense team asked Sirhan why he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes. He was definitely close enough to the senator and, because it is accepted that he was in front of Kennedy, it would have been the most effective shot to take. Apparently, shooting Kennedy in the face was precisely what Sirhan had intended to do. Sirhan immediately replied, "Because the son of a bitch turned his head at the last second." 




> • Sirhan Sirhan’s revolver held a maximum of eight bullets. Kennedy was shot four times: one shot entered the head behind the right ear, a second one near the right armpit, a third just below the second and a fourth that went through Kennedy’s jacket but did not hit his body. Five other people were shot in addition to Kennedy, one of whom was shot twice. Barring any more “magic bullets,” that is a total of 10 bullets.



From Dan Moldea's book, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, Moldea believes that the bullet holes in the wooden door panel that were seen in photographs of the crime scene were not actually bullet holes and that untrained eyes probably identified them incorrectly.

Another conspiracy issue was that bullets fired in 1975, from Sirhan's gun bore a different marking to those recovered from the assassination crime scene. However Moldea interviewed several police officers who admitted that Sirhan's gun had been reloaded and fired privately after the shooting so that officers could have _souvenir bullets _ fired from the gun that killed Robert Kennedy. These extra shots-the exact number of which is not known-created a residue in the barrel of Sirhan's pistol that resulted in the 1975 bullets bearing different markings than the eight fired by Sirhan.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2007)

I'm in Dallas texas this weekend.

Funny I saw this thread as I just got back from Dealy Plaza and the JFK assasination museum.

When I get back home, I will post the picture for everyone to enjoy.

Note to any of you who are also railfans..... theres a light rail station right next to this place. If you want to visit the museum, take the train.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I'm in Dallas texas this weekend.
> 
> Funny I saw this thread as I just got back from Dealy Plaza and the JFK assasination museum.
> 
> ...



I doubt the truth to this..But I read somewhere that there is a 'sign' at the old depository/JFK museum that says "No guns allowed".


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2007)

Graeme said:


> I doubt the truth to this..But I read somewhere that there is a 'sign' at the old depository/JFK museum that says "No guns allowed".




Its everywhere.

Including the bar in the hotel.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

I've been to the site twice - its true!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

Graeme said:


> From FLYBOY above.
> 
> In 1968, an investigator on Sirhan's defense team asked Sirhan why he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes. He was definitely close enough to the senator and, because it is accepted that he was in front of Kennedy, it would have been the most effective shot to take. Apparently, shooting Kennedy in the face was precisely what Sirhan had intended to do. Sirhan immediately replied, "Because the son of a bitch turned his head at the last second."


And it was the same defense team that argued that Sirhan seemed to be hypnotized with little or no recollection of the incident.




Graeme said:


> From Dan Moldea's book, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, Moldea believes that the bullet holes in the wooden door panel that were seen in photographs of the crime scene were not actually bullet holes and that untrained eyes probably identified them incorrectly.


Heard that as well but the LAPD destroyed the place so it couldn't be proven or dis-proven.


Graeme said:


> Another conspiracy issue was that bullets fired in 1975, from Sirhan's gun bore a different marking to those recovered from the assassination crime scene. However Moldea interviewed several police officers who admitted that Sirhan's gun had been reloaded and fired privately after the shooting so that officers could have _souvenir bullets _ fired from the gun that killed Robert Kennedy. These extra shots-the exact number of which is not known-created a residue in the barrel of Sirhan's pistol that resulted in the 1975 bullets bearing different markings than the eight fired by Sirhan.


I never heard that but I find question in that whole scenario. It doesn't matter if the gun sat for a while, residue doesn't create the bullet fingerprint of the gun, it's the barrel bullet combination. Even if residue or corrosion is formed in the barrel, the fingerprint of the bullet exiting the gun shouldn't really change.


