Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

John F. Kennedy's murder

Who do you think is really behind it.

I believe it's the same power that was behind the 9/11. The richest elite motherfuckers of the USA, those who founded the Bilderberg, those who control the largest banks and too many members of the government. Those who want to control the world.

Each and every one of those motherfuckers have invested in the "war" business.

After having watched Oliver Stone's The Untold History of The United States I have realized that Kennedy was the only decent president in the USA history that wanted things to be right and equal. Obama is just a Bilderberg tool. After all, they DID support his election.

I think Obama went in with such fresh hopes and ideas but when he was revealed the truth about what's going on in the world and especially in the USA, and what his role is....

If you lived here in Europe you'd see the bigger picture. And it's as clear as a cloudless sky. Europe is being forced into a union / federation. Already now Europe is controlled by the world banks and the corrupted shits that are the "EU leaders" in Brussels, not the leaders of the countries. The countried don't have any saying in any matters anymore.

The big wigs of the European Central bank are transferred there straight from Goldman-Sachs.

I used to be so naive but facts have turned me into a believer of the nightmare that is New World Order. After all, if you look at things, it's already happening.

by Anonymousreply 54511/29/2013

Lee Harvey Oswald.

by Anonymousreply 111/03/2013

One thing is clear: Stone's history of the US is must see viewing...and told from a real Patriot's perspective.

by Anonymousreply 211/03/2013

Get prepared to be called crazy, op although I don't think you are.

by Anonymousreply 311/03/2013

Refer to last month's thread on the subject.

by Anonymousreply 411/03/2013

Yes. An evil cabal. Most definitely.

by Anonymousreply 511/03/2013

The control the media has in the US is unbelievable.

In the Zapruder film you can obviously see Kennedy is hit from the front, yet the "official" story - that he was killed by Oswald, from BEHIND - is touted with the support of the media.

Look at TWA FLight 800. Hundreds of witnesses saw something flying UP towards the plane before the explosion. Yet the "official" story has everyone convinced that these witnesses saw debris flying DOWN, away from the exploded plane.

The media can literally convince people of the opposite of the truth.

Not even going to touch 9/11...

by Anonymousreply 611/03/2013

Anyone who believes anything Oliver Stone said should be carted off to a mental institution.

by Anonymousreply 711/03/2013

I guess it is already happy hour in Europe, after all.

by Anonymousreply 811/03/2013

Debby, from HR.

by Anonymousreply 911/03/2013

OP and R2, you do realize that Oliver Stone's "History" is incredibly biased and skewed, don't you? Or are you really that gullible?

by Anonymousreply 1011/03/2013

R6 "everyone" is not convinced that the official story is how TWA 800 happened. Only two types of people would believe the story. Those that have never read anything about it and the "officials" behind the official story. My 73 year old mother who poopoos all conspiracies believes TWA 800 was hit from the ground.

by Anonymousreply 1111/03/2013

Another vote for Lee Harvey Oswald.

by Anonymousreply 1211/03/2013

Republican insiders hired the assassin(s). Same as MLK.

by Anonymousreply 1311/03/2013

[quote]In the Zapruder film you can obviously see Kennedy is hit from the front, yet the "official" story - that he was killed by Oswald, from BEHIND - is touted with the support of the media.

You can see his head move rapidly back which leads many to believe he was hit from the front. However, that backwards movement can also be explained as a reflex.

by Anonymousreply 1411/03/2013

They aren't the same people OP, this is the critical fact which you have left out. Nobody who masterminded the JFK assassination is still around masterminding anything today. It's true that there is a small minority of psychopaths in the US military who want to control the world and who have created various mechanism to control foreign policy and politics, even though they are actually victims of abnormal psychology and are literally just like cartoon villains on Saturday morning television.

However, the people who populate Wall Street and the political system, both of which have the power to strangle the military, are a different kind of psychopath. They are the puppet masters, who in the manner of Franz von Papen, think they are in charge when they are not.

So who really is behind it all? The answer is, it is not an American. The US is being run by wealthy foreign interests, not by any U.S. interests.

by Anonymousreply 1511/03/2013

The Mob. They are the only organization that can kill someone in the middle of the street and get away with it. They had the motive too. They played a big part in getting him elected but in then end felt he double-crossed them. They were hoping Kennedy would get Castro out of Cuba so they could once again turn it into an organized crime paradise. And then there was the issue of his brother going after them.

by Anonymousreply 1611/03/2013

The Kennedys, especially that self-righteous twerp Bobby, went after the mob after the mob helped JFK steal the Presidency in Chicago and WV. What chutzpah.

What was Oswald's motive supposed to be anyway?

by Anonymousreply 1711/03/2013

It was that damned Obamacare!!!

by Anonymousreply 1811/03/2013

Oswald's only believable motive was money.

by Anonymousreply 1911/03/2013

r17 the only motive that people who I know to be ardent "lone gunman" defenders claim he had was that he wanted the notoriety of killing the president.

by Anonymousreply 2011/03/2013

Ethel shot his ass.

by Anonymousreply 2111/03/2013

And then she picked her nose, r21.

by Anonymousreply 2211/03/2013

The same people who murdered JFK's mistress Mary Pinchot Meyer shortly after the assassination: CIA, probably with help from some Military brass and one of the Dulles brothers (Allen).

by Anonymousreply 2311/03/2013

Just saw a fascinating doco here in Oz last night called "The Smoking Gun". It revisits the idea that an FBI agent called Hickey shot the president accidently after the initial shots from Oswald. Apparently he jumped up with a machine gun in the following car, and the gun discharged accidently hitting the president. What a trip, if true.

But wouldn't the agents jump on Hickey thinking he could be a double agent? They only had 6 minutes to get to the hospital so how could they conspire to engage in such a huge cover up?

Personally, I think the Corsican mob carried out the hit on the orders of Hoover. Oswald was used as a diversion. Wish we could find out for sure, though.

by Anonymousreply 2411/03/2013

Is this stealth marketing for that "Killing Kennedy" TV movie coming up?

by Anonymousreply 2511/03/2013

OP's premise is quite frightening. Mostly because it is highly plausible. Is there anything we can do other than clutch our pearls?

by Anonymousreply 2611/03/2013

Another vote for Oswald. I may not be sure of many things but of Oswald's singular guilt I have no doubt.

by Anonymousreply 2711/03/2013

I've always believed that President Kennedy was murdered, and not by Oswald alone. I have a certain amount of faith in Jim Garrison's work on the case.

9/11 was exactly what the majority of sane people in America think it was - 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who flew two airplanes into two buildings. Extra explosives were not required to take those buildings down. Those who believe anything else are idiots or mentally ill.

9/11 was exactly what the majority of sane people in America think it was - 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who flew two airplanes into two buildings. Extra explosives were not required to take those buildings down. I think anyone who believes anything else is an idiot or mentally ill.

The fact that rich people run the world is not a compelling nor even an interesting conspiracy theory. It's simply the reality of life, just as it has been since ancient times. Only fools and children freak out about it and spend a lot of time constructing elaborate scenarios. Money = power - go figure.

by Anonymousreply 2811/03/2013

r1, r12, and r27 are all the same person.

by Anonymousreply 2911/03/2013

Wrong, R29.

by Anonymousreply 3011/03/2013

R28 explain bldg 7?

by Anonymousreply 3111/03/2013

Since this month is the 50th anniversary expect a saturation of coverage of his killing. Personally i think it was a mob hit but the cia, oswald acting alone, cubans or anyone else the kennedys antagonized are all possibilities. I doubt we will ever know the full truth. The time to find out has long since passed.

by Anonymousreply 3211/03/2013

Not an original thought, but I do believe that most of the more virulent conspiracy mongers are on the left and they are informed by an unwillingness to believe that, Oswald, a man of the far left - rather than instruments of the far right - took down Kennedy. Why the left is enthralled by Kennedy is rather puzzling since, in reality, rather than legend, JFK was a rather conservative democrat, who ridiculed liberals. At his death, one of the leading magazines of the day called Kennedy the most conservative democratic president since Grover Cleveland.

by Anonymousreply 3311/03/2013

Yes, r33, it's just so conservative to be wanting to end our involvement in Vietnam. And to issue an executive order to have the Treasury issue currency.

by Anonymousreply 3411/03/2013

Oliver Stone is a dope, OP - he doesn't have a very coherent take on history (his Kennedy worship is Exhibit A). Just saying.

by Anonymousreply 3511/03/2013

I've posted this a million times, but here goes. It was very likely a Mafia hit aided and probably executed by CIA contractors. I'm not talking about regular CIA employees, but about the "contractors" they hired to maintain "plausible deniability." They were doing a lot of dirty stuff going back to the close of WWII.

The Mafia got close to the lunatics who the CIA hired to do their "wet work." These were guns for hire the Mafia met during the Bay of Pigs training, going back to the last days of the Eisenhower administration, and later, while the Mafia was trying to kill Castro at the behest of the U.S. Gov't.

So they hit the President. They really wanted Bobby, but they decided that they would chop off the head and that would take care of it. Bobby knew as soon as it happened who was behind it. The Mafia thought their problems were solved until Bobby decided to run for President. We all know how well that worked out.

by Anonymousreply 3611/03/2013

r33 = Ann Coulter.

by Anonymousreply 3711/03/2013

r28, r31 and I are both eagerly awaiting your explanation for WTC7's collapse later on in the day.

by Anonymousreply 3811/03/2013

There are crazy people who go out and shoot other people on a regular basis. Most of the victims are not famous. But when the victim is famous, it is always and I mean always, a conspiracy. I guess crazy people can't shoot famous people without help?

by Anonymousreply 3911/03/2013


Check the link. It is the start of a 10 part series weaving ties between the CIA, "Poppy" Bush, LBJ, Prescott, Oswald...

Bush #1 was in charge of much of the CIA assassination apparatus when JFK was murdered, and has gone to great distance to conceal and obfuscate the events surrounding his presence in Dallas that day.

Our government lies about EVERYTHING. Why believe the official "Lone Gunman" narrative fantasy?

by Anonymousreply 4011/03/2013

I've also said this a million times. People can dispute various aspects of the assassination from now until Doomsday, but the one thing I keep going back to, is, that it's physically impossible to get off three shots from a bolt action rifle with a faulty scope, which is what they claimed Oswald used, in the time frame they claim Oswald did it.

Oswald is not innocent, but he wasn't the main shooter. In his own words, he was "a patsy." Film can doctored, so can photographs. And so- called eye witnesses are regularly discredited. But that gun won't go away. In my mind's eye I can still see the dumb ass from the DPD holding it in the air.

And here's another thing. They showed the 6th floor at the Depository. It was worse than a maze. It was packed with boxes stacked all over the place haphazardly. The gun was not laying on the floor near the window. It was tossed in among some boxes in another spot. But they found it almost instantly. As if they knew right where to look.

There never was a ballistics test to verify that it was the weapon. Oswald got his ass kicked, and he was a dead man walking because he shot a cop. This was Dallas, Texas in the 60's. Cop killers usually did not live long enough to stand trial.

by Anonymousreply 4111/03/2013

has anyone read the new Jesse Ventura book on this topic?

by Anonymousreply 4211/03/2013

[quote] it's physically impossible to get off three shots from a bolt action rifle with a faulty scope, which is what they claimed Oswald used, in the time frame they claim Oswald did it.

Yes, this bothers me too. I also don't think Oswald had the skills for the aim it would have taken.

by Anonymousreply 4311/03/2013

[R28] explain bldg 7?

R31 and your fellow loonies, please see the link.

by Anonymousreply 4411/03/2013

Oops. I meant to do this:

[quote][[R28]] explain bldg 7?

You're still loonies.

by Anonymousreply 4511/03/2013

r45, why was it necessary to put not 1, not 2 but 3 brackets around R28?

by Anonymousreply 4611/03/2013

Mexican Cubanista Sylvia Duran knows something about Oswald's time around the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City. Oswald, how did that piece of shit ever get back into the US?

by Anonymousreply 4711/03/2013

r28/r44 that link just seeks to discredit and smear 'conspiracy theorists' while managing to avoid answering the actual question.

Did you read it?

by Anonymousreply 4811/03/2013

George H.W. Bush and the CIA.

by Anonymousreply 4911/03/2013

[R45], why was it necessary to put not 1, not 2 but 3 brackets around [R28]?

I have no way of knowing the answer to that, R46. It's something that the DL did automatically. It seems to be related to how many times that post has been quoted by me, but I may be wrong.

Perhaps the Webmaster can tell you. t

by Anonymousreply 5011/03/2013

Education Forum thread: Oswald Leaving the Texas School Book Depository. Pretty much proof Oswald was not at the 6th floor window at the time of the shooting. Brilliant guy named Sean Murphy puts it all together. Check it out. The thread has been going strong for two months.

by Anonymousreply 5111/04/2013

[quote]Since this month is the 50th anniversary expect a saturation of coverage of his killing

I wonder about this. Seems like something the media would rather not dredge up again.

by Anonymousreply 5211/04/2013

So Mary Pinchot Meyer was murdered by the military-industrial complex, huh? Meyer was a flake, a JFK mistress who kept a diary of their trysts. She would have discredited JFK, nothing else. Who stood to lose if Meyer went public (which was a very real possibility)? The Kennedy family and Bobby in particular.

So she was murdered by the same people who murdered Marilyn Monroe: Bobby Kennedy and his pals.

As for JFK's assassination, have you ever been to Dealey Plaza? Little tiny place, you didn't need to be a first-rate sharpshooter to make the shot.

James Reston Jr. makes a very strong case that Oswald didn't set out to kill JFK - he wanted Connally's blood.

by Anonymousreply 5311/04/2013

Interesting show on Reelz last night. The theory they put forth was that a secret service agent pulled his AR-15 from the floorboard of Kennedy's follow up car to return fire to Oswald. The secret service car lunged forward and a secret service agent shot Kennedy accidentally.

by Anonymousreply 5411/04/2013

Don't remember where I read it, but within the past year, RFK, Jr. I think, said that his father never believed Oswald was the lone gunman and he said it was a conspiracy. RFK said that his father said it was a conspiracy.

I don't know why they sealed all that information away. The children are all adults in their 50's and 60's. What more can they possibly learn that they don't already know? For whose benefit are the records sealed away?

Does anyone know what their wills or whatever document it is, stated about revealing certain information?

by Anonymousreply 5511/04/2013

The other thing that was bizarre is the whole story of Oswald spotted in a movie theatre by officer J.D. Tippitt, and they exchanged gun fire and Oswald kills him.

How in the world did they track him to a movie theatre, and why was he even there? And if it was just "dumb luck" on the part of the cop, WTF was really going on?

If you'd just assassinated POTUS, would you go to a movie? Or would you get the hell out of town? The entire story surrounding that encounter just stinks to me. I have to wonder how much of it is invention? Not that they would lie to us, right? (wink, wink.)

Knowing what I now know about Texas, I'm not surprised Oswald carried a gun. And if he was an ex GI, macho type I can see him carrying like most other crazy Texans.

by Anonymousreply 5611/04/2013

I think President Johnson really wanted to get programs passed for the poor, because he understood poverty. I think he went along with the Generals, because he wanted his poverty programs passed but the I think he felt extreme guilt and sorrow about the Viet Nam War and wanted out of politics. I think he knew who killed Kennedy but knew there was nothing he could do. The military corporations and the CIA were already running this country, same as they do now...same people responsible for 9/11.

by Anonymousreply 5711/04/2013

Is there a single other case where the Mafia ever killed someone this way?

That's always been my problem with the Mafia theories, they simply don't fit. The Mafia would have done it Jack Ruby style, up close and personal, not with a sniper rifle.

by Anonymousreply 5811/04/2013

R59, not before 1963, in the USA that I'm aware, but I think the collusion between Gov'ts and organized crime outside the USA was pretty well established.

I will offer this, though. I think the US gov't went on a bender with the CIA's political executions in the 50's and 60's. If you look around you, for decades, drug cartels, and mobbed up banking interests have colluded to assassinate a lot of people in leadership positions in politics, government and business.

The fact that it finally happened here in America with JFK's murder was a signal that we'd entered a hew era.

by Anonymousreply 5911/04/2013

Just wanted to add that there was definitely an "overlap" between the guys that the CIA used as "contractors" and the guys the Mafia used as hit men.

by Anonymousreply 6011/04/2013

That overlap extends to the people who were involved in the Watergate break in. One of the burglars was even a Cuban involved in the CIA's anti-Castro activities. And Watergate Plumber E. Howard Hunt, another CIA spy, gave a deathbed confession about JFK's murder being a conspiracy, including admitting to being one of the "tramps".

by Anonymousreply 6111/04/2013

Oswald went to the theatre after he shot Tippitt on a residential street in Oak Cliff. There was an eyewitness to that shooting and Oswald was on the run for that shooting before the connection to the President was made. That being said, I don't think Oswald was a lone gunman. Somebody else was involved.

by Anonymousreply 6211/04/2013


by Anonymousreply 6311/04/2013

Oswald had no possible reason to kill Tippit.

by Anonymousreply 6411/04/2013

Maybe someone with Mafia ties who also had something to gain by Kennedy's death shot the POTUS -- Aristotle Onassis.

by Anonymousreply 6511/04/2013

Oswald alone.

Bldg 7 destroyed by days of fires and structural damage from the debris of the other buildings.

And Marilyn Monroe died of an overdose.

by Anonymousreply 6611/04/2013

Onassis is interesting. Jackie invited him to the White House just days after the assassination and she had been with him on his yacht a month before the assassination.

The fact that De Mohrenschildt (who had 'befriended' Oswald and his wife) was Janet Auchincloss' long-term lover is one coincidence too many.

Maybe Onassis/Jackie/Janet/De Mohrenschildt were the conspirators?

It is unlikely JFK would have been re-elected. No way the Republicans wouldn't have done everything to publicize his dozens of affairs. If JFK lost the Presidency, there is no way JFK needed to maintain his travesty of a marriage to Jackie and she would have ended up a divorcée with a small settlement.

by Anonymousreply 6711/04/2013

[quote} it's physically impossible to get off three shots from a bolt action rifle with a faulty scope, which is what they claimed Oswald used, in the time frame they claim Oswald did it.

I saw an 89-year old man replicate this on a documentary. With time to spare.

[quote} Oswald had no possible reason to kill Tippit.

Oswald was witnessed by multiple people both shooting Oswald and fleeing the scene of the crime.

by Anonymousreply 6811/04/2013

I believe rogue elements of the CIA were the actual shooters. With the cooperation of a few well placed friends in the FBI, Secret Service and The White House (Johnson's White House.) I do NOT believe the mafia was involved because they didn't have the power to cover up the conspiracy. There were only 2 people on earth that had the power to do that and to benifit from the assassination of Kennedy. Both attained something that they had wanted since their government careers started. One wanted at least four years and the other wanted a lifetime in their respective jobs.

by Anonymousreply 6911/04/2013

r1 nailed it. End.

by Anonymousreply 7011/04/2013

Hoover was retirement age. I am not convinced he had any great desire to continue in power. What he did have was a political fascination with General Walker, so that's why I think he went along with the coverup.

by Anonymousreply 7111/04/2013

I think Oswald was told that Tippet was to help him get out of town, drive him to the airport (there were 7-8 CIA asociated pilots in the area that day for no good reason). He got spooked when he realized he'd been set up and didn't meet up with Tippit.

I think Tippet was sent to kill Oswald.That way they have the whole thing wrapped up within a few hours of the assassination. JFK is dead and so is his assassin. When Tippit wasn't able to do that he was killed (but not by Oswald). I think Tippit was doomed from the start. They wouldn't have taken the chance that such a low level, crooked cop, would keep his mouth shut for very long. Ruby got the job done that Tippit couldn't do.

Once Oswald realized he'd been set up he went to the movie theatre, plan B,(based on the reports of how he acted in the theatre) and he was caught there.

by Anonymousreply 7211/04/2013

"They wouldn't have taken the chance that such a low level, crooked cop, would keep his mouth shut for very long."

Then why involve him in the conspiracy in the first place?

by Anonymousreply 7311/04/2013

Has anyone read about there possibly being two Oswalds? It was a program that started when the two Osawalds were young kids. Some of the WCR stuff on Oswald only makes sense if there were two of them. Going to school and working in two differant areas of the country. One working full time while the other was in school full time. One raised in a household where he spoke Russian, the other never learning another language. The Oswald that went to Russia spoke Russian so well that people were surprised he wasn't native born.

by Anonymousreply 7411/04/2013

Maybe because they only needed him to keep his mouth shut for a very short time? He could have been given the job to kill Oswald the day before, or even that morning. The plan may have been to kill him right after he killed Oswald.

by Anonymousreply 7511/04/2013

Why complicate the plot by involving someone else and produce another dead body and more lose ends in the first place? Why does that make more sense than the official story?

by Anonymousreply 7611/04/2013


by Anonymousreply 7711/04/2013

Just to post a simplified version of events, in my opinion, wasn't JFK murdered because too many people had too much to lose? I guess I'm putting the blame firmly on the 'Old Guard' (and pick any 2 from groups & organisations such as the Oilmen, CIA, Mafia, and right-wing Government & military factions). They all had their grievances with JFK [and RFK for that matter] namely the proposed dismantling of the Vietnam war 'machine', the CIA, organised crime and of those vehemently against the Kennedy administration. Was it simply a case that the 'Old Guard' feared their billions of dollars and the empires they were building would be eroded away?

Who pulled the trigger? Not LHO that's for sure unless of course he was behind the fence about 30/40 yards away from the limo!! He was probably involved to some (minor) extent and was more than likely killed because he had too much information to divulge about the involvement of the CIA, FBI, et al and the many covert ops & dubious individuals he knew about.

