Kennedy JFK Assasination

Conspiracy?

  • Total voters
    21

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
"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.
 
T4.H said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 

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."



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

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

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...
 
T4.H said:
Most of the conspiracy facts could also be explaind for the JFK assassination.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.


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




 


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
 
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!"
 
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?
Click to expand...
I just have some site filed...



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...
 
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").
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Who Killed Kennedy?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
8K
k9kiwi
Menu
Log in
Register