----------



## mkloby (Jul 7, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I never heard that but I find question in that whole scenario. It doesn't matter if the gun sat for a while, residue doesn't create the bullet fingerprint of the gun, it's the barrel bullet combination. Even if residue or corrosion is formed in the barrel, the fingerprint of the bullet exiting the gun shouldn't really change.



That didn't make any sense to me either...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

More food for thought...

"RFK Immediately Thought Brother's Assassination Was Conspiracy 

Salon | May 03, 2007 
David Talbot 

One of the most intriguing mysteries about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that darkest of American labyrinths, is why his brother Robert F. Kennedy apparently did nothing to investigate the crime. Bobby Kennedy was, after all, not just the attorney general of the United States at the time of the assassination -- he was his brother's devoted partner, the man who took on the administration's most grueling assignments, from civil rights to organized crime to Cuba, the hottest Cold War flashpoint of its day. But after the burst of gunfire in downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, ended this unique partnership, Bobby Kennedy seemed lost in a fog of grief, refusing to discuss the assassination with the Warren Commission, and telling friends he had no heart for an aggressive investigation. "What difference does it make?" he would say. "It won't bring him back." 

But Bobby Kennedy was a complex man, and his years in Washington had taught him to keep his own counsel and proceed in a subterranean fashion. What he said in public about Dallas was not the full story. Privately, RFK -- who had made his name in the 1950s as a relentless investigator of the underside of American power -- was consumed by the need to know the real story about his brother's assassination. This fire seized him on the afternoon of Nov. 22, as soon as FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, a bitter political enemy, phoned to say -- almost with pleasure, thought Bobby -- that the president had been shot. And the question of who killed his brother continued to haunt Kennedy until the day he too was gunned down, on June 5, 1968. 

Because of his proclivity for operating in secret, RFK did not leave behind a documentary record of his inquiries into his brother's assassination. But it is possible to retrace his investigative trail, beginning with the afternoon of Nov. 22, when he frantically worked the phones at Hickory Hill -- his Civil War-era mansion in McLean, Va. -- and summoned aides and government officials to his home. Lit up with the clarity of shock, the electricity of adrenaline, Bobby Kennedy constructed the outlines of the crime that day -- a crime, he immediately concluded, that went far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine arrested shortly after the assassination. Robert Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist. 

CIA sources began disseminating their own conspiratorial view of Kennedy's murder within hours of the crime, spotlighting Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union and his public support for Fidel Castro. In New Orleans, an anti-Castro news organization released a tape of Oswald defending the bearded dictator. In Miami, the Cuban Student Directorate -- an exile group funded secretly by a CIA program code-named AMSPELL -- told reporters about Oswald's connections to the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. But Robert Kennedy never believed the assassination was a communist plot. Instead, he looked in the opposite direction, focusing his suspicions on the CIA's secretive anti-Castro operations, a murky underworld he had navigated as his brother's point man on Cuba. Ironically, RFK's suspicions were shared by Castro himself, whom he had sought to overthrow throughout the Kennedy presidency. 

The attorney general was supposed to be in charge of the clandestine war on Castro -- another daunting assignment JFK gave him, after the spy agency's disastrous performance at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. But as he tried to establish control over CIA operations and to herd the rambunctious Cuban exile groups into a unified progressive front, Bobby learned what a swamp of intrigue the anti-Castro world was. Working out of a sprawling Miami station code-named JM/WAVE that was second in size only to the CIA's Langley, Va., headquarters, the agency had recruited an unruly army of Cuban militants to launch raids on the island and even contracted Mafia henchmen to kill Castro -- including mob bosses Johnny Rosselli, Santo Trafficante and Sam Giancana, whom Kennedy, as chief counsel for the Senate Rackets Committee in the late 1950s, had targeted. It was an overheated ecosystem that was united not just by its fevered opposition to the Castro regime, but by its hatred for the Kennedys, who were regarded as traitors for failing to use the full military might of the United States against the communist outpost in the Caribbean. 