Again a very simplified version is that up to 5 assassination 'teams' were in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov, maybe from the military and/or the CIA. The fatal shot had all the signs of coming from an expert marksman when one considers just how close Jackie's head was to JFK's at the moment of impact, and no-one will ever convince me that it came from the Book Depository even though I'm no expert in determining the trajectory of a bullet!

I apologise for my 'amateur' ramblings here and hope my going over old ground and the obvious hasn't caused too much offence to anyone. I sincerely hope one day that the truth about the murder of JFK will eventually be told but somehow I think not....

by Anonymousreply 7811/04/2013

My problem with most of the suspects, Mafia, John Birch, Cuba, etc., is that you need a pretty fucking good reason to kill The President of the United States, and JFK banging some old mobster's girlfriend (or any of the other often stated reasons) just doesn't come close, especially when there was every chance the upcoming election would eliminate your problem without lifting a finger.

They had to consider the possibility of failure or discovery, and they had to do the math in their heads and realize that no matter what their problems or grudges were with JFK, they would be nothing compared to the shitstorm they would face if they blew it. The Mafia would have been rounded up wholesale and thrown into Alcatraz. Cuba would have been invaded and Castro would have been hanging from a lamppost--you get the idea.

The only people who could have calculated the odds and thought they were in their favor was the CIA, and even then Johnson simply had to be on board. Johnson and the CIA are the only ones who could have realistically thought they could pull it off and then control what happened afterwards.

by Anonymousreply 7911/04/2013

Military Industrial Complex. The operation was a complete success and the group achieved all its objectives. This includes the cover up that involved the implication of several groups and individuals in the plot. One reason for this was to guarantee the help of these individuals and groups in the cover up. This involved implicating LBJ, the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service. It also involved implicating the Kennedy brothers in other terrible events. This ensured that the Kennedy family and its close associates joined in the cover up. This cover up included both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee of Assassinations (this involved a change in tactics with the finger now being pointed at the Mafia).

It also included a far more sinister cover up that will have long term implications for the history of the world. I believe that the CIA and FBI were involved in destroying a large number of documents relating to the assassination in November/December, 1963. These were replaced with false documents that have yet to be released. These documents will only become available when all those who are referred to are dead. These documents, because of the fact they have been held back, will be believed to be genuine. They will do two things: (1) They will show that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. (2) They will link the Kennedy brothers with a series of crimes and wrongdoings, including the murder of Marilyn Monroe. Others smeared will be those associated with what the Military Industrial Complex would refer to as dangerous radicals (Martin Luther King, etc.)

I believe that the people behind the assassination were representatives of what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. The main objective was to ensure the continuance of the Cold War. To achieve this they had the convince the American public that they faced a real communist threat. The presence of a revolutionary communist government on its doorstep (Cuba) was permanent evidence of this. So also was the presence of WMD in the Soviet Union and China. As in Iraq, we now know the CIA and MI5 exaggerated this threat.

Therefore we have to identify the representatives of the Military Industrial Complex in the government.

by Anonymousreply 8011/04/2013

People look at it backwards. The goal wasn't to eliminate Kennedy. The goal was to get LBJ into the White House.

Kennedy would have been gone soon enough, so that problem would have taken care of itself, but getting Johnson elected? Good luck with that.

If you look at it from that perspective then the unholy alliance between the oil men, the CIA, and the military all fall neatly into place.

by Anonymousreply 8111/04/2013

[quote]JFK banging some old mobster's girlfriend

Strawman. Nobody who has delved into this topic this really believes this was the reason he was killed.

If the Watergate plumbers hadn't been caught, the people who scoff at the CIA being involved in the Kennedy murders would ALSO be scoffing at us for claiming they were involved in Watergate.

"Why would the FBI and CIA care about the DNC/that building? It doesn't make sense!!! They would need a good reason!!!" So on and so forth.

And yet...

by Anonymousreply 8211/04/2013

[quote]the unholy alliance between the oil men, the CIA, and the military all fall neatly into place.


by Anonymousreply 8311/04/2013

There is a fairly wide variety of conspiracy theories, all vast, intricate, and mind-boggling complicated involving large numbers of people... non of whom, to their dying day, ever uttered a plausible word about it to anyone. Not one, ever.

Yet, the "lone gunman" theory, a fuck-up loser who was apparently desperate to "be somebody"... this theory is impossible?

by Anonymousreply 8411/04/2013

Lee Harvey Oswald.


He had the skills, and he was enough of weirdo to try it.

by Anonymousreply 8511/04/2013

Marcello the godfather of New O'leans was behind the JFK assassination. He hired Oswald

by Anonymousreply 8611/04/2013

Listen to my hot monkey boy Joe Rogan explain why the magic bullet theory is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 8711/04/2013

R70, no one kept secret better than a few Mafia Capos and no one is worse at keeping secrets than the U.S. Gov't. If anyone connected to the gov't had been involved, we'd know it by now.

My guess is two or three people in the Giancana mob knew, and they worked with some loonies that also did contract work for the CIA. I would strongly bet who ever the trigger men were, they were killed by regular Mafia "button men" at some rendezvous point within hours of the deed.

Kind of like the movie Godfather II? When those guys shot into Michael Corleone's house in Lake Tahoe? By the time Michael's bodyguards found the shooters, they were dead.

The Mafia also knew very well how to insulate themselves. To involve the apparatus of any part of the U.S. Gov't, etc. is just too elaborate a scheme, with too many unknowables and too many people brought in to the "secret."

Everyone seems to have their pet theory. Mine is simple. The Mafia holds grudges. They are into revenge and payback. They didn't give a shit about the temporizing and excuses of politicians.

Once they were comfortable with the fact that the USA was into the assassination business, vis a vis the Castro projects, they had no problem entertaining the possibility that such things could easily happen at home.

As Michael Corleone said, "If history's taught us nothing else, it's taught us that you can kill anybody." so yeah, my simple theory is that the Mafia and some mercenaries used by the CIA, did it. A lot of factions benefited from it, but they did it.

by Anonymousreply 8811/04/2013

False JFK assassination hypotheses:

1. Lone gunman: with at least four rifles found around Dealey Plaza, plus two Oswalds running around Dallas, neither with any plausible motive for shooting the President, claiming this one is true shows that the claimant is either a fool or a liar---or both.

2. The Jews or variants such as David Ben-Gurion/Mossad: a Rorschach test of the believer's fears about the Jewish peoples. If one believes that Judaism is about Satanism, then JFK's death was a satanic sacrifice. Or if they control the Federal Reserve, then it was over interest-free notes. Or it was about an atomic bomb that Jewish people are suppose to worship (as in the film “Return to the Planet of the Apes”). The only verifiable Jewish person involved is Jack Ruby.

3. The Jesuits or variants, such as the Knights of Malta: while the Church has its issues, including child abuse scandals, assassinating the first Catholic president isn't one of them. Elderly Jesuit priests wouldn't be anyone's choice as “Vatican assassins.” While the largest religious group within the probable group of killers are Catholic like Clare Boothe Luce and Charles Willoughby, others like Henry Luce and H. L. Hunt are Protestant.

4. The Mafia, either Italian- or Jewish-American: the relationship of organized crime to the ruling class of America is misunderstood. The mob works for the alphabet agencies, the big corporations and the big rich. The mob provides the foot-soldiers. Meyer Lansky wasn't on the Warren Commission, Allan Dulles was. Even Nixon, who felt he was being left out of a gambling resort deal, was able to chase Lansky out of the country. It some ways, No. 4 is a variant of No. 2.

5. Lyndon Baines Johnson: while this is the politically correct choice (based on racist “redneck” stereotypes), it's probably ain't true. Maybe he did kill his sister and her golfer lover, as well as the agricultural inspector. But at least there were halfway plausible motives. Johnson had no rational reason to kill JFK. There's no proof that JFK was dropping Johnson for the 1964 election, anymore than JFK was going to be able to run, given his health. The Democrats needed Texas to win any presidential election. A scandal with LBJ is the last thing JFK needed. And the Madeline Browne story is just that, a story. Johnson and Nixon were NOT at Clint Murchinson's house on November 21, 1963.

by Anonymousreply 8911/04/2013

Just want to add that as for 'cover ups" the Mafia didn't really have to do that much. They set Oswald up as the patsy, and he had very limited knowledge of what was going down.

You get the right guy in the DPD to go along with it. And most important, you make sure there's a Cuban connection. Which there was. Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba Committee." Oswald got played.

WTF did the FBI expect? Cuba would deny they had any involvement. Which happened to be true. But who in the US gov't would believe it?

And because of arrangements made between the Soviet Union, Cuba & the US to end the Cuban Missile crisis, there was no way LBJ wanted to invade or retaliate. He practically said so in the tapes when he was twisting arms to get people to serve on the Warren Commission.

Interesting point was made up thread, about Tippitt. I agree, it could've been that he was sent to kill Oswald, to tie things up in a neat bundle, but Oswald got the drop on him. Hadn't thought of that. In any case, I think Oswald knew once he was caught, that he was a dead man walking.

by Anonymousreply 9011/04/2013

Let's talk about Jack Ruby... the one tangible factor that serves to give credence to Oswald's "I'm a patsy" claim.

I feel that Ruby is a major player, and a big mystery, in this drama, yet he is so often not mentioned in JFK assassination discussions.

by Anonymousreply 9111/04/2013

One of the strangest stories to come out of the assassination theories is the involvement of Woody Harrelson's father, who was a twice-over convicted murderer.

He is said to have been one of "three tramps" arrested in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the assassination. Some conspiracy theorists believe the three to be the real shooters.

by Anonymousreply 9211/04/2013

[quote]I wonder about this. Seems like something the media would rather not dredge up again.

On the 50th anniversary? This is what the media lives for. Every television morning show and news magazine will have their special reports, and probably prime-time specials as well. Every newspaper and newsmagazine will run something. Expect, like the previous poster said, saturation.

by Anonymousreply 9311/04/2013

R63 is right. Oswald got out of a cab in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas and was walking quickly back to his boarding house. Tipit stopped him because he look suspicious. Police were looking for a young man that left the depository building. Tippit stopped Oswald to ask him questions. Oswald shot him and ran away. He sneaked past te ticket taker at te movie theater and went in to hide.

by Anonymousreply 9411/04/2013

[quote]He is said to have been one of "three tramps" arrested in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the assassination. Some conspiracy theorists believe the three to be the real shooters.

Charles Harrelson, Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt

by Anonymousreply 9511/04/2013

To the tinhats re-writing history: JFK was a hawk of the first order, as was RFK until Vietnam became unpopular and he saw that as a way to challenge LBJ. There is no evidence whatsoever (and Schlesinger's fanboy spinning about the Vietnam War and how the Kennedys would have stopped that war (that they pretty much started) that JFK was NOT in the pocket of the military. He and RFK were up to their ears in assassination plots in Vietnam and in Cuba.

When Jackie saw the military guard surrounding JFK's casket she noted that there wasn't a green beret represented. She asked that a green beret be added to the other honor guards because "Jack thought they were so dashing!"

by Anonymousreply 9611/04/2013

[quote] Lyndon Baines Johnson: while this is the politically correct choice (based on racist “redneck” stereotypes), it's probably ain't true.

I think Johnson was just as much a Patsy as Oswald. I don't think he planned it, nor do I think he was involved in it.

He was a known commodity, and everyone, all your possible suspects, knew exactly what they were getting if they made LBJ president. The oil men knew they could manipulate him and he would always look out for their best interests, so did the military and the CIA. They knew he was a man they could work with if they could get him into the White House.

They didn't get it exactly right with LBJ, that had to wait a few years until they got Reagan elected.

by Anonymousreply 9711/04/2013

r97 is an idiot. Can't do math either. In 1963, JFK had 16,300 troops and was about to pull out. But he was assassinated.

By 1967 there were 485,600. Then r97 claims that JFK "started" the Vietnam War, further cementing his rep for historic cluelessness. Apparently, he is unaware of a president named Eisenhower.

Then leaves no doubt about his stupidity with a non sequitur about Jackie and the Green Berets.

Better stop eating that tinfoil.

by Anonymousreply 9811/04/2013

A guy called Epstein says Fidel Castro ordered it.

by Anonymousreply 9911/05/2013

If you're considering my Mafia/CIA contractors theory: The Mafia was pissed at the Kennedys ever since Joe enlisted their help in the West Virginia primary. They delivered the union bosses, helped with "fundraising," yet he turned his back on them. His stroke meant he could never repair that relationship.

With Bobby as AG, which Joe Kennedy pushed, the DOJ was relentless in investigating organized crime. Not even Hoover, the Mob's favorite G Man, could pull Bobby away. He was obsessed with Jimmy Hoffa, among others, who had mob ties.

Add to that, the fact that JFK completely crapped out on the Bay of Pigs. That really pissed off a lot of people,including the so-called CIA mercenaries and professional "anti-communists" who blamed JFK for not giving them the air cover they were promised. From their point of view, he lost them Cuba.

It was while planning & training, etc. for the Bay of Pigs project, Mob interests & the CIA interests coalesced. They both wanted to get rid of Castro. They failed because they were left hanging by the President. That's what they believed.

So it's not far-fetched at all for Carlos Marcello of NOLA, & Sam Giacana of Chicago, both of whom had ties to the Cuban stuff, and to organized Labor, and both of whom had some expectation of reciprocity which never materialized, to decided that Kennedy had to go.

In fact, if the U.S did blame Castro for the assassination, that would be fine with them. If LBJ retaliated by invading Cuba, it would put them back in the game.

When a POTUS is assassinated, we need to invest it with a great motive or implicate vast, powerful networks of faceless men. It's human nature. Those networks certainly benefited from his death, but I think the truth was closer to home and simpler. Just my theory.

by Anonymousreply 10011/05/2013

MLK said it was white racists but people prefer to keep looking under all sorts of rocks rather than face this.

The Civil Rights bill was in the works. There were several race-related killings that year, including an attempt on King himself 2 months earlier. It is all there is King's writings.

by Anonymousreply 10111/05/2013

r102, allegedly half the Dallas police department in 1963 was KKK. Also during the mid-1960s the Texas Grand Dragon was Jack Cannon. Is this the same Jack Cannon that worked for H. L. Hunt, Charles Willoughby and the CIA? He also worked with Frank Sturgis and maybe Jack Ruby.

The CIA Jack Cannon is also spelled with "Canon."

by Anonymousreply 10211/05/2013

Frankly the NSA and CIA are so corrupt, they should all be disposed of. After that, every CEO of every Military Corporation and Oil Companies should be disposed of. The Koch Brothers, the head of Bank of America and the Waltons, need to go. We have a lot of enemies but I'm thinking these people are probably our worst enemies.

by Anonymousreply 10311/05/2013

I know how Kennedy angered the CIA, and I've read how he pissed off the military by canceling fat contracts (like the swing wing fighter) and awarding contracts by Congressional District rather than to the usual Boeings and Lockheeds, but what did he do to upset the oil companies?

Maybe more accurately, what did LBJ do to please them? I assume it involves the Mideast and either the Saudis or Iran somehow.

by Anonymousreply 10411/05/2013

Agree 100% with R104.

Wake up people.

by Anonymousreply 10511/05/2013

Can't do math either. In 1963, JFK had 16,300 troops and was about to pull out. But he was assassinated.

was ABOUT TO pull out (of Vietnam).

Link please.

by Anonymousreply 10611/05/2013

Agree with R101

Add to that - Bobby had prosecuted both Marcello and Giacana. They hated him. And they were both connected with the CIA Bay of Pigs nut cases -who were furious at JFK for calling off the US military. Marcello did meet with Oswald. At first Oswald was hired to kill Castro - but he couldn't get into Cuba. Then he met with Marcello in Mexico - and the hit on Kennedy was made. Sooner or later, the government will admit all this.

by Anonymousreply 10711/05/2013

I love these threads because they show the beauty of a great cover-up.

The truth is almost certainly in this thread, but at this point the head of the CIA hit team could release the file showing how it was done, and even of there was complete documentation, sworn affidavits from everyone involved, and film footage from 7 different angles, all that would happen is that 10 more books and 3 documentaries disproving it would be released within a month.

Give up, we'll never know.

by Anonymousreply 10811/05/2013

I think there was a conspiracy and cover up.

Kennedy looks like he was shot in two directions and people felt like shots came from the grassy knoll.

So many theories seem plausible.

I think MLK was a conspiracy as well. RFK - not sure, but I can see how some would have wanted him killed.

The US would be a different place if these three had not been assassinated.

by Anonymousreply 10911/05/2013

R109 has it entirely right. I love disinformation.

by Anonymousreply 11011/05/2013

I always think it's funny how the lone gunman diehards claim the complete infallibility of eyewitness re: Tippett's murder, but in the next breath claim that the eyewitnesses (and there were MANY) who swore the shot[s] came from the knoll were totally wrong!!1

by Anonymousreply 11111/05/2013

Also, we know so much about Lee Harvey Oswald yet so little about Jack Ruby, who is as much, if not more, a key figure.

by Anonymousreply 11211/05/2013

We only know the details of the Tippitt shooting because we have the canned version we were given by the DPD. The eye witness accounts could be canned. One thing I do believe is that Tippitt was on a mission to kill Oswald.

by Anonymousreply 11311/05/2013

We know Ruby had a $45,000 debt to the IRS he couldn't pay and that he was living with male roommate and known gay George Senator.

by Anonymousreply 11411/05/2013

We also know that Ruby called Benny Binion's casino manager in Las Vegas 7 times in the 90 days before the assassination.

by Anonymousreply 11511/05/2013

Do you think Robert Kennedy knew what happened to JFK?

by Anonymousreply 11611/05/2013

Yes, he did r117.

by Anonymousreply 11711/05/2013

The government won't ever admit anything. Half the country is wise enough to know The Warren Report was a complete lie but our government keeps backing it up. If you ask any politician and they will say they believe the Warren Report.

by Anonymousreply 11811/05/2013

How about General Douglas MacArthur? His biggest financial backer was H.L. Hunt, who tried to get Doug elected POTUS in the '50s.

When Doug and his staff were fired by Truman in '51, Hunt rented Doug and Jean that suite at the NY Waldorf-Astoria. Doug's G-2, Charles Willoughby, eventually went to Dallas to work for Hunt as his security (intel) chief.

A third fired Doug staffer, Bonner Fellers, went to New Orleans and shared an office building with Oswald handler, Guy Banister. Fellers and Banister worked together on the usual anti-commie NGOs of the time. Both Bonnie and Guy, along with Hunt and Willoughby were members of the John Birch Society.

The rumor is that President Truman always wanted to jail the MacArthur crowd for treason, but that's another story.

I recall a film about political assassination that ends with a bedside photo of MacArthur. What was the name of the film?

by Anonymousreply 11911/05/2013

JFK wanted to shut down the Federal Reserve. This pissed off the oil companies and the military industrial complex and especially the CIA. Poppy Bush is the only person over the age of 5 that day who can't recall where they were when JFK was killed. He was in Dallas. When he eulogized President Ford praising his work on the Warren Commission was one of the first things out of his mouth. There's a reason that filthy family has a large ranch in extradition free Ecuador and it ain't the scenery.

by Anonymousreply 12011/05/2013

I remember Ford saying how he believed in The Warren Commission and I thought, you lying sack of shit. But Jimmy Carter would say the same...the conspiracy has to continue through the years.

by Anonymousreply 12111/05/2013

Misinformation R121. The ranch is in Paraguay, and Datalounge has already decided Ken Lay lives there.

by Anonymousreply 12211/05/2013

An FBI agent gave Hoover a report saying that General Walker paid Loran Hall and Eladio del Valle to kill Kennedy. Hoover was a big fan of General Walker.

by Anonymousreply 12311/05/2013

Milteer expected it

by Anonymousreply 12411/05/2013

"Loran Eugene Hall, an anti-Castro activist Alpha 66 exile group, told author Dick Russell that in 1968 he had been offered $50,000 to assassinate JFK. The meeting occurred on October 17, 1963 when he was seeking funds for guerilla raids into Cuba."

Edwin Walker was the No. 4 man in the Dallas John Birch Society. No. 1 was H.L. Hunt, No. 2 Charles Willoughby, No. 3. Robert Morris.

Henry Luce of Time-Life, together with his wife Clare, were behind Alpha 66, a typical anti-Castro, CIA-front of the time.

BTW, Jack Ruby served under Walker in the Army Air Force during WW2.

by Anonymousreply 12511/05/2013

I wondered where Ken Lay was living. Of course we were all suppose to fall for that heart attack story. I wish someone would go down, kill him and bring his head back here to the states, then let the media take pictures.

Was Ken Lay buried or cremated? Because if he was simply buried, we could dig up the casket and check out the situation.

by Anonymousreply 12611/05/2013


The book "Family of Secrets" will help.

The link is to a series of chapters about how Bush1 and LBJ were connected to the murder of JFK. The footnotes and original sources are comprehensive and irrefutable.

JFK was murdered by our government. Now the CIA is in control.

Isn't it funny how deep the ties between the CIA and Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama?

by Anonymousreply 12711/05/2013

"...ARE between..."

by Anonymousreply 12811/05/2013

r128, GHW Bush and LBJ did not kill JFK. Baker's book rehashes the same FBI memo, which proves nothing. No doubt Bush was in the CIA during the 1950s and may have been photographed in front of the Texas Book Depository.

The current thinking is Bush was a fallback patsy, like LBJ, the mob, E. Howard Hunt and currently the Jews and Israel (Jack Ruby's great fear).