This Miami netherworld of spies, gangsters and Cuban militants is where Robert Kennedy immediately cast his suspicions on Nov. 22. In the years since RFK's own assassination, an impressive body of evidence has accumulated that suggests why Kennedy felt compelled to look in that direction. The evidence -- congressional testimony, declassified government documents, even veiled confessions -- continues to emerge at this late date, although largely unnoticed. The most recent revelation came from legendary spy E. Howard Hunt before his death in January. Hunt offered what might be the last will and testament on the JFK assassination by someone with direct knowledge about the crime. In his recent posthumously published memoir, "American Spy," Hunt speculates that the CIA might have been involved in Kennedy's murder. And in handwritten notes and an audiotape he left behind, the spy went further, revealing that he was invited to a 1963 meeting at a CIA safe house in Miami where an assassination plot was discussed. 

Bobby Kennedy knew that he and his brother had made more than their share of political enemies. But none were more virulent than the men who worked on the Bay of Pigs operation and believed the president had stabbed them in the back, refusing to rescue their doomed operation by sending in the U.S. Air Force and Marines. Later, when President Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 without invading Cuba, these men saw not statesmanship but another failure of nerve. In Cuban Miami, they spoke of la seconda derrota, the second defeat. These anti-Kennedy sentiments, at times voiced heatedly to Bobby's face, resonated among the CIA's partners in the secret war on Castro -- the Mafia bosses who longed to reclaim their lucrative gambling and prostitution franchises in Havana that had been shut down by the revolution, and who were deeply aggrieved by the Kennedy Justice Department's all-out war on organized crime. But Bobby, the hard-liner who covered his brother's right flank on the Cuba issue, thought that he had turned himself into the main lightning rod for all this anti-Kennedy static. 

"I thought they would get me, instead of the president," he told his Justice Department press aide, Edwin Guthman, as they walked back and forth on the backyard lawn at Hickory Hill on the afternoon of Nov. 22. Guthman and others around Bobby that day thought "they" might be coming for the younger Kennedy next. So apparently did Bobby. Normally opposed to tight security measures -- "Kennedys don't need bodyguards," he had said with typical brashness -- he allowed his aides to summon federal marshals, who quickly surrounded his estate. 

Meanwhile, as Lyndon Johnson -- a man with whom he had a storied antagonistic relationship -- flew east from Dallas to assume the powers of the presidency, Bobby Kennedy used his fleeting authority to ferret out the truth. After hearing his brother had died at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Kennedy phoned CIA headquarters, just down the road in Langley, where he often began his day, stopping there to work on Cuba-related business. Bobby's phone call to Langley on the afternoon of Nov. 22 was a stunning outburst. Getting a ranking official on the phone -- whose identity is still unknown -- Kennedy confronted him in a voice vibrating with fury and pain. "Did your outfit have anything to do with this horror?" Kennedy erupted. 

Later that day, RFK summoned the CIA director himself, John McCone, to ask him the same question. McCone, who had replaced the legendary Allen Dulles after the old spymaster had walked the plank for the Bay of Pigs, swore that his agency was not involved. But Bobby Kennedy knew that McCone, a wealthy Republican businessman from California with no intelligence background, did not have a firm grasp on all aspects of the agency's work. Real control over the clandestine service revolved around the No. 2 man, Richard Helms, the shrewd bureaucrat whose intelligence career went back to the agency's OSS origins in World War II. "It was clear that McCone was out of the loop -- Dick Helms was running the agency," recently commented RFK aide John Seigenthaler -- another crusading newspaper reporter, like Guthman, whom Bobby had recruited for his Justice Department team. "Anything McCone found out was by accident." 

Kennedy had another revealing phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. Speaking with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it." Who did Kennedy mean? By then Oswald had been arrested in Dallas. The CIA and its anti-Castro client groups were already trying to connect the alleged assassin to the Havana regime. But as Kennedy's blunt remark to Williams makes clear, the attorney general wasn't buying it. Recent evidence suggests that Bobby Kennedy had heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald long before it exploded in news bulletins around the world, and he connected it with the government's underground war on Castro. With Oswald's arrest in Dallas, Kennedy apparently realized that the government's clandestine campaign against Castro had boomeranged at his brother.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

Part 2...

That evening, Kennedy zeroed in on the Mafia. He phoned Julius Draznin in Chicago, an expert on union corruption for the National Labor Relations Board, asking him to look into a possible mob angle on Dallas. More important, the attorney general activated Walter Sheridan, his ace Justice Department investigator, locating him in Nashville, where Sheridan was awaiting the trial of their longtime nemesis, Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa. 

If Kennedy had any doubts about a Mafia involvement in his brother's murder, they were immediately dispelled when, two days after JFK was shot down, burly nightclub owner Jack Ruby shouldered his way through press onlookers in the basement of the Dallas police station and fired his fatal bullet into Lee Harvey Oswald. Sheridan quickly turned up evidence that Ruby had been paid off in Chicago by a close associate of Hoffa. Sheridan reported that Ruby had "picked up a bundle of money from Allen M. Dorfman," Hoffa's chief advisor on Teamster pension fund loans and the stepson of Paul Dorfman, the labor boss' main link to the Chicago mob. A few days later, Draznin, Kennedy's man in Chicago, provided further evidence about Ruby's background as a mob enforcer, submitting a detailed report on Ruby's labor racketeering activities and his penchant for armed violence. Jack Ruby's phone records further clinched it for Kennedy. The list of men whom Ruby phoned around the time of the assassination, RFK later told aide Frank Mankiewicz, was "almost a duplicate of the people I called to testify before the Rackets Committee." 

As family members and close friends gathered in the White House on the weekend after the assassination for the president's funeral, a raucous mood of Irish mourning gripped the executive mansion. But Bobby didn't participate in the family's doleful antics. Coiled and sleepless throughout the weekend, he brooded alone about his brother's murder. According to an account by Peter Lawford, the actor and Kennedy in-law who was there that weekend, Bobby told family members that JFK had been killed by a powerful plot that grew out of one of the government's secret anti-Castro operations. There was nothing they could do at that point, Bobby added, since they were facing a formidable enemy and they no longer controlled the government. Justice would have to wait until the Kennedys could regain the White House -- this would become RFK's mantra in the years after Dallas, whenever associates urged him to speak out about the mysterious crime. 

A week after the assassination, Bobby and his brother's widow, Jacqueline Kennedy -- who shared his suspicions about Dallas -- sent a startling secret message to Moscow through a trusted family emissary named William Walton. The discreet and loyal Walton "was exactly the person that you would pick for a mission like this," his friend Gore Vidal later observed. Walton, a Time magazine war correspondent who had reinvented himself as a gay Georgetown bohemian, had grown close to both JFK and Jackie in their carefree days before they moved into the White House. Later, the first couple gave him an unpaid role in the administration, appointing him chairman of the Fine Arts Commission, but it was mainly an excuse to make him a frequent White House guest and confidant. 

After JFK's assassination, the president's brother and widow asked Walton to go ahead as planned with a cultural exchange trip to Russia, where he was to meet with artists and government ministers, and convey an urgent message to the Kremlin. Soon after arriving in frigid Moscow, fighting a cold and dabbing at his nose with a red handkerchief, Walton met at the ornate Sovietskaya restaurant with Georgi Bolshakov -- an ebullient, roly-poly Soviet agent with whom Bobby had established a back-channel relationship in Washington. Walton stunned the Russian by telling him that the Kennedys believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy. They didn't think either Moscow or Havana was behind the plot, Walton assured Bolshakov -- it was a large domestic conspiracy. The president's brother was determined to enter the political arena and eventually make a run for the White House. If RFK succeeded, Walton confided, he would resume his brother's quest for détente with the Soviets. 