In his Warren Commission testimony, Jack Ruby said Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society were behind the assassination, which means H.L. Hunt and the former staffers for General MacArthur, particularly Charles Willoughby, who links to virtually everyone involved, including Clare and Henry Luce, the latter who brought and altered the Zapruder film.

Marguerite Oswald said on television that her son was a CIA operative.

Mystery solved!

by Anonymousreply 12911/05/2013

National Enquirer has an article complete with a couple of autopsy photos, claiming doctors in Dallas saw what they described as an entrance wound in his throat, and the right side of his head was missing, and there was busted up bone and brain matter consistent with an exit wound.

They also saw wounds in his back, and his shoulder. He was DOA. According to the Enquirer the Dallas Docs said if the Secret Service had not taken him out of the hospital and flown him to D.C., their autopsy would have shown all that.

Which I don't believe for a moment. They kept their mouths shut all this time? Hard to believe.

by Anonymousreply 13011/06/2013

Old wine in a new bottle, r131. The Dallas Parkland Hospital staff always maintained that JFK was shot from multiple angles. See link below. There's a photo of a bullet hole through the windshield on the internet.

by Anonymousreply 13111/06/2013

Keith Hernandez and Roger McDowell

by Anonymousreply 13211/06/2013

Funny that r133 mentions baseball player McDowell, who's notorious in lighting firecrackers in the dugout.

The CIA operative believed to have supplied a fragmenting bullet to one of the shooter in Dealey Plaza, Jack Y. Canon, was a US Army CIC office in the Pacific during WW2. "Cactus" or "Texas" Jack, as he was called, used to set off grenades behind new recruits as a joke. He survived the Truman firings of MacArthur's staff in 1951, but left the Army in '59 after being court-martialed for shooting two cows belonging to a local rancher in the San Antonio, Texas area.

Canon's bullets are now marketed as "Glaser Safety Slugs. They're used by federal air marshals as they burst apart on impact and supposedly won't penetrate the airplane wall.

by Anonymousreply 13311/06/2013

I saw a doctor on 20/20 or one of those shows a few years ago. He said he examined the presidents body and the wounds were not as the Warren Report describes. I'm sure he is dead by now but of course, our government never once ask for his testimony.

by Anonymousreply 13411/06/2013


[quote]MLK said it was white racists but people prefer to keep looking under all sorts of rocks rather than face this.

No, the total lack of any evidence tying the murder to any "white power" group ever, after 50 years, is why people dismiss such bullshit as race-baiting and stupid.

The facts all point to LBJ, the CIA (headed by "Poppy Bush" in the years after the murder) and a powerful coterie of businessmen who HATED JFK with a passion.

by Anonymousreply 13511/06/2013


Love it. The mega corporations and mega Banksters and the politicians in their pocket (you have to admit Obama is right up there with Bush, Cheney and Pelosi) should be exiled, stripped of all assets and the proceeds going to help the families of the people the murdered or destroyed, here and abroad. Then cut ALL military and financial aid to foreign government, and make it a capital offense for any politician to trade "favor" with any foreign entity.

Dismantle the Mil-Ind-Congress Complex and abolish the CIA, FBI, CDC,DHS, TSA, DEA, DOE, etc. and salt the earth so they can't come back. Return powers to the states so our government can never kill millions ever again.

I love, LOVE, my country- I know I live a life better than 98% of the 7.1B other people on this planet, and thank God for it- but I hate my corrupt, arrogant, murderous, dishonest and incompetent government. Fuck them all.

And yes, this will result in yet ANOTHER file for the NSA to eventually punish me, but fuck those meathead assholes.

by Anonymousreply 13611/06/2013

Oh, dearie me! The DL has been overrun by the tinhat whackjobs of the "Education" (sic) Forum...

Black helicopters are hovering as I type.

by Anonymousreply 13711/06/2013

I blame Viola.

by Anonymousreply 13811/06/2013


Don't even mention the evil Federal Reserve here.

Questioning the sacred nature of the ability of the government to print trillions of dollars to fund the debt is heresy.

Say 20 "Hail Bernanke" and kiss a $5 bill for absolution.

by Anonymousreply 13911/06/2013


[quote]Poppy Bush is the only person over the age of 5 that day who can't recall where they were when JFK was killed.

Well, his mother- I mean, wife- Barbara wrote about the events of that day in her autobiography and when compared to reality "Poppy's" alibi falls apart. Her memories of that day comes in the form of a strangely detailed note "home" (who was she writing to?) about their travels those few days, with whom she lunched, what she ate, the size her shit that day. Too bad little of it meshes with history.

These people were so arrogant, so sure of their infallibility that they wrote these fantasies 15-25 years ago never imagining that people could one day search their stories for incredible lies and prevarications. Look at how many former "Warren Commission" members or support staff have disavowed it. Hell, look at how many politicians and staff that were told the secret details about 9/11 have blasted the government for incompetence and perhaps malicious motives.

by Anonymousreply 14011/06/2013

r138, the phrase is "tin-foil hat." And yes, a black helicopter is coming to pick you right now....

by Anonymousreply 14111/06/2013


Who should I believe--

1) A ROBUSTLY footnoted and fact-checked book by a hardcore veteran investigative journalist who has spent thousands of hours interviewing and re-interviewing hundreds of sources, as well as examining thousands of contemporaneous documents about the ties between "Poppy" Bush and his role as director of the CIA and the relationship with LBJ and "big oil"?

2) some person on the Internet that knows nothing?

Damn, nobody told me there would be math!!!

by Anonymousreply 14211/06/2013

r143, you sound like a religious fanatic, belonging to the "Church of Bush Did It." But your church is only one of thousands in the JFK industry. Feel lucky that anyone even noticed it.

Baker repeats the same old wine posted on the Education Forum (disparaged by Tin-foil Hat of r138), which can be read for free. Russ' book has been discredited from the day it appeared. He gets everything wrong about Prescott Bush and his relationship with the National Socialists. You don't mind if I call Russ a liar, do you?

And no, r143, I don't want you to believe me. Just go back to your Bush conspiracy church.

by Anonymousreply 14311/06/2013

Here's the link to John Simkin's Education Forum on the JFK assassination. There's real researchers mixed with with the usual disinfo artists. Enjoy!

by Anonymousreply 14411/06/2013

In 1975 Salandria told Gaeton Fonzi (House Select Committee on Assassinations investigator): "I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless."

by Anonymousreply 14511/07/2013

Jack Ruby was INSIDE police headquarters when he plugged Oswald.

And this was AFTER Oswald supposedly shot the Texas governor, ripped apart the president's head and also killed a fellow Dallas patrolman?

So, yeah. Kinda stinks of a coverup.

by Anonymousreply 14611/07/2013

r147, it might have been Dorothy Kilgallen, who after examining the basement of the Dallas police HQ with a friend, thought that Ruby might have been inside the armored car when it backed up and stopped at the basement entrance.

But this might have been unnecessary. According to an aide to H.L. Hunt, this aide entered and left police HQ three times, once riding with Oswald in the elevator. This aide said that despite the police guards, he could have easily shot Oswald there and then. This aide was certain that Hunt told whoever that Oswald was an easy target. A cop that also worked for Hunt gave the all clear signal in the basement when Oswald was being transferred to the armored car. Then Ruby did his hit.

Getting back to Dorothy, she and my friend were using a folding stick measure to determine the height of the entrance and ceiling of the basement. After they found and measured the armored car itself, they determined that the armored car could fit and drive right into the basement. There was no need to walk Oswald all the way up the ramp.

That's when Dorothy knew that Oswald was set-up for the kill.

by Anonymousreply 14711/07/2013

totally fascinated by Doro K's murder. (who'd play her in today's movie? Emma Stone? an 'being john malkovich"-looking cameron diaz?…)

but all along, the armored car was supposedly a decoy, right?

by Anonymousreply 14811/07/2013

Actually the best person to play Killgallen would be Rene Zellwigger with blackened hair. Both Doro and Rene have that chin thing goin' on, and they have a very wonderful chipmunk quality to their faces.

Now that Rene's had some work done, she no longer squints as much, she is a little more pop-eyed like Doro. I can definitely see Rene playing some pill popping lush who chases after gay Johnny Ray when she isn't chasing conspiracies. She definitely has the range. James Franco for Johnny Ray! Someone please call Harvey!

by Anonymousreply 14911/07/2013

The armored car was never intended to be used, since Oswald would be gunned down. Yes, the car was a decoy. The H.L. Hunt aide is John Curington, who informed Hunt about the lack of security at the Dallas PD HQ. Hunt minion Lieutenant George Butler of the Dallas Police gave the all clear---for Ruby.

This is an odd JFK thread. Only one other poster mentioned Allen Dulles. No mention of David Morales, his boss Lansdale, JMWAVE.

It's time for me to return to the Dorothy Kilgallen thread.

by Anonymousreply 15011/07/2013

All central banks print money. The US is just unique in allowing a private entity to do so.

by Anonymousreply 15111/07/2013

I think r146 is correct. Since the day Kennedy died, we have never been a democracy, our government is actually run by the people who are in the shadows. They are wealthy beyond our understanding and we are powerless against them. I have no idea how to get rid of them unless another group of powerful people, make a plan to assassinate the leaders in the CIA and their Military backers. There are many heads to the snake and they need to be cut off all in the same day.

by Anonymousreply 15211/07/2013

IMO, JFK was no hindrance to the shadowy types in the Military Industrial complex, and he loved the CIA's mystique. He was a solid Cold Warrior. I just remain convinced it was a simple Mafia hit with help from a couple two or three contractors who also did work for the CIA.

Honestly, just think about what we learned about Oswald, and the message they were sending: Oswald passing out leaflets for the invented "Fair Play for Cuba" committee. If that wasn't a middle finger salute for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, what was it?

Adlai Stevenson was attacked while he was in Texas. He warned the President about the Extremists on the Right, the John Birchers, etc. Everyone was looking at the Right. Then here comes Lee Oswald, an alleged Leftist. He was played, both by the CIA and by the mafia. He was indeed, "a patsy."

by Anonymousreply 15311/07/2013

Faux News's assassination special had a surprisingly sympathetic view of a conspiracy. That convinces me that Oswald acted alone.

by Anonymousreply 15411/10/2013

I think even the most ignorant among us can see this obvious truth...there was no MAGIC bullet. Oswald had no reason to want Kennedy dead but Kennedy had a large number of powerful enemies.

by Anonymousreply 15511/10/2013


[quote]The truth is almost certainly in this thread, but at this point the head of the CIA hit team could release the file showing how it was done, and even of there was complete documentation, sworn affidavits from everyone involved, and film footage from 7 different angles, all that would happen is that 10 more books and 3 documentaries disproving it would be released within a month.

50 years ago piecing together the myriad players, conspirators, motivations and connections was impossible.

Now anyone with an Internet connection can spend a few hours referencing "primary sources"-- autobiographies, memoirs, 50 year old police and FBI reports, news articles from eyewitness accounts, deathbed confessions--- and decide for themselves whether it was a "lone gunman" or (as these disparate accounts, from multiple sources intimately tied to Dallas, the CIA, LBJ, etc.) a conspiracy.

The fact that many (now deceased) junior and senior members of the Warren Commission have detailed their doubts about the assassination of JFK, only the most ignorant and blind people still think it was one man.

by Anonymousreply 15611/10/2013

LBJ not only knew about it, he was part of the plot.

by Anonymousreply 15711/10/2013

On Meet the Press yesterday, Doris Kearns Goodwin was asked about Kerry's comments. She said Bobby Kennedy (who was in a better position to know about the assassination than anybody else) told Richard Goodwin (his aide and Doris' husband) that he was sure it was a mafia-ordered hit.

As JFK and RFK had been in bed with the mafia in order to get JFK elected.. and JFK had literally been in bed with the mafia.. that goes a long way towards explaining why RFK didn't do more to publicize his beliefs about his brother's murder.

As LBJ and RFK were mortal enemies, if RFK had thought LBJ was responsible, he would have been proclaiming it from the rooftops.

by Anonymousreply 15811/11/2013

[quote]JFK had literally been in bed with the mafia.

Was JFK a top or a bottom?

by Anonymousreply 15911/11/2013

If it was a mafia hit, why would the govt be covering it up all this time?

by Anonymousreply 16011/11/2013

It's interesting that mainstream commentators like Goodwin and now Kerry are publicly expressing doubts in the official story. I wonder if there's gonna be a bombshell soon. won't there be more official info released soon due to the 50 yr anniversary?

by Anonymousreply 16111/11/2013

Kerry's comments were basically to say he thought Castro or Russia might have been involved - which is possible. He didn't deny Oswald was the - or a - shooter.

Kearns didn't say she questioned the Warren Commission and said all the conspiracies arose because people didn't want to think that such a monumental tragedy had been instigated by a loser like Oswald.

She repeated what Bobby told her husband which was his opinion, not hers.

Let's say Cuba and/or Russia had been involved. Had this become public, LBJ would have been forced to retaliate. Retaliation would have resulted in nuclear war.

Maybe LBJ's willingness to go along with Robert McNamara's urges to invest more groups in Vietnam were a sidestepping way of retaliation against a Communist plot to kill JFK?

by Anonymousreply 16211/11/2013

..make that 'troops' not groups... All the legislation LBJ got passed through Congress (civil rights, voting rights, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) which JFK couldn't get passed are the real legacy of the Kennedy assassination.

by Anonymousreply 16311/11/2013

That's true r164 and why? Did LBJ say he was going to blow the lid off of everything if he didn't get his way?

I think he made a deal to get his programs passed, if he went along with the goddamn Viet Nam war. A horrible, horrible war, much worse then the goddamn Iraq war.

I hate our shadow military government that has killed a million, all for no reason.

by Anonymousreply 16411/11/2013

A mafia hit wouldn't eliminate a Cuban connection. Plenty of CIA contractors and "patriots" were fanatics about getting rid of Castro, who were offended by what they considered JFK's complete betrayal at the Bay of Pigs.

I can understand why LBJ wouldn't want what looked like retaliation to come out. They didn't want the world to know how the CIA did "business," or the collusion between the Mafia & the CIA, or the links from the Mafia to the Kennedys. It isn't something the Gov't or the family'd want out here.

Of course they never anticipated then, that it would come out in dribbles over time decades later. I doubt RFK ever dreamed we'd find out his brother and Sam Giancana were fucking the same woman. Or that we sabotage the Cuban economy, burning down their sugar cane fields, tossing bombs into public places,or attempted many times to assassinate Castro with poison or exploding cigars.

Back then the CIA had a mystique.Clandestine ops were closely guarded secrets. A Karl Rove/Dick Cheney outing of Valerie Plame would've been unthinkable. Spying and political assassinations were a big part of the Cold War. The Church Committee uncovered a lot of bad shit about the CIA. But that was in the future.

by Anonymousreply 16511/11/2013

The mafia lost a lot when Castro took over. Cuba was a major gambling/recreation center and earned the mafia big bucks. Which explains why they might want to assassinate Castro, but not Kennedy.

by Anonymousreply 16611/11/2013

You're right, R167. The Mafia had a vested interest in getting rid of Castro. That's why they were involved in the Bay of Pigs stuff, and involved with assassination attempts. There were very direct links between the CIA and the Mafia back then. And both the Anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA contractors, and the Mafia felt betrayed on a lot of levels by Kennedy. They had a mutual hatred of the Kennedys in common.

by Anonymousreply 16711/11/2013

Vincent Bugliosi says that only in a fantasy world could someone - Oswald - who has 53 pieces of separate evidence pointing to his guilt be other than guilty. I completely agree. I view the conspiracy mongers here as dismissively as I do Holocaust deniers. Two Oswalds?! Oy vey.

by Anonymousreply 16811/11/2013

r169, I bet 37 of those 53 are each turn the Magic Bullet took on its route.

by Anonymousreply 16911/11/2013

There was no "magic" bullet, R170. Those who initially advanced the notion that one bullet couldn't have gone through both JFK and Connally engage in the incredibly intellectually dishonest means of positing that the two men were seated directly in front of each other. They were not, and those in the assassination cottage industry know that. Connally was seated in the jump seat in front of Kennedy, and, in addition, sat more inboard.

by Anonymousreply 17011/11/2013

We settled this on Datalounge years ago. Nellie Connally was in on it. Her words, "Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn't love you" was her signal to kill, kill, kill.

by Anonymousreply 17111/11/2013

He is prosecutor, so what.

by Anonymousreply 17211/11/2013

r171, what you're saying in no way makes the Magic Bullet any less magical.

by Anonymousreply 17311/11/2013

Oswald's life could have been saved after being shot by Jack Ruby, according to a doctor acquaintance present at the time. He was allowed to bleed to death and medical personnel were not allowed to assist.

by Anonymousreply 17411/11/2013

Bullshit, R174. Every depiction of the so-called magic bullet has Connally seated directly in front of Kennedy. And it's just that layout that requires the bullet to zig and zag. The actual positioning of the men shows the bullet going through them in a perfectly straight path. But you concede this demonstrable fact because you and your bat shit crazy ilk are fact deniers.

by Anonymousreply 17511/11/2013

Bullshit, r176.

by Anonymousreply 17611/11/2013

If the CIA/FBI wasn't involved and that's a huge "if", do you think it's even possible they don't know who it is? And if they do know, why was nothing done about it?

by Anonymousreply 17711/11/2013

Correct, R175, I watched the Discovery Channel the other night about that whole weekend, and Ruby shot him directly in the stomach at close range.

They call for an ambulance and mill around while he's laying on the concrete floor. When they put him in the stretcher, they were jostling him around a good bit it seemed. Of course that armored vehicle was blocking the garage exit, so they had to move it out of the way before the ambulance could leave.

When the Doc made the announcement at 1:07 PM, that he'd died, they said he went into cardiac arrest as a result of blood loss. So I believe there was a bare minimum done to treat him.

Earlier, they stood in the police HQ hallway and enumerated all their "evidence" of his guilt. This was less than 24 hours after the assassination. He was tried, convicted and executed by the DPD and the Dallas prosecutor on the spot.

by Anonymousreply 17811/11/2013

The second Oswald at Ruby's Carousel Club. More on this beefier Oswald:


By William Kelly

Richard Bullock, the 2003 Elk of the Year of the Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey Lodge has a unique claim to fame---he was once a Marine Corps bunkmate of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy. And he has some questions about Oswald’s identity, as he doesn’t believe the guy Jack Ruby killed in Dallas is the same person he knew as “Ozzie” in Marine Air Control Squadron One in Japan.

Born in 1938 on November 10th, the same day the U.S. Marine Corps was founded at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, Bullock, like Oswald, tried to enlist before he was 17 but was turned away, only to officially sign up on November 28, 1955. As he later learned, Bullock followed Oswald around to the same duty stations, only a few months behind him---Kessler AFB in Beloxi, Miss., then Jacksonville, Florida for aviation training, El Toro in California before Atsugi, Japan, where he served from November, 1956 until February, 1958.

For a number of months his time at Atsugi overlapped with that of Lee Harvey Oswald, who Bullock said, “I knew him as L. Oswald, or `Ozzie,’ and he knew me from the name on my shirt: R. Bullock, but he called me `Dickie.’ We didn’t know each other’s real names, just what was on the uniform.”

Atsugi, Bullock explained, is the name of the base that’s flanked by two towns – Sagomeoska on the Navy side and Yoma (spelled phonetically) on the Marine Corps side. Bullock doesn’t recall the Queen Bee nightclub that Oswald is said to have frequented, or the incidents where Oswald was reprimanded.

Besides serving together at Atsugi, Bullock and Oswald were both involved in a major operations in the Philippines, where they landed in LSTs at Subic Bay.

As a person, Bullock recalls that Oswald, “was always smiling, always happy,” but he didn’t recognize Oswald when he watched him being killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas Police department and on national television on November 24, 1963.

“He was NOT the guy I saw in the picture on TV shot by Jack Ruby,” Bullock says emp hatically. Looking at a color mug shot of Lee Harvey Oswald taken shortly after he was taken into custody by the police, Bullock said, “It looks nothing like him. That’s not the man I knew.”

Bullock described the “Ozzie” he knew in the marines as being two or three inches taller, 40 pounds heavier, and a young man wore thick glasses.

Since Bullock didn’t know him as Lee Harvey Oswald, or recognize him on television, he didn’t put two-and-two together until he was contacted by Readers Digest editor Henry Hurt, who tracked him down through military records. Hurt wanted to know if Bullock had any photos of Oswald. “Sure I had photos,” Bullock said, “pictures of me and Ozzie sitting around in our skivvies on a Sunday afternoon, throwing a football around, and stuff like that. But it was all lost in a divorce when I moved.” Nor has Bullock been questioned by the FBI or any government investigators.

While Bullock didn’t recognize any of the names of the marines who also knew Oswald at Atsugi, he said, “I’ve looked in the various veterans magazines for reunions of any MAC squads, but I haven’t seen any. The guys I was close to have already passed away, and I never had a reunion with any of them.”

Not aware of the books written about individuals impersonating Oswald, such as Professor Richard Popkin’s “The Second Oswald,” or the idea that there were actually two Lee Harvey Oswalds, a theory advanced in  John Armstrong’s new book “Harvey & Lee,” Bullock expressed surprise. “You mean I’m not fantasizing?!”

Dick Bullock doesn’t know what it all means. The way he looks at it, when you live with a guy, work beside him for weeks and months at a time, you get to know him, and the guy Jack Ruby killed in Dallas wasn’t the “Ozzie” he knew in the marines.

by Anonymousreply 17911/11/2013

[quote]I view the conspiracy mongers here as dismissively as I do Holocaust deniers.

r169, as someone whose entire family was put in a concentration camp during WW2, I view your odious comparison as the product of a psychopathic mind. That you would run interference for the forces of evil displays the spiritual black hole you are.

by Anonymousreply 18011/11/2013

[quote] That you would run interference for the forces of evil displays the spiritual black hole you are.