Robert Kennedy's remarkable secret communication to Moscow shows how emotionally wracked he must have been in the days following his brother's assassination. The calamity transformed him instantly from a cocky, abrasive insider -- the second most powerful man in Washington -- to a grief-stricken, deeply wary outsider who put more trust in the Russian government than he did in his own. The Walton mission has been all but lost to history. But it is one more revealing tale that sheds light on Bobby Kennedy's subterranean life between his brother's assassination and his own violent demise less than five years later. 

Over the years, Kennedy would offer bland and routine endorsements of the Warren Report and its lone gunman theory. But privately he derided the report as nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to reassure the public. And behind the scenes, he continued to work assiduously to figure out his brother's murder, in preparation for reopening the case if he ever won the power to do so. 

Bobby held onto medical evidence from his brother's autopsy, including JFK's brain and tissue samples, which might have proved important in a future investigation. He also considered taking possession of the gore-spattered, bullet-riddled presidential limousine that had carried his brother in Dallas, before the black Lincoln could be scrubbed clean of evidence and repaired. He enlisted his top investigator, Walt Sheridan, in his secret quest -- the former FBI agent and fellow Irish Catholic whom Bobby called his "avenging angel." Even after leaving the Justice Department in 1964, when he was elected to the Senate from New York, Kennedy and Sheridan would slip back into the building now and then to pore over files on the case. And soon after his election, Kennedy traveled to Mexico City, where he gathered information on Oswald's mysterious trip there in September 1963. 

In 1967, Sheridan went to New Orleans to check into the Jim Garrison investigation, to see whether the flamboyant prosecutor really had cracked the JFK case. (Sheridan was working as an NBC news producer at the time, but he reported back to RFK, telling him that Garrison was a fraud.) And Kennedy asked his press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, to begin gathering information about the assassination for the day when they could reopen the investigation. (Mankiewicz later told Bobby that his research led him to conclude it was probably a plot involving the Mafia, Cuban exiles and rogue CIA agents.) Kennedy himself found it painful to discuss conspiracy theories with the ardent researchers who sought him out. But he met in his Senate office with at least one -- a feisty small-town Texas newspaper publisher named Penn Jones Jr., who believed JFK was the victim of a CIA-Pentagon plot. Bobby heard him out and then had his driver take Jones to Arlington Cemetery, where the newspaperman wanted to pay his respects at his brother's grave. 

At times, this drive to know the truth would sputter, as Robert Kennedy wrestled with debilitating grief and a haunting guilt that he -- his brother's constant watchman -- should have protected him. And, ever cautious, Bobby continued to deflect the subject whenever he was confronted with it by the press. But as time went by, it became increasingly difficult for Kennedy to avoid wrestling with the specter of his brother's death in public. 

In late March 1968, during his doomed and heroic run for the presidency, Kennedy was addressing a tumultuous outdoor campus rally in Northridge, Calif., when some boisterous students shouted out the question he always dreaded. "We want to know who killed President Kennedy!" yelled one girl, while others took up the cry: "Open the archives!" 

Kennedy's response that day was a tightrope walk. He knew that if he fully revealed his thinking about the assassination, the ensuing media uproar would have dominated his campaign, instead of burning issues like ending the Vietnam War and healing the country's racial divisions. For a man like Robert Kennedy, you did not talk about something as dark as the president's assassination in public -- you explored the crime your own way. 

But Kennedy respected college students and their passions -- and he was in the habit of addressing campus audiences with surprising honesty. He did not want to simply deflect the question that day with his standard line. So, while dutifully endorsing the Warren Report as usual, he went further. "You wanted to ask me something about the archives," he responded. "I'm sure, as I've said before, the archives will be open." The crowd cheered and applauded. "Can I just say," continued Kennedy, "and I have answered this question before, but there is no one who would be more interested in all of these matters as to who was responsible for uh…the uh, uh, the death of President Kennedy than I would." Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz, long used to Kennedy ducking the question, was "stunned" by the reply. "It was either like he was suddenly blurting out the truth, or it was a way to shut down any further questioning. You know, 'Yes, I will reopen the case. Now let's move on.'" 