This premise that JFK was a liberal white knight fell by the forces of evil is incredibly ahistorical. One of the weekly/monthly magazines of the era, in its post-assassination coverage, called Kennedy the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland. And JFK - who was viewed with much skepticism by the progressive of his time - used to regularly disparage liberals as soft-headed.

It is indisputable to any reasonable, thinking person that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, and, most likely, Oswald acting alone. Come to grips with that and expend your undeniable energy on a more worthwhile, pressing cause.

by Anonymousreply 18111/12/2013

"It is indisputable to any reasonable, thinking person that Kennedy was NOT killed by Oswald..."

There. I fixed that for you. I'm glad some people are smart enough to see through the bullshit propaganda and lies, and that the majority now believe that the "official story" of the murder of JFK is just a pack of lies.

by Anonymousreply 18211/13/2013

OK. There's so much Kennedy 50th anniversary stuff n TV,I decided to observe the event by watching Parkland. It wasn't a bad movie at all. I thought certain people even did a good job with it. Except not Billy Bob. He acted like an asshole.

Paul Giamatti and Ron Livingston were good. Marcia Gay Harden was good. Zac Efron looked like he was probably using drugs or alcohol when they were filming this, but he did a good job, so did Colin Hanks.

It was very accurate, based on Bugliosi's book. Whether you believe Oswald acted alone or not, the movie just takes the events as they happened, so as far as it went,it was good re-creation.

Oswald's mother was something else. I had no idea he had a brother. I felt sorry for his brother. He seemed like the only sane member of the family.

by Anonymousreply 18311/14/2013


by Anonymousreply 18411/14/2013

Even those who believe in the "Oswald alone" theory acknowledge they are unable to explain his background and dealings with the CIA.

One even went so far as to call it problematic when talking about the assassination.

I think Jack Ruby assassinating Oswald is more telling than the killing of the president, but what do I know?

by Anonymousreply 18511/14/2013

Mamie E. In the Gold room with the Wheel i win?

by Anonymousreply 18611/14/2013

I am kind of curious what the gov or CIA had on Arlen Spector and how they chose him to be the ballistics expert extraordinaire? He stood by that Magic Bullet story till the end. What did he get for his cooperation? Did the press/PTB know about his cancer diagnosis much earlier before he went public and silently agreed to keep quiet to allow him to keep his Senate seat? Also do you think his change in party affiliation to the Democratic ticket in his final term was in some small way a belated apology to the Kennedy family for the Warren Commission report and his findings? Thoughts.

by Anonymousreply 18711/14/2013

I live in Dallas. I have visited Dealey Plaza many times over the years.

I don't believe Oswald was in the 7th floor perch of the Book Depository. The most telling evidence is the fact that the Kennedy motorcade made a sweeping left turn as it approached the Book Depository. I am not a hunter but it only makes common sense to shoot a target as it is approaching you and slowing down to make a turn. Why would you wait until it is PAST you and speeding away? If the shooter was in the Book Depository, the perfect time to shoot would have been as the presidential limo approached. Once the shots were fired, the driver would have had two choices....speed forward to get away (bringing the car closer to the Depository) or (very unlikely) turn around and go back. Either way it would have only enhanced the time/location for a kill shot. The shots came from the Grassy Knoll

by Anonymousreply 18811/14/2013

Fred Kaplan of Slate, a former conspiracy believer, weighs in on why the best conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination don't stand up to scrutiny.

And R189, the motorcade didn't start to speed away until the shots rang out. Oswald had a perfect shot of the slow moving (11 mph) motorcade.

by Anonymousreply 18911/15/2013

Nobody under 50 gives a shit about JFK.

Why should they? He was a lameass president.

by Anonymousreply 19011/15/2013

I don't understand why the recent revelations from Phyllis Hall, a nurse working at Parklands Hospital when Kennedy was brought in, haven't gotten more attention. She identified a "mystery bullet" which later disappeared:

"As surgeons feverishly worked on the President’s lifeless body, Phyllis made a startling discovery.

She reveals: “Mr Kennedy had such a thick head of hair, and few people noticed the gaping wound to his skull. The bullet had ripped it clean away.

“His brain was severely damaged and the blood loss was huge.

“But, as we continued to work, I held his head.

“I could see a bullet lodged between his ear and his shoulder. It was pointed at its tip and showed no signs of damage. I remember looking at it – there was no blunting of the bullet or scarring around the shell from where it had been fired.

“I’d had a great deal of experience working with gunshot wounds but I had never seen anything like this before.

“It was about one-and-a-half inches long – nothing like the bullets that were later produced.

“It was taken away but never have I seen it presented in evidence or heard what happened to it. It remains a mystery.”

by Anonymousreply 19111/15/2013

Some day, when none of us are around anymore, someone in a position of authority, will confirm that there was more than one shooter. They will release sealed documents and evidence and we'll finally know who was responsible and how they did it, and eventually, why they did it.

Aside from the bolt action rifle with the faulty scope, the other thing that has always troubled me, is the ease with which Oswald got into Russia lived there, had a wife, then was allowed to come home and bring his wife with him, all in such a short time. Given our relationship with Russia at that time, it's almost inconceivable.

If we're keeping this thread going, I wish someone would post some details from that Oswald backstory. He's a U.S. marine, he goes to Russia, then he comes back. It all seems rather contrived. Do I think he was a CIA operative? Maybe he was, but at some very low level. Definitely someone's "patsy."

by Anonymousreply 19211/15/2013

189 here again. 190's explaination still does not address my basic question of why not shoot at an approaching target? It still makes no sense to wait until the target has passed.

The head shot WOULD have been shot at an approaching target from the viewpoint of a Grassy Knoll shooter.

by Anonymousreply 19311/15/2013

OK R189, I'll give it a shot. Maybe Oswald was the back up guy, and didn't shoot anyone. Maybe Oswald wasn't just the back up guy but was part of the team of shooters, only when he was supposed to shoot,he froze, got cold feet or something, and the other shooters took the shots.

The other question, is did he have a clean view of the target? Did sunlight interfere? What you propose makes sense. I'm just trying various possible explanations.

by Anonymousreply 19411/15/2013

A reason why Oswald was not on the 7th floor at 1230PM on the day of the shooting:

An eyewitness (a law enforcement officer) entered the School Book Depository and saw Oswald calmly drinking a soft drink on the main floor at 12:32 PM. The only method to get from the 7th floor to the main floor is by the building's ONLY staircase. There were TWO female employees who testified they were in the stairwell at that time and Oswald never was seen or passed them in the stairwell.

How did Oswald get down 6 floors within 2 minutes and not use the only stairs? As Oswald declared, "I'm a Patsy". He was set up to take the blame.

I have always been curious as to why Oswald was interrogated for TWO DAYS before getting shot and yet there has never been any record released of what he said.

by Anonymousreply 19511/15/2013

Yesterday CNN showed the footage of Oswald answering questions being yelled at him by reporters, footage I hadn't seen in 30 years at least.

Oswald came across as devious as shit, very calculating and obviously a narcissistic sociopath, enjoying the attention and the chance to have an audience hanging on his every word.

Any doubts I had about Oswald disappeared: he did it. I'm almost relieved now Ruby shot him. Oswald would have turned his trial into a spectacle about what a victim he was.

My sister used to work as a social worker for 911. She'd get called to the most horrendous crime scenes and the perpetrator would always complain (after murdering their wives, children, neighbors, whatever) that THEY were truly the victim in this situation.

by Anonymousreply 19611/15/2013

Excellent point, R196. Never heard of any transcript or tape of the interviews. And if the FBI participated, as imagine they would have, not just the DPD, there would be a record.

by Anonymousreply 19711/15/2013

r197 is a laughable joke.

by Anonymousreply 19811/15/2013

Generals Walker and Lemnitzer

by Anonymousreply 19911/15/2013

Is this a soap thread? I ask because I'm an idiot and have deep-seated mommy issues.

by Anonymousreply 20011/15/2013

[quote] Oswald came across as devious as shit, very calculating and obviously a narcissistic sociopath, enjoying the attention and the chance to have an audience hanging on his every word.

He denied everything, including that he even owned a rifle!

by Anonymousreply 20111/15/2013

Here are some indisputable facts which, cumulatively, point overwhelmingly in the direction of Oswald's guilt:

1. Oswald shot Gen. Walker, who, in the twisted mind of a 1960s Marxist, was just as much of a fierce anti-Communist as JFK, on 4/10/63 with a mail-order, obscure rifle, of the type that was used to shoot JFK. After the fact, Marina, who had previously photographed her husband proudly showing off the rifle, learned of the attempted assassination. In the event he would be captured, Oswald left instructions for Marina.

2. Unbeknownst to Ruth Paine, who provided a home for the knowing Marina, this rifle was stored in the Paine garage. When Oswald who visited his wife at the Paine home for the first time on a weeknight the night of Thursday, 11/21/63, he retrieved the rifle after Marina refused his entreaties to move back with him. The morning of 11/22/63, Oswald, who had never before removed his wedding ring, left his ring and most of his money in a teacup on the dresser in Marina's bedroom at the Paine residence.

3. Oswald rode to the School Book Depository on the morning of 11/22/63 with a co-worker and the brother of a neighbor of Ruth Paine. He carried with him an object, covered with brown wrapping, that he claimed to be curtain rods for his boarding house room.

4. The overwhelming contemporaneous witnesses, including journalists, believed that the shots came from the School Book Depository. As a result, the School Book Depository was subject to a lockdown. Oswald was the only employee missing.

5. Oswald was witnessed by a number of people both shooting Officer Tippitt (who stopped Oswald because he fit the description of JFK's assailant) and fleeing the scene.

6. Oswald's rifle and the brown wrapping were found on the 6th floor of the School Book Depository. No curtain rods were found (and no curtain rods were missing from the Paine residence; likewise, his boarding room was not missing or in need of curtain rods).

7. When captured at the Texas Theater, Oswald said, "it's over."

8. When, in custody, he saw his brother, Oswald never denied his involvement to his brother, who has always believed that Oswald was guilty.

9. When Oswald was about to be led to his eventual death at the hands of Jack Ruby, his police escort told him that if someone was going to take a shot at him he (the police officer) hoped that the gunman would be as good a shot as Oswald had been. Rather than indignantly scream out his innocence, Oswald merely told the police officer that he was being melodramatic, as no one was going to be taking a shot at him.

by Anonymousreply 20211/15/2013

Oswald did not shoot Walker. The ballistics pointed to somebody else, and the only "evidence" we have that he did was a statement by Marina after two weeks of FBI "interrogation." Moreover, Walker and Kennedy were deadly enemies of each other, so it made no sense for Oswald to shoot both of them if his motive was political. If his motive was attention, then why kill to get away and claim to be a patsy? In fact, Oswald attended a rally of Walker's October 30, which is not consistent with any theory that he tried to shoot him and fled to New Orleans to escape detection.

by Anonymousreply 20311/15/2013

Point 4 about Oswald and Tippit is not true. He was not stopped about anything related to the assassination and there were no descriptions of the assassin.

by Anonymousreply 20411/15/2013

I mean point. Nobody had a physical description of the assassin who was not seen by anyone.

by Anonymousreply 20511/15/2013

[quote] Nobody had a physical description of the assassin who was not seen by anyone.

From Oswald's Wikipedia page:

At approximately 1:15 p.m., the Warren Commission concluded, Dallas Patrolman J. D. Tippit drove up in his patrol car alongside Oswald, presumably because he resembled the police broadcast description of the man seen firing shots at the presidential motorcade, near the corner of East 10th Street and North Patton Avenue.

There were at least a couple of witnesses who immediately came forward to say they saw a man, whom they described as appearing to be around 30 (with his receding hairline, Oswald did look older than his 24 years), shooting from the one of the upper stories of the School Book Authority.

by Anonymousreply 20611/15/2013

R190, that's a thorough debunking of the 'magic bullet' myth.

Oswald acted alone. Occam's razor.

I guess it's hard to believe that one loser can so effectively change the course of history, so we try to invent grand conspiracies to make it seem more special. It's the same with 9/11 -- a small bunch of al Qaeda losers managed to bring down the WTC. And that fact is very hard for some people to accept.

by Anonymousreply 20711/15/2013

[quote]firing shots at the presidential motorcade, near the corner of East 10th Street and North Patton Avenue

This doesn't sound feasible to me? Patton and East 10th are four miles of I35 East away from Dealey Plaza. The suspects seen on the overpass were seen on the Elm St. railroad overpass, right?

by Anonymousreply 20811/15/2013

International Airline Pilot 747 here. YES TWA was amechanical issue as NTSB stated. Can your paranoid conspiracy on that one. AC had been leased to SE Asia airline, with NO required maintenance done, chaffed wires created the short, etc.

As for JFK, get real there too. Dealey Plaza is itsi bitsi TINY area. SMALL area. Totally realistic that single shot with a high powered rifle could inflict that damage, sadly JFK was a sitting duck in a tiny pond. You can ditch that paranoia too.

Occams Razor.

by Anonymousreply 20911/15/2013

Near death, Jackie wrote a letter to her children, to be read decades after her death.

by Anonymousreply 21011/15/2013

[quote] guess it's hard to believe that one loser can so effectively change the course of history, so we try to invent grand conspiracies to make it seem more special. It's the same with 9/11 -- a small bunch of al Qaeda losers managed to bring down the WTC. And that fact is very hard for some people to accept.

Oswald was clearly a "loser," but, having made it to the pages of the NY Times at the age of 20 by having defected to the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, he was not a "nobody."

by Anonymousreply 21111/15/2013

Everything we know about Oswald we've learned from the FBI. You can run down the sequence of events, tell me what he did, what she said, what they found, etc. etc. etc. but it all came from official sources and anything that contradicts the "official story" has been destroyed.

by Anonymousreply 21211/15/2013

i wonder what his children think and if they know the "truth"...

by Anonymousreply 21311/15/2013

Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union at 20 is another sign, not that he had any deeply-held political beliefs, but that he wanted to be Somebody, he wanted to be noticed, a narcissist desperate for attention - which all ties in with the profile of an assassin.

by Anonymousreply 21411/16/2013

The fact that from the beginning, they tried to shut people up, that alone tells you everything you need to know.

by Anonymousreply 21511/16/2013

On the contrary R215, Oswald tried not to be noticed for his assassinations, fleeing to New Orleans after the Walker snafu and escaping after JFK. This was not a man who was trying to be noticed. How odd and patterned your thinking is, fact resistant.

by Anonymousreply 21611/16/2013

What does DL think of the following?

by Anonymousreply 21711/16/2013

Don't care. Zzzzzzz

by Anonymousreply 21811/16/2013

I don't believe anything from the Warren Report.

by Anonymousreply 21911/16/2013

It was obviously Mamie Eisenhower.

Read the thread on her.

by Anonymousreply 22011/16/2013

For all of you playing up the whole Occam's Razor thing: Occam's Razor has a big role to play in nature and science. In politics and basically anything dealing with people, not so much. Why? Mother Nature doesn't have an agenda. People often do. Cui Bono? Who benefited? That's a way of saying: Follow the Money.

by Anonymousreply 22111/16/2013

Isn't it suspicious he died a day after canceling Jackie's credit line at Bloomingdales?

by Anonymousreply 22211/16/2013

r223 = not helpful and certainly not funny

by Anonymousreply 22311/16/2013

The military benefited. Eisenhower warned us and our media paid no attention.

by Anonymousreply 22411/16/2013

Re: Occam's Razor. The postulate itself is completely gratuitous. Reality is infinitely complex. The variety of life itself, as well as the irrationality of human beings, disproves the Razor. We would still be thinking of earth, fire, water and air as the four elements, instead of the periodic table.

But a motivated conspiracy with multiple shooters would be a far simpler explanation than a lone gunman who has no motivation, but can fire magic bullets. But I agree with r222 about looking at who benefits.

BTW, we should be flattered that government shills think this humble forum worth disrupting with the usual lone nut boilerplate.

by Anonymousreply 22511/16/2013

The new Jesse Ventura book is very good. I had no idea that the motorcycle formations were altered to expose the president, there were no secret service on the running boards of the JFK limo, they altered the route. There were also known conspiracies to kill the president in Chicago and Miami.

I also didn't know that at the time it happened, everyone there and those in local law enforcement ALL gravitated toward the front of the car where they heard shots come from. The book depository narrative was invented later on. At the time there was no commotion at the book depository.

The 'occam's razor' people seem to ignore simple facts.

I hope the slew of books that seem to be coming out on the 50th anniv. get more attention.

by Anonymousreply 22611/16/2013

The lone-nutters make me feel like Ingrid Bergman in "Gaslight."

by Anonymousreply 22711/16/2013

JFK was killed by jews because he wanted to get rid of their jew run Federal Reserve. The centralized banking in every country is jew run.

by Anonymousreply 22811/16/2013

r229 = Mel Gibson

by Anonymousreply 22911/16/2013

Swindling the Goyim Episode 1 - Secrets of Banking

by Anonymousreply 23011/16/2013

How the Goyim Get Swindled Part 2

by Anonymousreply 23111/16/2013

LA Times writer and media fixture Joel Stein on the jews running everything. Favorite line(regarding jews): "But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."

by Anonymousreply 23211/16/2013

Just watched 'Killing Kennedy'. Was it wrong that I found Lee Harvey Oswald sexy in that movie? I think the actor was miscast.

by Anonymousreply 23311/16/2013

Kennedy had no intention of getting rid of the federal reserve. It is really shocking that anyone would think that. He was not only the embodiment of a 1%, but he and his pet wealthy economist Walter Heller started the process of tax cutting that has led to the hollowing out of the economy.

by Anonymousreply 23411/16/2013

The central banking/usury scam is the key to why the jews run everything and have all the power.

by Anonymousreply 23511/16/2013

You are twisting the truth r235.

by Anonymousreply 23611/16/2013

Jews didn't run ANYTHING on Wall Street in 1916, R36.

by Anonymousreply 23711/16/2013

Okay, girls, that's quite enough.

When you bring out the homophobic, white supremacist, anti-Semitic smegma, you're finished here.

by Anonymousreply 23811/16/2013

R227, it was only after "someone" claimed they saw a person leaning out a window on either the 4th or 6th floor, with what looked like a rifle, that the School Book Depository came into play.

As I said upthread earlier, the DPD rushed into the building, and went up to that floor, which was a huge open area with literally thousands of boxes piled in no apparent order, like some kind of unsolvable maze.

After a short time, they "found" the rifle wedged between some boxes, and no where near the open window. Since this was a Presidential motorcade, the notion that someone would've spent a lunch hour at an open window peering at the motorcade isn't odd. It only takes on sinister overtones after the assassination.

by Anonymousreply 23911/16/2013

Oswald was a false defector in a CIA run program.

Ruth Paine, the seemingly wonderful woman who took in Marina, had ties to the CIA that included her father and sister. Her husband Michael had connections to the intelligance community - his stepfather was a defense contractor.

You would have to be an idiot - or a member of the established news media - not to realize there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and Oswald was framed.

by Anonymousreply 24011/16/2013

I just finished reading Michael Collins Piper "Final Judgment." Piper's thesis is that the Mossad cooperated with the CIA to assassinate JFK, because he objected to the Israeli nuclear program. While the Mossad may have played a peripheral role a la Permindex, the true architects of the Israeli bomb are the Dulles Brothers, who intended the bomb to be used against the old USSR. Allen Dulles probably helped originate the assassination plot.

However, the Dulles plan is currently being replaced with the Zbigniew Brzezinski plan---arming Iran with nukes to be aimed against the Russian Federation. With either the Israeli or Iranian nuke strategy, it really doesn't matter who's POTUS. So contrary to the Piper thesis, Israel would have gotten the bomb anyway, even if JFK wasn't assassinated. The CIA-Military-Industrial Complex really does control the US, not POTUS or the Jews, which Piper's book ably illustrates.

by Anonymousreply 24111/16/2013

Yes, of course, look at who benefits. I ask that question damned near every day when I read about the latest mess in Congress, or the White House, or the Supreme Court, or foreign relations, and accusations flying, etc.,etc.,etc.

But with Kennedy's assassination, a lot of factions benefited. All the factions whose ascendance depended on him not being President, benefited from his death. Whoever took him out did a favor for a lot of different groups of interests.

But speaking of Occam's Razor: Once you leave the realm of the single, lone assassin, and enter the realm of Conspiracy, you can either get really elaborate, and attach all kinds of philosophical underpinnings...or you can take the simplest, most direct route.

Which is why I still believe, and will believe until it is irrefutably proven otherwise, that it was a Mafia hit with help from CIA contractors. It was the Mafia striking back at a man who betrayed them, lied to them, investigated them, and who lost the Cuba.

I don't need some vast conspiracy theories with a lot of higher ups knowing about it, etc. or the Jews, or the Federal Reserve, or the Military Industrial Complex. I don't need any of that.

The Mob Hit theory satisfies me as being most plausible. I'm not attacking anyone else's theory, I'm just stating my opinion and observations.

I love this thread. You may not realize it, but we've been having one of the better discussions on the entire internet about the assassination.

by Anonymousreply 24211/16/2013

So r231/r232, what about the vatican bank swindle? Did jews cause that one too?

by Anonymousreply 24311/16/2013

Thread about jewish power:

by Anonymousreply 24411/16/2013

I guess it's not surprising that there's a huge overlap with the conspiracy theory nuts and the anti-semitic nuts.

by Anonymousreply 24511/16/2013

It's funny that this topic should pop up. I've been meaning to create a similar thread about Richard Nixon, Pepsi-Cola & (yes!) Joan Crawford's connection to JFK's Assassination for a while now but never got around to it. Nixon, Crawford & several Pepsi-Co executives were all in Dallas at the time of JFK's murder. I've attached a very interesting article I found a few months ago. Forgive me in advance if it's been posted within this thread already. Here's an excerpt:

[quote] Private citizen Richard Nixon claimed to remember where he was during another momentous event — the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Nixon said that he first heard about President Kennedy's death during a taxi ride in New York City. In fact, Nixon was lying. While Nixon did indeed take a taxi ride on November 22, this was not when he first heard that Kennedy had been killed. A press photo taken that day shows a "shocked Richard Nixon" at New York's Idlewild Airport having already learned of Kennedy's murder before he left the airport by taxi.

[quote] It seems that Nixon was trying to deflect attention from the fact that the plane he had taken to New York on the day of the assassination had originated from Dallas. Indeed, Nixon (as he later admitted) had been in Dallas on the morning of the assassination. [Note: Nixon initially told the FBI "...that the only time he was in Dallas, Texas, during 1963 was two days prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

[quote] [bold] While in Dallas, Nixon met with right-wing elites and executives from the Pepsi-Cola company. Dallas journalist Jim Marrs gives this account: "With Nixon in Dallas was Pepsi-Cola heiress and actress Joan Crawford. Both Nixon and Crawford made comments in the Dallas newspapers to the effect that they, unlike the President, didn't need Secret Service protection, and they intimated that the nation was upset with Kennedy's policies. It has been suggested that this taunting may have been responsible for Kennedy's critical decision not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his limousine on November 22." [Notes: The Pepsi-Cola company had a sugar plantation and factory in Cuba, which the Cuban government nationalized in 1960; CIA contract agent Chauncey Holt told Newsweek magazine in 1991 that Pepsi-Cola President Donald Kendall was "considered by the CIA to be the eyes and ears of the CIA" in the Caribbean; a photograph taken on November 21, 1963 — the day before the assassination — shows Donald Kendall meeting with Richard Nixon in Dallas. [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 24611/16/2013

Quote from NY Times, October 3, 1963, regarding CIA overthrow of US government:

One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "according to a high United States source here, twice the C.I.A. flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge . . . [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it." Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official...who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy... are the following:

The C.I.A.'s growth was "likened to a malignancy" which the "very high official was not sure even the White House could control...any longer." "If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon." The agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."

by Anonymousreply 24711/17/2013

Joan Crawford was on the grassy knoll??? Now that's a conspiracy theory the DL can get excited about!

Bobby Kennedy thought it was a mob hit and he was Attorney General and in the best position to know.

by Anonymousreply 24811/17/2013

Conspiracy Theorists are exhausting.

Name a pol that hasn't been in the same room as some kind of criminal.

It is always so easy to back fill a good story, esp if the actual answer is a simple one. Same folks believe the CIA blew up the WTC. Total bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 24911/17/2013


by Anonymousreply 25011/17/2013

r243, regarding organized crime being behind the assassination, the key figure in this scenario would be Meyer Lansky, the chairman of the national syndicate. During WW2 he worked for OSS, ONI and the FBI. After the war he worked for the CIA. His granddaughter worked for the CIA for several years. Lansky was a personal friend of J. Edgar Hoover. How did Lansky get to the top? He was put there by the very agencies that are supposed to be protecting the public from organized crime. Organized crime is part and parcel of the CIA-Miltary-Industry Complex. Lansky and his minions worked for the powers that be. Neither the mob, LBJ, GHW Bush, the Mossad or even the CIA alone have covered up the assassination. Only the Establishment can do that.

r246 uses the alphabet agency boilerplate of equating racists with anyone who dares question the US government on the JFK assassination. This is exactly what TBTB want.

by Anonymousreply 25111/17/2013

BTW, the Establishment has never really given up on the Castro-Russian conspiracy scenario, which was promoted by Joan Crawford's friend, Clare Boothe Luce, despite Luce's husband Harry promoting the lone nutter scenario in Time and Life magazines.

Secretary of State Kerry's current promotion of Clare's old theory is only a harbinger of what's to come. When the time is ripe, the MSM will go bonkers over the "Russians did it" theory.

There is no lie too deep for these psychopaths to promote.

by Anonymousreply 25211/17/2013

R252, I'm just reading this thread. There's so much anti-semitism amongst all this paranoid raving -- it's really something you should think about.

by Anonymousreply 25311/17/2013

[quote]This is exactly what TBTB want.

The powers that be want a scapegoat to so people won't seek out the real power. Jews are an easy scapegoat. Anti-jewish sentiment is easy to stir up among the ignorant torch-wielding villagers.

by Anonymousreply 25411/17/2013

r246, I too am concerned about the anti-Semitic ravings on this thread, though I suspect some of these people are shills working in some boiler room.

I previously reviewed and disagreed with the Piper book, "Final Judgment." The Mossad and the Israelis did not do it, though the real perps used Permindex and Clay Shaw. The cynical use by our government of mob figures like Lucky Luciano and Lansky is a matter of historic record. Ironically, Piper himself dismissed the Federal Reserve, LBJ and Mafia scenarios.

The only significant Jewish figure in this affair is Jack Ruby. Most of the perps are Catholic or Protestant, though this itself does not mean any religion is specifically involved.

I would look specifically at the CIA and US Army intelligence for the origins of the assassination.

As a devote atheist, I am completely aware that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic and that gentiles in this country are using the Jews and Israel for their own Second Crusade against the Islamic world and Russia.

by Anonymousreply 25511/17/2013

Israel didn't even have television until 1967. It was not a technologically or militarily advanced country in 1963.

by Anonymousreply 25611/17/2013

And I'm still pissed off that a thead praising a notoriously homophobic whackjob like Oliver Stone is on here..

by Anonymousreply 25711/17/2013

Dr. Who turns 50 on Sat., one day after the JFK assassination. Talk about horrible timing.

by Anonymousreply 25811/17/2013

The republicans hired Oswald.

by Anonymousreply 25911/17/2013

[R. 260.] You're wrong. The Republicans didn't hire Oscward, Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller hired him to revenge Marilyn Monroe's murder.

by Anonymousreply 26011/17/2013

r208 spoke the truth.

Plain and simple.

Blather on with your theories, but know that.

by Anonymousreply 26111/17/2013

God (as if) at r262, see r222.

by Anonymousreply 26211/17/2013

The anti-Semite is probably just one person.

I'm not anti-Semite, I'm anti-Israel...there is a big difference.

by Anonymousreply 26311/17/2013

[quote] I'm not anti-Semite, I'm anti-Israel

And I'm not racist, I'm anti-welfare.

by Anonymousreply 26411/17/2013

r265, you are just a nasty, ignorant, idiot. You have made that clear.

by Anonymousreply 26511/17/2013


That dovetails with the Nixon, CIA, Viet Nam, Watergate nexus.

The book "Family of Secrets" about Prescott, GHWBUSH and Bush the Lesser details the actions of the CIA when it comes to the murder of JFK, and presents a very compelling case for the CIA and LBJ (with GHWB as the point man) as the mastermind of his murder.

by Anonymousreply 26611/17/2013

I wonder if the likely handful of those who likely repeatedly post here to assert their fact-denying, fanciful conspiracy theories are also 9/11 truthers and Elvis is alive believers.

by Anonymousreply 26711/18/2013

I wonder if the likely handful of those who repeatedly post here to assert their fact-denying, faciful non-conspiracy theories are also 9/11 non-truthers and shills for the forces of Darkness.

by Anonymousreply 26811/18/2013

Sorry, but you're not going to put me into some kind of category designed to marginalize me. As a "Mob Hit Believer" I can tell you I don't believe Elvis is alive.

When an obese drug addict dies on the toilet seat while taking a crap, you gotta believe. I mean it doesn't get more real than that.

As for 9/11, I've state my theory in the 9/11 threads. IMO, 9/11 was a result of a provocative, "Be Careful What You Wish For" centerpiece of the Cheney foreign policy template which was operating in the Bush White House, with the invasion of Iran at its center. More than that I will not post here because it's the wrong thread.

by Anonymousreply 26911/18/2013

For those who think the US government or the Mafia conspired to kill JFK, didn't elements of both have enough information on Kennedy's private life to engage in character assassination and drive him from office without killing him? And effectively destroying the rest of the Kennedy family's political future as well?

by Anonymousreply 27011/19/2013

Occam's Razor is not proof. If it were, Bush would have been executed for treason for his role in 9/11.

by Anonymousreply 27111/19/2013

I heard on some radio show that some document showed that Oswald learned Russian from a Montessori school on a US Army base. Is that true? Has anyone heard or read this?

by Anonymousreply 27211/19/2013

R271, maybe the Mob didn't believe they had the luxury of time for what was essentially a political solution. Smearing JFK wouldn't go far enough. He was neither a traitor nor a thief.

All they could do is ruin his reputation. Maybe. It was a different world back then. The media knew about JFK's women, but turned a blind eye. If Bill Clinton were President in 1960, there would've been no scandals involving Monica, Paula Jones or whomever.

The mafia was more direct. Bobby was prosecuting cases and investigating them, they got none of what the asked for from Old Joe or JFK, and they believed the Bay of Pigs fell apart because of JFK's betrayal, cancelling hope of re-establishing Mob interests in Cuba.

by Anonymousreply 27311/19/2013

[quote] The media knew about JFK's women, but turned a blind eye. If Bill Clinton were President in 1960, there would've been no scandals involving Monica, Paula Jones or whomever.

You're rewriting history if you think the media unearthed Monica Lewinsky. We only learned about her as a result of the Paula Jones lawsuit. It was Jones's lawyers - not the media - who discovered her.

by Anonymousreply 27411/19/2013

[quote]All they could do is ruin his reputation. Maybe. It was a different world back then. The media knew about JFK's women, but turned a blind eye.

But this part of r274's post is accurate.

I don't think the mafia had a big part in this. It was primarily a CIA operation. Like I have said before in this thread, note that all/most of the Watergate key players were also key players in the Kennedy assasination[s].

by Anonymousreply 27511/19/2013

How frustrating is it for those who believe in a conspiracy and/or that Oswald wasn't even involved to see all the anniversary coverage uniformly accepting the Warren Commission's essential conclusions?

by Anonymousreply 27611/19/2013

It's not any different from any other day r277.

by Anonymousreply 27711/19/2013

Has Caroline Kennedy ever watched the Zapruder film?

by Anonymousreply 27811/19/2013

This meme of "it's just too hard to accept that one lone nut can change history" is just so LAZY.

The problem isn't accepting that one lone nut can change history. We all understand that. The problem is that there is so much evidence and so much that was clearly covered up.

As an example, I didn't know until recently that the whole book depository narrative was invented later on. It was made up, and then evidence was eliminated or changed to support it.

by Anonymousreply 27911/19/2013

Oh, I think the shooters were CIA contractors, but I think the Mafia bankrolled it, and the two entities, CIA operatives & Mafia guys planned it. I also believe who ever took part in the shooting, in addition to possibly Oswald, they were all dead within 24 hrs. It definitely has a stamp on it of some CIA involvement, but not at the high levels a lot of people want to believe.

R275, it doesn't matter who unearthed Monica. What matters is the media coverage. It would never have happened in the 60's. If a Paula Jones could've found a lawyer to take the case, he'd have found a way to hush it up. Paula and Monica would've very likely got paid, found jobs, etc. but we would have never known at the time.

by Anonymousreply 28011/19/2013

I think the CIA of the 60's and 70's operated similar to the way it does today. I think they had analysts and spies. They had people who made decisions. But when it came to actually killing someone, they always had "sub contractors" they farmed it out to. This kept them at least one step removed from the deed.

Contractors could be and often were, ex-military, or they could be hit men. Murder for hire. In which case, organized crime was a bit like their HR department. I'm not talking about Seal Teams killing Bin Laden. Although that was a CIA operation to maintain secrecy. But I am talking about the clandestine operations.

by Anonymousreply 28111/19/2013

And it would have been so much better if no one would have never heard of Monaca or Paula.

by Anonymousreply 28211/19/2013

I'm a firm lone (Oswald) gunman believer. Those here who disagree, do you believe Oswald has any culpability in the Kennedy and Tippit shootings?

by Anonymousreply 28311/20/2013

r284, what alphabet agency did you say you worked for?

by Anonymousreply 28411/20/2013

I'm not saying Oswald was not involved. As for J.D.Tippit, it was the 60's, it was Dallas, he was a cop. I'd like to know what really happened. I know. We have "eye witness accounts." From the DPD. So, no. I don't trust the official story.

It seems odd to me that a cop would happen along, and see some nondescript young white male walking down the street, and stop him for no reason. Yes, there was a BOLO, but it just happened so quickly.

It was like some episode of a TV crime drama. How lucky that they figured out who it was, and then found him and his weapon so quickly. I had no idea those Dallas cops were so damned competent.

The video clips from the news of that day said repeatedly that the DPD made extraordinary efforts to insure the security airtight. Yet, they failed to notice an open window with a man holding a rifle?

by Anonymousreply 28511/20/2013

[quote] I had no idea those Dallas cops were so damned competent.

That's another thing: since when is Texas, especially Dallas county (and especially under crazy asshole Henry Wade), known for its awesome skill at catching the right perpetrator the first time and/or rightful convictions?

Texas leads the nation with the most exonerations (48, half of them in Dallas County alone) via the Innocence Project's DNA program. And prior to the DNA era, Dallas co. was even worse at its job.

by Anonymousreply 28611/20/2013

r284 I think he was involved in conversations with people in which he or they discussed killing Kennedy. I don't believe he pulled the trigger.

Re Tippit: I don't know, but I doubt it.

by Anonymousreply 28711/20/2013


However much Dallas wanted to distance itself from its “city of hate” label, the reputation did not surface in a vacuum. The early 1960s saw a strident, extreme brand of conservatism emerge in Dallas, which retained vestiges of the Jim Crow, segregated South amid a growing, national civil rights movement.

“It was a toxic element. Unfortunately, it became visible,” said Val Imm Bashour, society editor of the Dallas Times Herald in 1963. “It’s like all things that are radical. You know, it’s sort of like the bombings that you all had in Boston. There are just these elements that get carried away and will do anything that they feel accomplishes their purpose.”

Bashour saw one of the most publicized episodes of that vitriol firsthand, less than a month before Kennedy’s visit.

While Bashour interviewed Adlai Stevenson, the US ambassador to the United Nations, one of 100 angry protesters used a sign to strike the two-time Democratic nominee for president on the head. Another spat at him.

After the assault, Stevenson was heard to say, “Are these human beings, or are these animals?”

The spasms of hate did not target only Northerners deemed too liberal, or socialist, or even Communist by extremists in a city that had become a Southwestern headquarters for the radical-right John Birch Society.

Three years earlier, after Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas had agreed to become Kennedy’s running mate, he and his wife, Lady Bird, were accosted by a screaming crowd as they arrived at the Adolphus Hotel here.

Nearby stood Representative Bruce Alger, a Republican from Dallas, hoisting a sign that read, “LBJ Sold Out to Yankee Socialists.”

Texas oil barons H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison also helped lead the anti-Kennedy vanguard, which attacked the president for his Catholic religion and plans for expanded social programs, and feared that he would target tax breaks for the oil industry.

Much of the criticism was brazen and public, perhaps no more visible than when E.M. “Ted” Dealey, publisher of the Dallas Morning News, stood to address Kennedy at a White House luncheon for Texas newspaper publishers in 1961.

“We need a man on horseback to lead this nation, and many people in Texas and the Southwest think that you are riding Caroline’s tricycle,” Dealey said.

Bill Minutaglio, a University of Texas journalism professor and co-author of a new book called “Dallas 1963,” said the “citizen-kings” of Dallas at the time — in business, the church, and media — were virulently anti-Kennedy. “These were a handful of people who were extremely powerful and action-oriented people who had hijacked the microphone,” he said. “They began, frankly, a war to overthrow Kennedy.”

by Anonymousreply 28811/20/2013

Occam's Razor doesn't apply in this case because actually Oswald ISN'T the simplest answer. If it were, the "magic bullet" theory wouldn't have been necessary.

by Anonymousreply 28911/20/2013

Interesting article in Rolling Stone describes JFK's struggle with the extremist elements in the military and the CIA, especially the CIA, from the moment he took office. Ike's speech about the military industrial complex and just the tip of the iceberg. Ike knew what Kennedy would face. I wonder what his thoughts were when he learned Kennedy had been assassinated.

by Anonymousreply 29011/20/2013

So sick of hearing about this. I swear the news is droning on about this to make us look away from our horrible current reality.

by Anonymousreply 29111/20/2013

Um, r292, are you familiar with the phrase "What's past is prologue"? You might think deeply about it for awhile in relation to this topic and your complaint.

by Anonymousreply 29211/20/2013

Um, R 293,true, but they do tend to have you watch one hand while they slight you with the other.

by Anonymousreply 29311/20/2013


[quote] I'm not anti-Semite, I'm anti-Israel...there is a big difference.

Just like any criticism of Obama is proof the poster must be racist, any attack on Israel is proves the poster hates the Jews and supports Nazi extermination.

Any attempt to expose the war crimes of the monsters who control Tel Aviv is unacceptably anti-Semitic.

by Anonymousreply 29411/20/2013

I don't believe it was murder.

by Anonymousreply 29511/20/2013


You have Brzezinski and Dulles, but fail to mention Bush 1 as a major player.

The people who still REFUSE to believe, despite the evidence, that JFK was murdered by "rogue" factions in the CIA...I feel sorry for them. They are the same people who believe every lie spewed by David Gregory, Katie Couric, Piers Morgan, and all the other government shills.

It's sad they are that gullible.

by Anonymousreply 29611/20/2013

I think y'all need to read that book about the murder of Dr. Mary Sharp. It really opens your eyes to the kinds of things going on back then.

by Anonymousreply 29711/20/2013


I love you. It's good to know that not all the posters are so gullible about believing the bullshit.

Over the last 50 years, hundreds of witnesses and insiders have come forward with information that blatantly contradicts and disproves the "official" story oF the murder of JFK. Maybe one day they will wake up and actually start asking real questions.

by Anonymousreply 29811/20/2013

According to some new book that's out about the assassination, Bobby Kennedy's first reaction when he heard the news, was that the CIA was involved.

The book claims he confronted the director of the CIA about it and was assured that it was not a CIA operation. While he believed the agency wasn't involved, Bobby felt strongly that some rogue mercenaries with CIA connections were behind it.

Apparently the people involved with the Cubans and the Bay of Pigs fiasco were incensed with JFK.

by Anonymousreply 29911/20/2013

Funny how people insist it was the CIA and not the military despite the fact it was a military operation and the CIA's history in the assassination biz was one of bungling.

by Anonymousreply 30011/20/2013

Have any of you JFK experts read anything on what I posted at R273?

The usual line is that he "learned Russian by teaching himself, reading in his bunkbed" in the Army...?

by Anonymousreply 30111/20/2013


[quote]How frustrating is it for those who believe in a conspiracy and/or that Oswald wasn't even involved to see all the anniversary coverage uniformly accepting the Warren Commission's essential conclusions?

It is actually uplifting for me, R277

The fact that the government controlled media is forced to push the lone gunman theory, offer unyielding support for the Warren Commission and refuse to even acknowledge any flaws in the preceding ---well, it shows how scared they really are. They know that the "official story" is full of holes and doesn't withstand even superficial scrutiny, so they are doing a "full court press" in a vain attempt to keep the official government narrative alive.

Our government is EVIL.

by Anonymousreply 30211/20/2013

r287, interesting thing about Henry Wade is that he said that the Dallas DA's office assumed that Oswald was a regularly paid CIA asset BEFORE the assassination.

Also I heard something interesting on a podcast---if LBJ was behind the assassination, why did the Secret Service pull their guns on the Parkland Hospital staff and take the body away before the doctors could do a proper autopsy?

Wouldn't LBJ want the autopsy done on his home turf where he could directly control everything? Obviously LBJ wasn't the one in control on November 22, 1963. LBJ is extraneous to any plot. Look how the MSM is throwing poor LBJ under the bus for a crime by those who control the MSM.

by Anonymousreply 30311/20/2013


[quote]CIA Director William Colby, while insisting in 1971 Congressional hearings that “the Phoenix program is not a program of assassination,” nonetheless conceded that Phoenix operations killed over 20,000 people between 1967 and 1972.

Sounds successful to me.

by Anonymousreply 30411/20/2013

Some of you should watch this.

Frontlines, Cold Case

by Anonymousreply 30511/21/2013

And this.

by Anonymousreply 30611/21/2013

I've decided not to even watch most of the mainstream media JFK programs this week because most of them are total b.s. The large majority of them on the main networks support the official version and hide all of the enormous evidence uncovered over the past 50 years of involvement by the military industrial complex.

by Anonymousreply 30711/21/2013

I'm going with Richard Nixon.

Between 1960 and 1975, we had a rash of high-profile assassinations, almost as if we had a high-powered serial killer. As Vice President, Nixon had that kind of power, and the ower to deal for more power.

Johnson was from Texas, where Kennedy was killed. He could have supported a plot by Nixon in exhange for the White House AND an agreement not to seek reelection in 1968, when Nixon would take over.

Nixon has a long history of criminal behavior.

When Nixon left power, in 1974, all but one of the assassinations had taken place, and there were none after 1975.