Robert Kennedy did not live long enough to solve his brother's assassination. But nearly 40 years after his own murder, a growing body of evidence suggests that Kennedy was on the right trail before he too was cut down. Despite his verbal contortions in public, Bobby Kennedy always knew that the truth about Dallas mattered. It still does."


----------



## Graeme (Jul 8, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I never heard that but I find question in that whole scenario. It doesn't matter if the gun sat for a while, residue doesn't create the bullet fingerprint of the gun, it's the barrel bullet combination. Even if residue or corrosion is formed in the barrel, the fingerprint of the bullet exiting the gun shouldn't really change.



Quoted verbatim from "On Target-Famous Assassinations and Attempts from Julius Caesar to John Lennon." By Stephen J. Spignesi, who must be quoting from Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed." 

What you say makes sense. I assumed the case must have been re-examined again in 1975?


----------



## Graeme (Jul 8, 2007)

Regarding FLYBOY's 'Food for Thought' posts. Should we consider Bobby?

This is from C. David Heymann's book. 'RFK'-A Candid Biography.

Jim Garrison, the flamboyant New Orleans district attorney who challenged the Warren Commission's conclusions, recalled a telephone conversation he had with RFK in 1964: "I told him some of my theories. He listened carefully, then said, 'Maybe so, maybe you're right. But what good will it do to know the truth? Will it bring back my brother?' I said, 'I find it hard to believe that as the top law man in the country you don't want to pursue the truth more ardently.' With this he hung up on me"

RFK not only didn't pursue the facts behind his brother's assassination, he went so far as to disband the Organised Crime Task Force, which he had earlier formed to probe Mafia and mob activities, including Teamster racketeering and overt police corruption.

It's also possible that the Kennedy's dealings with the Mafia would be revealed from a thorough probe, something RFK did not want. The attorney general's efforts to avoid certain disclosures about his brother-and to control those he couldn't avoid-began only hours after the shooting. Dr Pierre Finck, a surgeon involved in JFK's autopsy, remembers that one of the high-ranking military officers present instructed him not to dissect the track of the bullet wound in the president's back. The order Finck maintained, originated from "the Kennedy family." Most likely, Bobby and Jackie meddled with the autopsy to avoid exposure of the dead president's adrenal glands, atrophied from Addison's disease. Revealing the infirmity would lay bear the deception Jack and his family had perpetrated over the years by portraying his outward image as one of robust health.

RFK also organised the removal, following the autopsy, of X-rays, photographs, 119 microscopic tissue slides, 58 slides of blood smears taken during JFK's senatorial and presidential years, as well as the president's chemically preserved brain. Stored in the Executive Office Building, and although technically in the custody of the Secret Service, the materials, and the locked file cabinet into which they had been sequestered, where controlled by Dr. Burkley. The materials remained stored in that location for nearly a year and a half, with neither the Warren Commission nor the FBI examining them before the commission filed its report.

For two years this locked file played a game of 'musical chairs', always out of reach when requested for evidence. RFK made the task hard, being uncooperative, but eventually conceding to a Statute enforced by Lyndon Johnson's attorney general, Ramsey Clark, to hand the file over. But when officials at the National Archives were given the key to the file (now a footlocker!) a few days later, they discovered that although the majority of the photos and X-rays were present, pictures of the brain and of the interior cavity of the chest-that is showing the sites of the gunshot wounds-were gone. The tissue and blood slides had also disappeared, as had the stainless steel container holding the brain itself.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations, in the late 1970's concluded, that RFK either destroyed the materials or rendered them inaccessible for reasons of 'dignity'.