The list of people killed are all liberals who Nixon did not like:

John Kennedy Malcolm X Martin Luther King Robert F. Kennedy Eugene Wallace (direct political opponent) Jimmy Hoffa (opposed Nixon)

We go forever without any of this type of killing, then we have sex of them, then nothing afterwards. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

For the reasons stated above, I posit that Richard Milhous Nixon is the one who killed John F. Kennedy.

by Anonymousreply 30811/21/2013


It was MURDER!

by Anonymousreply 30911/21/2013

Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?

by Anonymousreply 31011/21/2013

Whenever someone claims that JFK was killed by a lone nut, my next question is whether they believe that RFK just also happened to be killed by a lone nut a few years later.

by Anonymousreply 31111/21/2013

r309, you're on the right track, though Nixon is only part of it. As POTUS he didn't stand in the complete way with the powers that be, but enough to get himself Watergated.

As Vice-President, he worked with the Brothers Dulles in various assassinations of foreign leaders. Under Dick's watch (not Ike who was on the golf course), CIA honcho Ed Lansdale took the French Connection away from the French Secret Service and Unione Corse in Vietnam. Later Lansdale carved out "South" Vietnam.

JFK's record for assassination is scant compared to Nixon's even as Vice-President.

Remember Nixon had auspicious beginnings---picked in 1946 by a committee headed by Prescott Bush (CIA/Bonesman) to run for Congress, then financed by Micky Cohen (Meyer Lansky/CIA/FBI/Mossad/etc.).

Most pols nowadays have the sense to keep quiet, hence "fewer" assassinations, though they still occur.

The rumor about LBJ is the same for Truman---both were "advised" to retire, alive or else. The same goes for Nixon's resignation.

by Anonymousreply 31211/21/2013

Correction: Micky Cohen didn't get involved with Mossad until the 1950s, though he did supply help for Israel in the '40s.

Historic sidenotes: CIA honcho James Jesus Angleton went to Israel to help build up the Mossad in 1951, hence the constant two-headed calf-like CIA-Mossad we see all over. That same year of '51, a young CIA agent named GHW Bush went to South Korea and help found the Korea CIA. He also met a Protestant minister named Moon. Allegedly, Georgie was St. Peter who found his Jesus and the beginnings of the Unification Church was started. Like the Mossad, the KCIA and the Moonies are also CIA.

BTW, this same bunch have taken over the Church of Scientology in recent years. Stay away!

by Anonymousreply 31311/21/2013

[quote] Whenever someone claims that JFK was killed by a lone nut, my next question is whether they believe that RFK just also happened to be killed by a lone nut a few years later.

Are only so-called liberal Democrats who are targets the victims of conspiracy? Were Reagan & Wallace the victims of lone nuts or of a larger conspiracy?

by Anonymousreply 31411/21/2013

R315, Reagan and Wallace were not only years apart, but they weren't even members of the same family.

by Anonymousreply 31511/21/2013

R315, yes indeedy! Gore Vidal wrote a famous essay in the "New York Review of Books" about E. Howard Hunt ghostwriting the "memoirs" of Arthur Bremer, an graduate of Dick Helm's MKULTRA Kollege. Hunt's son Saint John Hunt said on television that his father was capable of doing such a thing.

After Reagan was shot, SS agent Parr fell over Reagan, injuring him further. Parr told the drive to take the President to George Washington University Hospital. But inside the car, Reagan feels a stab of pain, possibly from Parr. By this time, Reagan had serious doubts about Parr and the other SS agents. So Reagan had uniformed Naval personnel guard him at the hospital till he healed and left.

And John Hinckley's family connections to the Bushes is old news. The assassination is just a combined replay of RFK plus Yitzhak Rabin:

[quote]And indeed, Reagan told the Associated Press he thought he was shot by a Secret Service agent in an interview published in The New York Times April 23, 1981): "I knew I'd been hurt, but I thought that I'd been hurt by the Secret Service man landing on me in the car, and it was, I must say, it was the most paralyzing pain. I've described it as if someone had hit you with a hammer. But that sensation, it seemed to me, came after I was in the car, and so I thought that maybe his gun or something... suddenly I found that I was coughing up blood."

Perhaps Parr shot Reagan again with a silenced pistol in the car.

Similarly, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Lady Di were ambulatory when he was shot and she was injured, but both were later murdered in the ambulances. The kid who shot Rabin is another Manchurian Candidate.

See how it's done? First the distraction, then you get the target into an enclosed vehicle and finish the job. Reagan was shot by Parr outside the car, when Hinckley does his Sirhan distraction. Then Parr shoots Reagan again in the car.

by Anonymousreply 31611/21/2013

Kroll did the "investigation" that led to NBC dropping a show on James Files and disputing the official story.

Kroll worked on RFK's campaign

Kroll did security for 911 and hired john oneill the day before 911.

Kroll worked for Allan Stanford and covered up the massive Ponzi scheme.

Kroll is associated with Gerald Posner.

Kroll vetted Snowden(it could be that Snowden couldn't handle the evil or he is a fake meant to further cover up)

Kroll investigated the Obama passport breach and found no wrongdoing

Kroll was the FBI monitor of the LAPD after Rampart. This makes no sense considering Kroll's awesomely corrupt practices.

Kroll claimed that there was no corruption in San Diego

Kroll covered up the Chevron corruption

It goes on and on. Aside of his son Nick Kroll trying to get famous, Kroll has kept under the radar in ways that are chilling.

by Anonymousreply 31711/21/2013

There's a PBS (Petroleum Brainwashing Shill) on this thread. PBS stations were always part of the CIA Operation Mockingbird.

Grand Old Man of PBS, Bill Moyers, was the one who ordered the bubble canopy removed from the President's car. Nuf' said.

by Anonymousreply 31811/21/2013

As for Lyndon Johnson not seeking reelection in 1968, after January's 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, Jonson's popularity was so low, he and the country were sure he couldn't win -- specially after he was already being challenged for the nomination by someone in his own party -- Eugene McCarthy.

Look back at history here -- instead of conspiracy.

Although I do believe that Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy. (And now I'll probably be monitored by the CIA for writing that.)

by Anonymousreply 31911/21/2013

The same people were behind this as those who had David Sedaris' sister killed.

by Anonymousreply 32011/21/2013

Re: GHW Bush.

Bush was mid-level CIA management in 1963. Two much higher ranking CIA honchos are Allen Dulles and General Charles Cabell, the brother of Earle Cabell, the mayor Dallas. Why do publishers of JFK assassination books keep ignoring these two?

What about the head of Operation Mongoose, General Edward Geary Lansdale? His former boss at the Pentagon, as well as a direct report, IDed him as the suit walking past the three "tramps."

What about David Atlee Phillips? Head of operation in the Western Hemisphere. He was under Lansdale during Operation Mongoose.

What about James Jesus Angleton? He was station chief in Rome when Clare Luce Boothe was US ambassador and together they set up the Gladio terrorist network. He was later head of the CIA Israeli desk and carried out the Dulles' covert policy helping Israel's nuclear program.

But noooo.... It always about George Bush. I'm not even certain he was behind the attempted assassination of Reagan. People above George must be pulling the strings.

Re: the real assassins and their true motives.

Basically, you have a bunch of right-wing crazies willing to blow up the world in order to invade Cuba and ultimately "defeat" the Soviets. Like the SAC General Power, who said that if only two Americans and one Russian are alive after WW3, we win!

Despite the constant brainwashing by our MSM and "schools," the "hate-Russia" meme never really took hold among most Americans as it is a-historical. The hatred of Asians as enemies only goes back to the 1940s and after. The Germans from the 19-teens and after. The British from the beginnings of America. But the hate Russia notion is a strange one. Personally as a Baby-Boomer, I've never been able to buy into it, nor millions of others of my generation. To the Xers and Mills, it must look totally bizarre. But there's still some strange haters out there who insist Oswald was a communist Cuban or Soviet agent.

by Anonymousreply 32111/21/2013

r320, I'm aware of that bit of history regarding Eugene McCarthy, but remember that strange spectacle of CIA Cold Warriors helping "Clean Gene":

[quote]In early 1968, when McCarthy’s campaign seemed dangerously short of funds, help was forthcoming from West Coast industrialist Sam Kimball, chairman of Aerojet-General Corp. whose representative in Washington was Admiral Raborn, a former CIA chief.

When Robert Kennedy...entered the nomination stakes, two more ‘former’ CIA men, Thomas Finney and Thomas McCoy joined McCarthy’s campaign.

The rumors about LBJ and the others are just that. I have no proof, but a little extra persuasion couldn't hurt TPTB. The real threat to the CIA was Bobby, though. Stopping Bobby, who would have undone all that hard work of the minions of hell---that's the point of not so Clean Gene.

by Anonymousreply 32211/21/2013

Look. I was around for this. The accepted wisdom, and I agree, was that McCarthy couldn't win a national election, and his ability to even get nominated was doubtful.

Bobby Kennedy, OTOH, could united a divided party, secure the nomination,& very likely win. He'd move the country further left than any power players were comfortable with.

The GOP's always been good at manipulating elections and campaigns so they can get the opponent they want. They wanted Humphrey. Nixon was willing to make deals and agree to damned near anything to get elected.

I'm not suggesting anything resembling violence here. I'm simply saying that Nixon would agree with the corporate hacks, and the military, and who ever else he needed to ingratiate himself with. They loved him because he was an avowed "Anti-Communist" and a redbaiter as he proved when he ran for the Senate. The Right mostly had no problem with him.

The country was divided, in chaos. There were not only the anti war people, but there were the riots, and the whole Civil Rights Movement was turning a corner with King dead.

Nixon tapped into the "vast silent majority" who were tired of all the bullshit. They wanted clarity and stability. The GOP hung Vietnam and LBJ around Humphrey's neck, painted him as an evil Liberal, and campaigned on a "Law & Order" theme, promising to end the War and the welfare state.

Most politicians are whores. Yes, even JFK, RFK, McCarthy, certainly Humphrey and definitely Nixon. But they are also pawns.

by Anonymousreply 32311/21/2013

I didn't realize that Bob Jackson, who won the Pulitzer for his iconic photo of Ruby killing Oswald, was one of the eyewitnesses who saw a rifle in a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

by Anonymousreply 32411/21/2013

McGovern would have been great but liars kept him out of office. Our CIA and military control the propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 32511/21/2013

Here's a fact for you: the radio clips that you hear most of the time from the day of the shooting, most famously heard in the Tom Clay version of "Abraham, Martin and John", are fake. They were recorded a few days later by the reporters for KBOX who were covering the president's visit and the motorcade. They had to record them afterward because, mysteriously, the actual tapes of their call of the shooting "do not exist". They have never been seen in the station's archives.

by Anonymousreply 32611/21/2013

The problem with the Kennedy assassination is that the physical evidence points to one shooter in the right-rear of the limousine. Even then one has to concede that Oswald was incredibly lucky to get three shots, two hits with that bolt-action rifle from that location and in that time frame (5 to 8 seconds, depending on who's counting).

Yet, if you look at Oswald and the milieu he traveled in, you have to think conspiracy. Just a few --

1 -- Oswald defect to the USSR, comes back, bringing his Russian wife.

2 -- Oswald moves to Dallas where he's uses an alias (A. Hill); is monitored by the FBI.

3 -- Although unemployed or working low-end jobs; his best friend is a rich Russian émigré with contacts in the CIA.

4 -- During the summer of 1963, he starts a chapter of a pro-Castro org (against its wishes); has an altercation with Cuban exiles (funded by the CIA) which is covered by the media; appears on radio to debate foreign policy. Oswald's uncle works for Marcello's outfit in NOLA. (!!!)

5 -- During October 1963 goes to Mexico City and visits the Cuban embassy and calls the Soviet embassy. In the latter he speaks to the head of KGB assassinations (how in hell did he even know who this guy is.)

6 -- Back in Dallas gets a temp job at the Depository, gets those lucky shots out and is found unbelievably quickly by DPD.

7 -- Is shot before trial by a mobster with ties to Chicago and NOLA. Said mobster is never brought to trial and dies of cancer in jail.

It's all the incredible coincidences that make one suspicious.

by Anonymousreply 32711/21/2013

You're using this conspiracy theory as a reason to avoid sex with me.

by Anonymousreply 32811/21/2013

He wasn't murdered, OP. He was kidnapped by a Hispanic man with dreadlocks but he died from fibromyalgia. And excess Billy Reuben.

by Anonymousreply 32911/21/2013

This is one clip I don't remember seeing before. The Boston Symphony was performing a Friday afternoon concert that was being recorded.

I'm linking to the NPR story because YouTube has an ad.

by Anonymousreply 33011/21/2013

Interesting to note the new take on the killing. One talking head after another now is crowing about Oswald being the lone nut gunman, angry at the world, a wife beater, a paranoid loser etc and that those who feel otherwise can't handle the fact that he alone killed the President. This appears to be the rote response right now.

Problem is that Oswald was not your average loner. He was a Russian speaking former defector with ties to all sorts of fucked up characters. I feel he was part of the conspiracy but not the shooter. If he had killed Kennedy, he would have raved about it to the press instead of using the Patsy angle. Oswald was the distraction who expected to walk away. He was fucked over by his co-conspirators and had to be dispatched. Cue Jack Ruby. Even Marina has changed her tune to stating that Oswald was not the shooter.

by Anonymousreply 33111/21/2013

[quote] If he had killed Kennedy, he would have raved about it to the press instead of using the Patsy angle.

This is so true and so often overlooked by the talking heads. Aside from my questions about the assassination, Oswald not only denying it but using the word "patsy" really makes me believe there's more to it than what the Warren Report concluded.

by Anonymousreply 33211/21/2013


[quote]Are only so-called liberal Democrats who are targets the victims of conspiracy? Were Reagan & Wallace the victims of lone nuts or of a larger conspiracy?

Are you forgetting that John Hinkley, Jr's parents had dinner with the Bush family the night before he tried to kill Reagan?

Or that Clinton, Bush and Obama are all former CIA assets?

by Anonymousreply 33311/21/2013


Are you suggesting that the Pulitzer committee might have bribed him with a PP (like Obama's Nobel Peace(sic) Prize) for going along with the official story?

by Anonymousreply 33411/21/2013


[quote] Our CIA and military control the propaganda.

So, your solution is to give the government MORE power, MORE control, MORE money...really?

Devolving the powers of the federal government back to the state level (or better yet, to the county level, or even back to individual level) is the only solution.

Abolish the powers of the megalomaniacs that run DC, return them to a local, HUMAN, level and stop this shit!

by Anonymousreply 33511/21/2013


Never heard that, but it is consistent with the "silent coup by the CIA" that took place after JFK was murdered.

by Anonymousreply 33611/21/2013

I have noticed that too r332.

[quote] nut gunman, angry at the world, a wife beater, a paranoid loser etc

I particularly like how they cite these things as reasons why LHO being the only gunman is the only reasonable conclusion, YET all of those same things apply to the Birchers/KKK-ers who were far more numerous and full of hate for the president.

But no, no, it HAS TO BE the "leftist" who had the bone to pick.


I also love the repeated statement that the Warren Commission, the FBI and the CIA looked into every theory - EVERY ONE - and found nothing credible!!!11 Of course they did. At least half of the "theories" involve the fucking CIA, FBI and members of the Commission. "We investigated ourselves and we found ourselves innocent. Case closed."

by Anonymousreply 33711/21/2013


Isn't it amazing that someone can be presented with those facts- not conjecture, but easily proven and deeply researched- and still claim that there was no "conspiracy"!!!

by Anonymousreply 33811/21/2013

Valery Giscard D'Estaing, former French President: President Ford says "It was a organized."

"Gerald Ford (President of the United States from 1974 to 1977) was on the Warren Commission...I once took a drive with him in the United States....

"I said: 'Let me ask you an indiscreet question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you come to?'

"He told me: 'This isn't good...It was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized, but we have not been able to discover who was behind it."

Contrary to LBJ's estimate, Ford was good at playing dumb---an old Russian yeoman trick that Khrushchev used to survive the Stalinist purges. Ford was almost assassinated himself. Luckily he wasn't, or you know who would have been Dictator of the United States.

"Hiya fellow!"

by Anonymousreply 33911/21/2013

[quote] Are you suggesting that the Pulitzer committee might have bribed him with a PP (like Obama's Nobel Peace(sic) Prize) for going along with the official story?

Not at all. He made his eyewitness claim contemporaneously. I brought it up to point out how credible the witnesses were who could link Oswald to the shooting. Unlike the incredible contrary assertions of Jean Hill, who also claimed there was a fluffy white dog sitting between the Kennedys!

by Anonymousreply 34011/21/2013

[quote] If he had killed Kennedy, he would have raved about it to the press instead of using the Patsy angle.

He denied EVERYTHING, including even owning a rifle. If he had immediately admitted to the shooting, he would have been deprived of his show trial. A narcissist like Oswald would never have waived that opportunity.

by Anonymousreply 34111/22/2013

how was Clinton a "CIA asset"?

by Anonymousreply 34211/22/2013

R341, dozens of witnesses said they saw gunmen behind the fence on the grassy knoll, saw smoke and were intimidated or threatened by authorities. Witnesses ended up dead, documents were destroyed, and 50 years later there are still pieces of evidence missing and being withheld.

A 12-year old can see that Oswald definitely didn't kill Kennedy and that there was most definitely an obvious conspiracy.

by Anonymousreply 34311/22/2013

Who really killed JFK?

Lee Harvey Oswald. Alone.

by Anonymousreply 34411/22/2013

Fuck off, Warren Commission cocksucker at R345.

by Anonymousreply 34511/22/2013

Pssst. R340. Ford wasn't "playing" dumb. I do believe that answer was probably the most candid answer anyone might expect of someone in his position. Surprisingly so.

by Anonymousreply 34611/22/2013

r342, regarding the rifle, it was shown by past research long ago that that Klein's Sporting Goods paperwork indicates a 36" carbine was ordered and shipped, not the 40.2" rifle found in the book depository.

Another anomaly accounting for the time when Oswald was supposed to buy the money order at the main post office and mail the envelope. According to Oswald's time-card he arrived at work at 8AM. The post office also opened at 8AM. The envelope was mailed three postal zones away from the main post office. The time-stamp on the envelope was 10:30 AM when Oswald was still at work. His time-card accounts for every minute he spent that morning at the book depository. There is no evidence he ever left the building.

Also the money order has no stamp from any financial institution, meaning it was never paid by any financial institution. If Klein was never paid, why did they ship the carbine/rifle?

by Anonymousreply 34711/22/2013

Iris, Mac and Rachel WAS great, but it wasn't Another World. All of these theater trained actors started showing up, playing stereotypical society mavens and scoundrels. It sounded great at times, but it was tedious to hear characters talking about 'marrying beneath your station' - like anyone talks that way! The grounded Alice/Steve, Lenore/Walter, Pat/John stories were what got the show on the map initially and the hour long switch was what really started the destruction of ALL soaps. I mean, All My Children was ridiculous at the end with so many characters coming back from the dead. How many times did Dixie die and come back? At some point you have to deep six that kind of crap. Any kind of credibility AMC had was long gone.

by Anonymousreply 34811/22/2013

r347, I wasn't talking about Ford's demeanor when answering Valery Giscard D'Estaing in private, I was referring to Ford's demeanor around the public and especially political opponents. The dumb act is a way of appearing non-threatening and getting your enemies to lower their guard.

Eisenhower was another one who played dumb. But "I shall return" MacArthur really was stupid, as Harry Truman noted.

by Anonymousreply 34911/22/2013

Just to clarify -- the evidence is very strong that it was Oswald in the TSB with the Marcano.

The problem is all weird connections he had. He was not a typical loner. And the incredible set of coincidences that led to that fateful day.

I wonder if, at some point, he discussed his plans with some people and when the motorcade route was published, he sprung into action. Maybe the very people nodding in his direction did not take him seriously -- and, suddenly, they had a dead President on their hands.

by Anonymousreply 35011/22/2013

This is a view from the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The car circled in yellow is the location of JFK’s limo on Elm Street at the moment of the fatal headshot. (Original article) added two men onto the rear bumper of the car. Image created from the photos of Warren Commission Exhibit 875.

by Anonymousreply 35111/22/2013

[quote]Unlike the incredible contrary assertions of Jean Hill, who also claimed there was a fluffy white dog sitting between the Kennedys!

If only it had been [italic]Miss[/italic] Jean Hill.

by Anonymousreply 35211/22/2013

Regarding the image on r352, the scope on the Carcano was a 2x child's scope intended for .22 and air rifles. The narrowness of the view limits its use to 50 yards. Of course the scope was out of alignment, which doesn't matter, as it was never used in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 35311/22/2013

I was a kid when JFK was killed. I'm so over all this speculation. It was 50 years ago. Almost all the people involved are dead. I mean who gives a crap anymore? We should spend our time worrying about today's problems - we have a boatload of them!

by Anonymousreply 35411/22/2013

Correction to r354. The scope power is 2.5.

by Anonymousreply 35511/22/2013

r355, the reason we have today's problems is due to what happened on November 22, 1963. Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that a new form of government was coming to the US. You think we a boatload of them now? You've seen nothing yet!

by Anonymousreply 35611/22/2013

The only evidence Oswald could have done it was the alleged Walker shooting, but the ballistics didn't match his weapon, and the police who investigated it thought Walker did it himself to appear the victim.

by Anonymousreply 35711/22/2013

If Oswald were to shoot Kennedy, the better shot was down Elm as the car was slowing to make the turn. No trees, no angle, slow speeds. Shooting down Dealey as the car was accelerating downhill away from the shooter with trees obstructing the view was an extremely difficult target to someone who had NEVER EVEN PRACTICED on a moving target. You can't calculate vectors in such a situation unless you've had experience. Also note that he had missed Walker, a stationary target, a point blank range.

by Anonymousreply 35811/22/2013

Over the last three years as the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination has drawn closer, Dealey Plaza where he was killed has been the setting for an ugly battle. On one side has been an eclectic army of conspiracy theorists insistent on their right to use the plaza as their podium. Partisans on the other side have been old Dallas establishment types sometimes using heavy-handed and often illegal tactics to quell and quash such activity.

This year a federal civil rights lawsuit produced emails and other communications proving that the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza was deeply involved behind the scenes in first seeking, then even taking part in the illegal arrest and jailing of a conspiracy author whom the museum wanted expunged from the plaza. The final outcome and expression of this battle will be the memorial service itself on the 22nd — ticketed and barricaded to keep the rabble out and the old guard in.

But now with the date upon us, all of a sudden a very different and deeply personal dimension opens. For those who were alive when it happened, the murder of JFK is still visceral. When opposing factions of the same generation of people confront each other at Dealey Plaza on Friday, they will be divided by barricades but united by the fact that for all of them the loss of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in that place a half century ago is still today a personal burden of grief. This anniversary probably will be the last time that is true.


I think about that, and I think maybe Decherd handled it pretty smoothly. But then there is this. I have come to know Robert Groden, the author whom the Sixth Floor Museum helped get thrown in jail on trumped-up charges. He's a nice man. I like him.

I came across the internal police department email in which the arresting officer bragged to his superior that they had been able to make Groden's overnight incarceration even harder on him by withholding his medications. This was an ugly business, this persecution of Groden. Whoever was at the top of it, working the puppet strings, needs to be deeply ashamed of himself or herself or themselves.

On the day Kennedy was shot in Dallas, Groden was an 18-year-old kid playing hooky from Forest Hills High School in the nice part of Queens, New York. He and his sister watched the story break on television. Groden has devoted every day of his life since that day to solving what he believes is an open murder case. He is a best-selling author. He was a staff expert to the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald probably did not act alone in the killing of the president. He is a man not without standing.

Groden is not unlike the army of assassination experts and theorists who have been banished from Dealey Plaza for the 50th observations — a banishment carried out at the instigation of the Sixth Floor Museum and with the heavy-handed cooperation of City Hall. Many of them are in their 60s, 70s and even 80s. The assassination has been the dominant theme and focus of their lives.

by Anonymousreply 35911/22/2013

Maybe Oswald was told that his role in this was to act as a lookout at the Depository. Could that have been a possibility? I'm not one who claims he wasn't involved, but I am claiming he wasn't the shooter.

He was right, he was a patsy. He may have been a lot of other things, CIA plant, etc. but for sure, he was a patsy. From the moment they announced they had "a suspect," he was a dead man walking.

R354, that's exactly why I never believed the "official story." As I said way back in this thread, it was the gun they gave us as the weapon.

by Anonymousreply 36011/22/2013

Here's LHO's mug shot in Dallas - does this look like a frightened person framed for a murder he did not commit?

He looks happy with himself.

by Anonymousreply 36111/22/2013

r362, Oswald looks stoic, his jaw clenched. Also, he appears to have a right "lazy eye." He had a master left eye. There's a picture of someone that has a similiar expression---he's about to be shot by a firing squad.

by Anonymousreply 36211/22/2013

Maybe, r363 -- I see a smirk.

by Anonymousreply 36311/22/2013

His lips are pursed because they were telling him to shut up so they can take the photo.

And r287 does bear repeating.

[quote]That's another thing: since when is Texas, especially Dallas county (and especially under crazy asshole Henry Wade), known for its awesome skill at catching the right perpetrator the first time and/or rightful convictions?

by Anonymousreply 36411/22/2013

r364, the gaslighting MSM has repeated the "smirk meme" since 1963.

r328, the "Oswald" in Mexico City looks different.

by Anonymousreply 36511/22/2013

Is this the anniversary?

by Anonymousreply 36611/22/2013

I'm not sure he was a great man.

by Anonymousreply 36711/22/2013

OP's post is mess of blithering idiocy.

by Anonymousreply 36811/22/2013

[quote]I was a kid when JFK was killed. I'm so over all this speculation. It was 50 years ago. Almost all the people involved are dead. I mean who gives a crap anymore? We should spend our time worrying about today's problems - we have a boatload of them!

I almost resisted commenting on this stupidity, but here goes.

The JFK assassination is more important than many historical events because of its psychological and existential ramifications. The killing of a young, seemingly vibrant leader in broad daylight tore the fabric of the American psyche and effectively ended the bliss of the postwar period. The general belief that the Warren Commission was not the whole truth added to this wound and some historians argue the event led to the dissolution of the late 1960s and subsequent cynical and apathetic feelings widespread in America by the 1970s and 1980s. The event defines what our country is about: are we ruled by the will of the people or by violence? By secret government? By oligarchy? If you don't think that ties directly to the problems we have today, then I can see why you would ask such an idiotic question.

by Anonymousreply 36911/22/2013

I always think of the part in JFK when Garrison points out that if we'd learned on Nov 22, 1963, that the leader of the Soviet Union had been killed by an unusually connected lone gunman who was later disposed of before he could face trial, we would automatically assume that a coup d'état had taken place.

Even if you don't buy what Oliver Stone is selling in that movie, I think that is a brilliant way of pointing out how people are so conditioned to believe they live in an exceptional society.

by Anonymousreply 37011/22/2013

Garrison was an exhibitionistic nutcase so quoting Oliver Stone (a homophobic piece of shit like Garrison) as any kind of authority on anything (but exploiting paranoids) isn't convincing.

by Anonymousreply 37111/22/2013

Thanks, r370.

r372 - Irrespective of Garrison's lack of authority, his statement still rings true.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

by Anonymousreply 37211/22/2013

Texas is a vile and horrible place. I have never been there and will never step foot there. Once when flying from my home in THE HAMPTONS to LOS ANGELES we had a plane issue and thought we were going to have to land in Dallas. I was horrified. Texas is scary to me. A bunch of uneducated, backwoods, incestuous, inbred, RETHUG, assholes. Terrifying.

by Anonymousreply 37311/22/2013

I kind of wonder if Stone actually prefers men?

Doesn't matter, he's correct about the Kennedy murder.

by Anonymousreply 37411/22/2013

370 is brilliant. We need more.

by Anonymousreply 37511/22/2013

Stone is not remotely correct about the assassination and his movie is a load of BS completely torn appart by historians. His so-called hero turned out to be a fraud.

Why do people assume that movies tell truths?

by Anonymousreply 37611/22/2013

I see a shill tagteam at work. Sounds like an echo chamber, boys.

by Anonymousreply 37711/22/2013

[quote]Stone is not remotely correct about the assassination and his movie is a load of BS completely torn appart by historians.

We eagerly await your sources, R377.

IIRC, Warner Brothers published an annotated version of the screenplay that included a bibliography backing up the factual claims in the film.

by Anonymousreply 37811/22/2013

[quote]if we'd learned on Nov 22, 1963, that the leader of the Soviet Union had been killed by an unusually connected lone gunman who was later disposed of before he could face trial, we would automatically assume that a coup d'état had taken place.

100% accurate

by Anonymousreply 37911/22/2013

I will grant that Stone's JFK is a mix of fact and fiction and should not be taken as gospel or a documentary. It was made to put forth his view and get the conversation about what really happened going again.

What part of Garrison's opinion that "if a well-connected lone nut-case killed a Soviet premier, we would assume it was a coup d'état had taken place" do you disagree with?

by Anonymousreply 38011/22/2013

R377 and other dummies, Stone did not make up the theories on the movie JFK. The movie was based on two books - 1. Garrison's 2. Crossfire by Jim Marrs that summarized ALL the conspiracy theories up until the late 1980s

by Anonymousreply 38111/22/2013

Who made it so the MSM couldn't air the James Files Story? Who made it so that story is only known to a very few? Who is defaming Wim Daankbar? Who has romanced Gerald Posner into lying to the public? Who defanged Bugliosi and Spitzer? Who discredited Files and who worked for RFK's campaign? Who then cleared Stanford, Chevron,San Diego, LAPD, and the Obama passport hackers?Who handled security for 9/11 and then the hard drives retrieved from the wreckage?

One name comes up: Kroll. Many are involved, but Jules is at the heart of the ruthless corruption we see.

by Anonymousreply 38211/22/2013

Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" article on JFK basically summarized my feelings on the film. Excellent read:

Drama, Thriller

Rated R

188 minutes

Watch This Movie iTunes(Streaming) VUDU(Streaming) Amazon Instant Video(Streaming) Xbox LIVE(Streaming) Amazon Prime

Add_to_queue_mini_off Powered by GoWatchIt ★★★★ | Roger Ebert April 29, 2002 | ☄ 0 Print Page

I don't have the slightest idea whether Oliver Stone knows who killed President John F. Kennedy. I have no opinion on the factual accuracy of his 1991 film “JFK.” I don't think that's the point. This is not a film about the facts of the assassination, but about the feelings. “JFK” accurately reflects our national state of mind since Nov. 22, 1963. We feel the whole truth has not been told, that more than one shooter was involved, that somehow maybe the CIA, the FBI, Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia or the Russians, or all of the above, were involved. We don't know how. That's just how we feel.

Shortly after the film was released, I ran into Walter Cronkite and received a tongue-lashing, aimed at myself and my colleagues who had praised “JFK.” There was not, he said, a shred of truth in it. It was a mishmash of fabrications and paranoid fantasies. It did not reflect the most elementary principles of good journalism. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

I have no doubt Cronkite was correct, from his point of view. But I am a film critic and my assignment is different than his. He wants facts. I want moods, tones, fears, imaginings, whims, speculations, nightmares. As a general principle, I believe films are the wrong medium for fact. Fact belongs in print. Films are about emotions. My notion is that “JFK” is no more, or less, factual than Stone's “Nixon” or “Gandhi,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Gladiator,” “Amistad,” “Out of Africa,” “My Dog Skip” or any other movie based on “real life.” All we can reasonably ask is that it be skillfully made and seem to approach some kind of emotional truth.

Given that standard, “JFK” is a masterpiece. It's like a collage of all the books and articles, documentaries and TV shows, scholarly debates and conspiracy theories since 1963. We know the litany by heart: The grassy knoll, the hobos in dress shoes, the parade route, the Bay of Pigs, Lee Harvey Oswald in Russia, the two Oswalds, Clay Shaw, Allen Dulles, three shots in 2.6 seconds, the eyewitness testimony, the woman with the umbrella, the gunpowder tests, the palm print, Jack Ruby, the Military Industrial Complex, the wrong shadows on the photograph, the Zapruder film, and on and on. These items are like pegs on a child's workbench: We pound one down, and another one springs up.

Oliver Stone was born to make this movie. He is a filmmaker of feverish energy and limitless technical skills, able to assemble a bewildering array of facts and fancies and compose them into a film without getting bogged down. His secret is that he doesn't intend us to remember all his pieces and fit them together and arrive at logical conclusions. His film is not about the case assembled by his hero, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner). It is about Garrison's obsession. The film's thrust is not toward truth, but toward frustration and anger. Too many lies have been told and too much evidence tainted for the truth to ever be known. All Garrison can reasonably hope to prove is that the official version is unlikely or impossible, and that tantalizing clues and connections suggest a hidden level on which the dots connect differently.

Stone was much criticized for choosing Garrison as his hero. Who should he have chosen? Earl Warren? Allen Dulles? Walter Cronkite? As a filmmaker, it is his assignment to find a protagonist who reflects his feelings. Jim Garrison may not have been on the right track, but he was a perfect surrogate for our national doubts. He asked questions that have never been satisfactorily answered -- that can have no answers, and indeed cannot even be questions, if the Warren Report orthodoxy is correct. Jim Garrison was the obvious

by Anonymousreply 38311/22/2013

Ebert continued:

Garrison was the obvious hero for any film about a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.

Stone found the right visual style, too. We've been bombarded by incoming information. It's come for decades in films, in print, on the TV news, in documentaries, in photographs analyzed down to their constituent molecules. None of this stuff fits together. A film with a smooth and consistent visual style would have felt false. Stone and his expert cinematographer, Robert Richardson (who won the Oscar), work in every relevant visual medium: 35mm, 16mm, Super 8, 8mm, video, still photos, color, black and white. His editors, Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia, also Oscar winners, assemble this material like the pieces of a jigsaw. It's not linear; there's a sense of parallel events moving forward on more than one front at a time. Consider the scene with Garrison and his investigators in a restaurant, which is intercut with shots of the alleged fabrication of the photo of Oswald and the rifle. As the group breaks up in frustration, the trajectory of the other sequence lands the photo on the cover of Life magazine. Was the photo fabricated? Who knows? The shadows sure don't seem to match.

Of course it was also the Time-Life empire that supplied conspiracy theorists with their most valuable weapon, the Zapruder film. The conspirators, whoever they may have been, “didn't figure on Zapruder,” the film says. Without his grainy home movie, we would have no way of knowing that the shots were so closely spaced it seems unlikely Oswald could have fired all of them. Yes, I know about Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, which argues that everything could have happened more or less as the Warren Commission concluded. “JFK” argues, and most of us still agree, that Oswald's high-speed accuracy is hard to believe. It reflects our gut feelings. It speaks for our dark suspicions.

Stone uses a huge cast. To help us follow all those characters through the thicket of evidence, reconstructions, flashbacks, hypothetical meetings and fleeting glimpses, he makes use of typecasting and the star system. Actors such as Gary Oldman are chosen not just because they are very skilled, but because they look like the characters they play (Oswald, in his case). Stars like Jack Lemmon, Ed Asner, Walter Matthau, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek are used to create instant emotional zones around their characters. Less recognizable stars such as Michael Rooker are cast in satellite roles; he plays a key Garrison investigator. We recognize him every time he turns up on the screen, but he doesn't upstage the boss. And Kevin Costner, in the central role, brings all of his believability and likability and dogged determination to the character of Garrison: He's not a hotshot or a genius, but a stubborn man who gets mad when he's lied to.

There's a lot of exposition in the film. There are times when Stone essentially asks us to listen while a character explains things. These scenes could have been deadly. He makes them exciting by using persuasive actors, by cutting between many different points of view, and by reconstructing the events being described. The key narrator is “Mr. X,” the high-level Pentagon official played by Sutherland. Was there really a Mr. X? I doubt it. Does what he tells Garrison reflect thinking inside the military establishment in the early 1960s? It sounds likely more likely, certainly, than the pious platitudes of the official version.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy will obsess history as it has obsessed those whose lives were directly touched. The facts, such as they are, will continue to be elusive and debatable. Any factual film would be quickly dated. But “JFK” will stand indefinitely as a record of how we felt. How the American people suspect there was more to it than was ever revealed. How we suspect Oswald did not act entirely alone. That there was some kind of a conspiracy. “JFK” is a brilliant reflection of our unease and paranoia, our restless dissatisfaction. On that level, it is completely factual.

by Anonymousreply 38411/22/2013

google JULES KROLL, and prepare to go down the rabbit hole.

by Anonymousreply 38511/22/2013

From acclaimed documentarian Errol Morris, no CIA stooge, a cautionary tale for those with a conspiratorial bent.

by Anonymousreply 38611/22/2013


A thousand documents, even a confession by Clinton himself, will ever convince you but here's a snip--


One happy exception is a biography of the Clintons, Roger Morris's Partners in Power, that made the bestseller list for several weeks during the summer of 1996. It confirmed a story that was rumored since 1992 (and appeared in Spotlight newspaper) to the effect that the CIA recruited Bill Clinton when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. Ironically, by this time Clinton was already an admirer of Carroll Quigley, his professor at Georgetown (see the main essay for comments on Quigley).

Morris was an aide to Kissinger at the National Security Council until 1970, when he resigned over the bombing of Cambodia. His is the most solid and responsible book on the Clintons so far. Morris cited three inside intelligence sources who confirmed that Bill Clinton became a CIA asset at Oxford.

By running Clinton's Oxford classmates through NameBase, another curious CIA connection pops out: Richard Stearns, who may have handled Clinton's CIA recruitment. On September 9, 1969, Clinton wrote to Stearns agonizing over his draft situation. At that time he was manipulating every angle and connection he could to avoid getting drafted.

That fall Clinton went to Norway. In December he traveled to Moscow, then to Prague in January 1970. These trips, some believe, were CIA-sponsored. In spring of 1970, Clinton and Stearns took a bus tour of Spain. By then Clinton's draft problems were over, due to the December 1969 draft lottery.

In 1967, Ramparts magazine exposed the fact that the National Student Association had been receiving CIA funds for many years. Stearns was international vice president of the NSA. Allard Lowenstein was a former NSA president, who was famous for the "Dump Johnson" campaign of 1967. He stated then that he had not been involved with the CIA while in the NSA. However, Roger Morris told this writer that Lowenstein admitted to him in 1969 that he had been knowledgeable and complicit in the CIA compromise of the NSA. At this time, Morris was an NSC aide specializing in Africa, and Lowenstein was a New York congressman working on the humanitarian problem in Biafra.

Richard Stearns and Edward Schwartz, another NSA vice president, issued statements deploring CIA support. Schwartz was probably aware of the CIA funding, because he tried to talk Ramparts editor Warren Hinckle out of breaking the story before the exposure. As international vice president, Stearns almost certainly was witting of the connection with the CIA: most of the CIA money was spent on the NSA's international activities. While at the NSA in December 1966, Stearns wrote to the UAW to propose a "program of aid conducted by American labor and students, for students in Spain working for the restoration of democratic government." This would have involved CIA funds from the NSA's International Commission, which was headed by Stearns. The international activities of U.S. labor were also CIA-funded at the time.

by Anonymousreply 38711/22/2013

OP, would it have KILLED YOU to use a question mark? Sentences that start with "Who" MUST end in QUESTION MARKS.

I'm more curious about where you went to grade school than I am in who killed JFK (mafia, obviously).

by Anonymousreply 38811/22/2013

Uh-uh, r389, not so fast. Trying to sneak in the Mafia as the perp. Regarding the film "JFK,' the producer, Arnon Milchan, was involved with the krytron nuclear trigger scandal back in 1984, something the real JFK would never approve. Was Milchan trying to make amends by producing "JFK"?

And there's still posters trying to throw Lyndon under the bus, as well as George Bush.

There's speculation since the 1980s that the Kennedy brothers were staging a fake assassination attempt, involving E. Howard Hunt and even William F. Buckley, but the stunt went awry when it was infiltrated by real assassins. A friend of the Kennedy family likened Jack as Abel and Bobby as Cain, in a possible allusion to this scenario.

by Anonymousreply 38911/23/2013

Interesting, R388. Do you think Obama was, too?

by Anonymousreply 39011/23/2013

Interesting photo on yesterday showing the almost total lack of security JFK had in Dallas.

It makes you wonder why they tried a difficult shot from an upper floor window at a target moving away from them when it would have been simple to just reach out with a handgun.

by Anonymousreply 39111/23/2013

Hindsight is always 20/20. But yeas, the Secret Service was ridiculously lax. As a procedural review evaluated Dallas, the report concluded they were "deficient." No kidding. Thanks for the Ebert review and analysis. I agree with it, and it makes me want to watch the movie again.

by Anonymousreply 39211/23/2013

R392: maybe the shooter figured it would be difficult to impossible to escape had he just shot from standing with the crowd.

And Jackies head was just inches away from being blown off. She's lucky to have survived and that the shooter was such a good marksman.

by Anonymousreply 39311/23/2013

Seems to me the Secret Service is kind of lax with President Obama.

by Anonymousreply 39411/23/2013

Everyone posting weird connections -- granted some are interesting, but let's not forget "Six Degrees of Separation"

by Anonymousreply 39511/23/2013

I'm still dead, bitches!

by Anonymousreply 39611/23/2013

With all coverage going on in the MSM, I wonder if anyone has pointed that out, R394. Jackie was "that close" to getting shot. I wonder when she ever considered that,later on.

After what she went through, and how she conducted herself that weekend, how she raised her kids, and how she enriched our lives in so many different ways, there's not one damned thing I can find to criticize or dislike her.

She's on a permanent pedestal as far as I'm concerned. I love looking at old footage of Jackie and JFK and Jackie and her kids in happy times. JFK was lucky to have her. On a few of these shows they said he was surprised at the effect she was having here and abroad.

I recall LBJ asked her to take a diplomatic tour for him, and deliver some confidential message to a head of state; sensitive information about Vietnam. Jackie was happy to do it, and understood completely why it was necessary.

I've discovered that she read a lot of background history about Vietnam when it was part of French Indonesia. The books were written in French, so she translated them and briefed JFK on them.

He relied in her in many ways, and she was not the shallow, high society clothes horse, as the mass media portrayed her before the assassination.

by Anonymousreply 39711/23/2013

And I presume St. Jackie would have married Onassis anyway even if he were on old professor, because she fell head over heels about him because of his looks.

by Anonymousreply 39811/23/2013

I remember playing Trivial Pursuit with a friend's older dumb-jock brother in the 80s, and when someone mentioned the assassination, he was all surprised and wide eyed.

"John F. Kennedy is dead?"

by Anonymousreply 39911/23/2013

It was the mafia combined with the CIA anti-castro people. And they were rogue CIA but they did exist. And nobody is ever going to admit it cause of the CIA connection.

I don't think it matters anymore. We should be talking about what he brought to his Presidency and how he handled crisis. There hasn't been a President like him since.

by Anonymousreply 40011/23/2013

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Mr. LIEBELER. Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Right--something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw--I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it {the witness crying}. ... Mr. LIEBELER. Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it. And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there, but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming, "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What happened, what happened, what happened?" It seemed that they had heard a shot but they didn't know exactly what had happened as the car sped away, and I kept on just yelling, "They killed him, they killed him, they killed him," and finally got to my office and my secretary--I told her to call the police or the Secret Service--I don't know what she was doing, and that's about all. I was very much upset. Naturally, I couldn't imagine such a thing being done. I just went to my desk and stopped there until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the films. I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help--I didn't know what.