But was the defense of Jack's dignity in death the only reason? Or did Bobby fear that forensic evidence might point to more than one gunman, a conclusion that could lead to disclosure of the deepest secrets of the Kennedy administration? Was he looking to avert public knowledge of the president's Addison disease? Or of his amphetamine use?
The Kennedy myth had grown large since Jack's death. The truth could not be permitted to tarnish it.

Remember, it was Bobby who suggested that the President ride through the streets of Dallas in a car without using the specially outfitted bulletproof bubble top, despite the protests of Bryon Skelton, the Democratic National Committeeman from Texas. "It will give you more contact with the crowd," he had said.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Quoted verbatim from "On Target-Famous Assassinations and Attempts from Julius Caesar to John Lennon." By Stephen J. Spignesi, who must be quoting from Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed."
> 
> What you say makes sense. I assumed the case must have been re-examined again in 1975?


I never heard of any one else looking into this. BTW Posner has written many books on the subject to dispel the conspiricy theory. He's very knowledgeable and detailed, however most of his investigations deal with the mechanics of the assassinations (bullet trajectories, guns, etc.) but it seems in all his writings on the subject he refuses to investigate the "connections," organized crime, the CIA and the eye witnesses, the most ignored part of the puzzle. Again, if there was only one gunman, why not follow up on all leads to dispel all myths and speculation of a conspiricy?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Regarding FLYBOY's 'Food for Thought' posts. Should we consider Bobby?
> 
> This is from C. David Heymann's book. 'RFK'-A Candid Biography.
> 
> ...




Great points! The one that captures my attention is

*



RFK not only didn't pursue the facts behind his brother's assassination, he went so far as to disband the Organised Crime Task Force, which he had earlier formed to probe Mafia and mob activities, including Teamster racketeering and overt police corruption.

Click to expand...

*
At this point I think Bobby realized who he was now playing with.

And also...



> it was Bobby who suggested that the President ride through the streets of Dallas in a car without using the specially outfitted bulletproof bubble top, despite the protests of Bryon Skelton, the Democratic National Committeeman from Texas. "It will give you more contact with the crowd," he had said.


I remember reading somewhere this was the greatest guilt issue Bobby had to deal with...


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 23, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2007)

I've seen it before and I think it's kind of funny in a way. It address only the actual shooting and the physics behind it. Throw in the several hundred eye witnesses who were witness to something other than the "party line" and the premise behind the game falls apart. Very clever though!


----------



## Cyrano (Jul 23, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2007)

The same simulation was used by Posner to argue aganst the conspiricy. It still don't explain the magic bullet.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 24, 2007)

An interesting documentary aired on SBS Australia last Friday night titled, JFK's Women:The Scandals Revealed. Essentially a valid claim is made that even if Kennedy had dodged the bullets at Dallas, he was never going to be able to dodge the 'political' bullets. If he hadn't been killed, he would have been bought down by a sex scandal that would have destroyed his career, his family and his reputation. Scandals which Bobby Kennedy was finding increasingly harder to cover up. One theory put forward to explain his 'excessive libido' was the result of testosterone injections for his Addisons disease.


----------



## pedro4isabel (Jul 24, 2007)

I just do not know


----------



## ccheese (Jul 24, 2007)

Boy ! You'se guys really got heated up about this. I will say (as a new- comer) that I admire all of you for keeping it civil. Everybody has an opinion,
and you all know what opinions are like.

I remember the day he was killed. I was aboard the USS Essex (CVS-9)
sitting in the harbor at Karachi, Pakistan. We were anchored with a bunch 
of ships, among them the HMS Ark Royal, who was Senior Officer Present
Afloat (SOPA). At colors in the morning, Ark Royal runs her colors up, then
drops them to half staff. We inquired why ? Her reply was, "Don't you
know?? Your president Kennedy has been killed" ! They heard it from the 
BBC. And we were not allowed to listen to news broadcasts.

Charles


----------