As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down the railroad track behind that, is that right?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. After the shots?


Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head...

by Anonymousreply 40111/23/2013

R343 / R391

Obama's mom, dad and stepdad all worked for CIA front companies.

Here are some links to prove it.

by Anonymousreply 40211/23/2013

Oprah did it.

by Anonymousreply 40311/23/2013

Julia did it.

by Anonymousreply 40411/23/2013

RE: CIA & Obama---

President Obama – as well as his mother, father, step-father and grandmother – all were connected to the Central Intelligence Agency – possibly explaining why the President praises the “Agency” and declines to prosecute its officials for their crimes.

According to a published report in the September Rock Creek Free Press of Washington, D.C., investigative reporter Wayne Madsen says Obama’s mother Ann Dunham worked “on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation.” The East-West Center had long been affiliated with CIA activities in the Asia-Pacific region, Madsen says.

What’s more, Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., arrived in Hawaii from Kenya as part of a CIA program to identify and train Africans who would be useful to the Agency in its Cold War operations against the Soviets, Madsen says. Obama Sr. divorced Ms. Dunham in 1964.

Ms. Dunham married Lolo Soetoro the following year, a man Madsen says assisted in the violent CIA coup against Indonesian President Sukarno that claimed a million lives. Obama’s mother taught English for USAID, “which was a major cover for CIA activities in Indonesia and throughout Southeast Asia,” Madsen reports. That USAID was a cover for CIA covert operations in Laos was admitted by its administrator Dr. John Hannah on Metromedia News. Madsen says the organization was also a cover for the CIA in Indonesia.

Ms. Dunham worked in Indonesia at a time when Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities(MUCIA) – a group that included the University of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota and Indiana – was accused of being a front for CIA activities in Indonesia and elsewhere. Ms. Dunham traveled to Ghana, Nepal, Bangladesh, India and Thailand “working on micro-financing projects” for the CIA, Madsen reports.

And Ms. Dunham’s mother, Madelyn Dunham – who raised Obama while his mother was on assignment in Indonesia – acted as vice president of the Bank of Hawaii in Honolulu, which Madsen says was used by various CIA front entities. She handled escrow accounts used to make CIA payments “to U.S.-supported Asian dictators” including Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu, and President Suharto in Indonesia, Madsen says.

“In effect, the bank was engaged in money laundering for the CIA to prop up covertly its favored leaders in the Asia-Pacific region,” Madsen writes. “It is clear that Dunham Soetoro and her Indonesian husband, President Obama’s step-father, were closely involved in the CIA’s operations to steer Indonesia away from the Sino-Soviet orbit after the overthrow of Sukarno.”

“President Obama’s own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world’s most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother,” Madsen says. “There are volumes of written material on the CIA backgrounds of George H.W. Bush and CIA-related activities by his father and children, including former President George W. Bush. Barack Obama, on the other hand, cleverly masked his own CIA connections as well as those of his mother, father, step-father, and grandmother,” Madsen points out.

A review of the influence on the Oval Office by the CIA, particularly since the presidency of Bush Sr., a former director of the Agency, it becomes apparent the Agency has played a major role in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy – a role that has been largely kept secret from the American public and one which most Americans would not have approved. The CIA’s overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 is an example. The overthrow occurred after the Iranian government nationalized the oil industry following alleged cheating on payments by contractor British Petroleum, then known as Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. For another, the CIA’s widespread use of illegal rendition and torture of suspects is repugnant to Americans who still believe in their Constitution.

by Anonymousreply 40511/23/2013

The author above is Sherwood Ross.

by Anonymousreply 40611/23/2013

Joe @ R404, Oprah was just one of the architects- her "Barbie Dream House" was setup on the playground as a stand in for the Texas Book Depository while the small sand hill she set up on the perimeter served as a spot for her real killers- GIJoe figures- (spray painted black) served as her test spot.

When "Stretch Armstrong" could make the shot and blow Ken's plastic head off, she contacted her handlers and gave the "GO" for the kill.

by Anonymousreply 40711/23/2013

Ok, enough about Obama.

The real story here is George Joannides.

George Efythron Joannides (July 5, 1922 - March 9, 1990) was the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the Central Intelligence Agency station in Miami. In that role, he was also known as 'Howard,' Mr. Howard’ and ‘Walter Newby." [1][2] Joannides directed and financed "DRE," a group of Cuban exiles whose officers had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.[3][4] By some accounts, fashioned with the "plausible deniability" typical of CIA operations, the plan was designed to link Oswald to Castro's government, without disclosing the CIA’s role. The CIA summoned Joannides out of retirement to serve as the Agency's liaison to the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, in specific regard to the death of President Kennedy. Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley writes "the spy withheld information about his own actions in 1963 from the congressional investigators he was supposed to be assisting. It wasn't until 2001, 38 years after Kennedy's death, that Joannides' support for the Cuban exiles, who clashed with Oswald and monitored him, came to light." [5]

BorntJuly 5, 1922 Athens, Greece DiedtMarch 9, 1990 (aged 67) Houston, Texas Occupationt intelligence officer, lawyer. Educationt City College of New York St. John's University School of Law, LL.B.

As Wiki says, the HSCA wanted to know about the DRE, the CIA's anti-Castro group, which Oswald had been affiliated with in NOLA. The CIA says to HSCA, talk to George Joannides, he'll assist your investigators with anything you need.

So Joannides slinks out from under his rock to "help", but he does nothing really except stonewall the HSCA. They even ask him who was the agent in charge of DRE in 1963, but Joannides doesn't say anything. He never reveals to them that HE was the agent in charge of the whole DRE operation in 1963. Joannides had gotten a call from CIA assets on the night of the assasination regarding Oswald and who knows what else, but he never says anything to the investigators about it!

G. Robert Blakey who was the chief counsel and staff director to the HSCA now explicitly says that he considers everything they got from the CIA to be bullshit and obstruction of justice because he/they were never informed that all of this information was coming from a material witness to the crime they were investigating.

Even today the CIA will not release documents and info related to Joannides. The History Channel tried to get them for the 50th anniversary and were again stonewalled.

by Anonymousreply 40811/23/2013


Exposing anything outside of the accepted narrative is evidence of being a freeper.

So shut up.

by Anonymousreply 40911/23/2013

George de Mohrenschildt's relationships are weird also. He was a friend of the Bouviers. Jackie called him "Uncle George". His older brother was OSS/CIA. He became rich, ended up in Dallas, joined the Dallas Petroleum Club and was chummy with s Clint Murchison, H.L. Hunt, John Mecom, and Sid Richardson. He also befriended Lee and Marina Oswald via the Russian ex-pat community.

His nephew was George H. W. Bush's roommate at prep school.


by Anonymousreply 41011/23/2013

[quote]Oh, honey. Like the word "fascism", "socialism" doesn't get to be retooled into "things I don't like".

I didn't retool or change the meaning of socialist or socialism.

DEFINE SOCIALIST/ISM-a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, using government to enforce equality.

Obamacare is socialist. So was George Bush. And Reagan. And Nixon. Just differing degrees, differing agendas, but all expanding the power of the government.

Just to make this "non-partisan", Republicans are just as evil. They want "freedom", but only when that "freedom" means giving the big corporations that give them money and letting them write the laws. They give billions to the banks, to the big corporations, to anyone who agrees to give them money so they can write laws to spy on people, or kill foreigners, or give money to the prison or military industrial complex.

[quote]And thanks for confirming it's you. It means that part of the ACA pushback is coming from batshit-crazy

Yes, opposing giving MORE power to a fully failed government is crazy.

Are you really that stupid? Or are you just stupid to know how stupid you are?

by Anonymousreply 41111/23/2013

Right now we're being bombarded by LBJ theories. Why? Because the right has decided to own this theory since he is the only possible relevant left suspect. So now we are bombarded with fake confessions (e.g., E. Howard Hunt, the same man who forged a document "proving" that JFK ordered a hit on Diem. Hunt was always a right-wing activist first, CIA employee second).

But these theories are implausible for a compelling reason: Hoover hated and disdained the welfare state and civil rights. He would NEVER have kept the secrets of LBJ and Earl Warren, whom he loathed with a passion equal to any passion in his life. Hoover had to be convinced it was a right wing plot or there would have been no coverup. As for the "blackmail" LBJ supposedly had on him, this is ignorant speculation without a shred of evidence. Moreover none of the 'scandals' of Korth, Baker, or Estes could have brought down LBJ. He was already through with all of them, and we see from the Tony Rezko case that these things don't seem to have the power wishful thinkers attach to them. LBJ still would have been one of the nation's most powerful Dems without the vice-presidency. His motive is not at all obvious.

by Anonymousreply 41211/23/2013

Watching all the coverage of the 50th anniversary, I was astonished by all the right-wingers trying to claim JFK as a "conservative". Ridiculous, but this does go a long way to explaining why right-wingers make up wacky conspiracy theories about LBJ being behind the assassination as LBJ was the most liberal (with FDR) President in the 20th century.

by Anonymousreply 41311/24/2013

Back in 1942, FDR sent Lyndon Johnson to single-handedly defuse a race-riot/mutiny at the US Army base in Townsville, Queensland Australia. Contrary to popular mythology, race relations was a LBJ specialty.

by Anonymousreply 41411/24/2013

LBJ hated -HATED- Bobby Kennedy.

[quote]He would NEVER have kept the secrets of LBJ and Earl Warren, whom he loathed with a passion equal to any passion in his life.

He loathed MLK, RFK and JFK too, but their secrets stayed secret while they were alive, so I don't buy that idea that he would tell on LBJ and Warren if he knew something incriminating. Hoover lived for blackmail.

by Anonymousreply 41511/24/2013

That's why I cared about LBJ, he understood poverty.

by Anonymousreply 41611/24/2013

I don't doubt that Obama has CIA connections but he was the best option we had.

by Anonymousreply 41711/24/2013

LBJ was a classless Boob. He was crude, rude and just plain nasty. Every time I spoke with that asshole after Jack died, I vomited in my mouth.

by Anonymousreply 41811/24/2013


by Anonymousreply 41911/24/2013

Reading Caro's latest book, it's interesting to read how Bobby kept Lyndon away from his natural role which would have been to shepherd the Civil Rights Bill because Bobby didn't want Lyndon (who had been the Master of the Senate, not Bobby) getting any credit.

LBJ had chomped at the bit for years, having to hide his true feelings about civil rights to ensure he got re-elected in Texas.

And LBJ had Richard Russell (the most powerful man in the Senate after LBJ moved to the Vice-Presidency) in the palm of his hand and Sam Rayburn the Speaker. Funny how people have forgotten how influential Rayburn and Russell were.

Civil rights were something LBJ understood viscerally. Unlike the Kennedy family, he knew African Americans, he knew Mexican Americans. He had grown up in extreme poverty and understood how important FDR and the New Deal were. Bobby Kennedy's commitment to civil rights only came after his brother's death. Prior to that, he was very happy to give authorization to J. Edgar Hoover to wiretap MLK and gossip to Jackie about MLK's sex life.

by Anonymousreply 42011/24/2013

r421 you should read sources other than Caro. You have a very one-sided take on the whole thing.

That the Kennedy brothers didn't know or care about racial minorities is false. Bobby was politicking for the civil rights bill for months before Jack died (see page 295 of Evan Thomas's book linked below). And his authorization of Hoover's wiretaps was entirely tied to Hoover's blackmailing Bobby about exposing Jack's secrets.

by Anonymousreply 42111/24/2013

As some one involved in the freedom Movement in the early '60's,, I remember a meeting we had with black students from Mississippi who had just come back from a D.C. meeting with RFK. They reported that he had no idea what was happening in the South then nor that blacks were being murdered. He was horrified that was going, had gone on, if it had. Unbelievably naïve.

by Anonymousreply 42211/24/2013

Hoover was an independent agent, and the information he held about JFK, gave him the freedom to run his shop the way he wanted to. Hoover was a law unto himself. No one could reign him in.

If he wanted to bug MLK, Jr. or anyone else, he could and he did. RFK's authorization was pro-forma,a procedural convention not to be interpreted as Bobby's complicit agreement.

RFK was certainly no angel. He earned his description as "ruthless" when he ran his JFK's campaign for President. But he never regarded MLK, Jr. as an enemy of the state as Hoover did.

In fact, RFK's friend, Assistant to the Attorney General, John Seigenthaler, who was brutally beaten during the freedom rides. Hoover hated Bobby for a lot of things, not the least of which was Bobby's crusade against organized crime, and of Jimmy Hoffa and Dave Beck of the Teamsters Union.

by Anonymousreply 42311/24/2013

r406, Madsden is also the one who's peddling the idea that Obama's gay.

by Anonymousreply 42411/24/2013

Well RFK had his own close personal friend John Seigenthaler (who himself was beaten by one of the racist mobs) and John Doar as his direct liasons on the ground in Alabama. This was in 61, so I doubt very seriously that he did not know. He had already had a private meeting with MLK by that time, as well.

by Anonymousreply 42511/24/2013

Back to George Joannides.

Here is his WaPo obituary published on 3/14/90:

George E. Joannides, 67, a retired lawyer at the Defense Department who later established a private law practice in Washington, died March 9 at St. Luke's Hospital in Houston, where he had undergone heart surgery.

Mr. Joannides, Potomac resident, was born in Athens. He came to this country when he was 1 year old, and he grew up in New York City. He graduated from the City College of New York and received a law degree from St. John's University.

Before moving to Washington in 1949 he worked for the National Herald, a Greek-language newspaper published in New York.

In Washington, Mr. Joannides worked for the Greek Embassy Information Service for a year. In 1951, he went to work for the Defense Department. His assignments included service in Vietnam and Greece. He retired in 1979.

When he left the government, Mr. Joannides began a law practice in Washington in which he specialized in immigration matters.

He was a member of the D.C. Bar, the American Bar Association, the National Lawyers Club, the American Hellenic Lawyers Association, the Officers Club of the Military District of Washington, the Men's Republican Club in Montgomery County and the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association.

Survivors include his wife, Violet Joannides of Potomac; three children, Violet Folias and Alexandria Joannides, both of Salt Lake City, Stephanie Joannides of Juneau, Alaska; two sisters, Elizabeth Mills of Toronto and Ann Djinis of Dallas; and three grandchildren.

by Anonymousreply 42611/24/2013

Weird. I know one of joannides' children. What is his alleged role again ?

by Anonymousreply 42711/24/2013

Very important overlooked fact:

Joan Crawford was in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

by Anonymousreply 42811/24/2013

The calculated probability that at least eighteen witnesses would die of any cause within three years of the JFK assassination was 1 in 100,000 trillion.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

by Anonymousreply 42911/24/2013

If the person who killed JFK was a nobody, who killed RFK? It sounds like that family was pretty corrupt.

by Anonymousreply 43011/24/2013

‘One of your guys did it,” Bobby said matter-of-factly, calling from Hickory Hill later on Nov. 22.

He was speaking to Enrique “Harry” Williams, a veteran of the Bay of Pigs operation and the Cuban exile whom Bobby trusted most. Journalist Haynes Johnson happened to be with Williams in Washington’s Ebbitt Hotel at the time, and he later wrote about how stunned he was when Williams hung up the phone and relayed the attorney general’s comments.

In the time that Bobby had been overseeing his brother’s so-called Special Group team on Cuba, he had come to appreciate just how ungovernable the Cuban exile community could be. It hadn’t taken long on Nov. 22 for speculation to focus on the possible involvement of Fidel Castro, given the Kennedy administration’s repeated attempts to oust or assassinate the Communist leader. That speculation only intensified after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, whose record of pro-Castro agitation quickly came to light. Yet it’s intriguing that Bobby’s suspicion of possible Cuban involvement seemed to focus squarely on the anti-Castro crowd.

While he trusted Williams and wasn’t accusing him personally, Bobby knew how furious many members of the exile community had become with the Kennedys, based on the administration’s failure to go all out in the effort to topple Castro. The Kennedy brothers had refused to launch a full-scale military invasion of the island nation, and by 1963 had even begun authorizing some back-channel efforts toward compromise with both Castro and his Soviet benefactors. This, Bobby knew, would be viewed as intolerable by the most hard-line Cuban exiles.

Just one day before his brother’s murder, Bobby had received a classified CIA report assessing the exile community’s reaction to a recent speech on Cuba policy that JFK had delivered in Miami. “The conservative and moderate elements were disappointed, having hoped for a more militant stand against the Castro revolution and regime,” stated the Nov. 21 report. Written by Richard Helms, the wily CIA deputy director who many believed was really running the agency, the report was contained in the confidential RFK Justice Department files released earlier this year. *** The recently released RFK files contain numerous examples of just how determined the attorney general was, for much of his brother’s presidency, to overthrow Castro. Still, Bobby was confident that he had put a stop to what he considered an insane initiative by the CIA to subcontract out the job to American gangsters. It wasn’t until much later that evidence came to light showing that those efforts had continued, but with different mobsters, and out of view of the attorney general.


The Kennedy administration was still actively seeking solutions to its Castro problem in 1963. But its triumph at the end of the perilous Cuban Missile Crisis the previous fall, and the mounting evidence of just how difficult it would be to oust Castro, combined to increase the Kennedy brothers’ interest in finding more peaceful solutions.

It’s noteworthy that the hard-line Cuban exiles, the hard-liners in the CIA and the military, and the mobsters looking for a return to the go-go days of pre-Castro Havana all stood to lose from a path toward de-escalation with Cuba — as well as with Castro’s patrons in Moscow.

Bobby Kennedy had once been such a rabid anti-Communist that he’d worked for Red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy. Yet just one week after his brother’s assassination, he sent Kennedy loyalist William Walton on a secret mission to Moscow to deliver a stunning message to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Bobby, the loyalist reported, believed that Oswald had not acted alone, according to long-concealed Soviet documents detailed in the book “One Hell of a Gamble” by historians Timothy Naftali and Aleksandr Fursenko. And, he reported, the attorney general believed that domestic hard-liners, rather than foreign agents, were responsible.

by Anonymousreply 43111/24/2013

r428 That's exactly why I posted the obit! I hoped someone would know one of them.

Joannides was in charge of the JM/WAVE CIA operation in Miami, and he was also in charge of the DRE anti-Castro group in Louisiana, which Oswald had been affiliated with. (This faction also secretly paid for the first news "article" that suggested Oswald was pro-Castro, btw.) He never disclosed that fact to investigators, and he actively tried to obstruct the HSCA's investigation. We weren't told until the 1990s that a material witness had been put in place by the CIA to obstruct the HSCA. And the CIA still refuses to declassify documents related to him.

by Anonymousreply 43211/24/2013

How sad that Marilyn got involved with the Kennedy brothers, thanks to Peter Lawford.

by Anonymousreply 43311/24/2013

My mistake, it wasn't the 90s. It was the aughts.

As I explained in this 2007 article for, Joannides was "the man who didn't talk." As chief of the psychological warfare operations in Miami in 1963, he failed to report on a series of heated public encounters between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and members of a CIA-sponsored Cuban exile group that he guided and monitored to the tune of $51,000 a month. Within hours of JFK's murder, members of the group shaped first day coverage of the assassination by giving reporters evidence that Kennedy's killer was a communist. The CIA did not disclose Joannides' financial relationship with Oswald's anti-Castro antagonists to the Warren Commission.

In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the CIA's liaison to the congressional JFK investigators. He said nothing about his undercover mission in 1963, even when asked for records about Oswald's contacts with his intelligence-gathering network. G. Robert Blakey, the Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor who ran the probe, says Joannides' actions constituted obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides died in 1990 having never been questioned by JFK investigators. His Washington Post obituary described him only as a "Defense Department lawyer."

The story of Joannides' deceptions only came into the public record in 2001 when I broke the story in the Miami New Times. In 2003, I reported in that a diverse group of leading JFK scholars had called for release of the Joannides files, an appeal that the agency spurned. In court CIA lawyers initially claimed they didn't even have to search for Joannides documents, a position that a three-judge appellate court unanimously rejected in 2007.

Along the way, the lawsuit has yielded more evidence that Joannides' superiors approved of his assassination cover-up. In 2005 the CIA admitted that Joannides had received the Distinguished Intelligence Medal for "exceptional achievement" in July 1981, three years after he misled Congress. In a court filing last December, Delores Nelson, the agency's top information officer, acknowledged for the first time that Joannides served in an "undercover" capacity while working with the congressional JFK investigators in 1978.

The fact that the CIA ran an undercover operation on U.S. soil amidst a congressional inquiry into a presidential assassination is startling--and more than a little relevant to the current debate about whether the CIA should be investigated for abusive interrogation practices. Not surprisingly, the agency wants to keep the Joannides story buried.

The CIA now acknowledges that it possesses 295 documents on Joannides' actions in 1963 and 1978. Agency officials insist they cannot release the records in any form, allegedly for reasons of national security. Bear in mind that all of these documents concern events that happened 30 to 45 years ago. Nonetheless, the Agency lawyers claim--with straight faces--that the release of a single word of any of them would endanger public safety in 2009.


This continues at the link.

by Anonymousreply 43411/24/2013

[quote] Very important overlooked fact: Joan Crawford was in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

I told you all...this ain't my first time at the rodeo.

Dealey Plaza was MY place!

by Anonymousreply 43511/24/2013

Joan Crawford killed JFK

by Anonymousreply 43611/24/2013

Nixon was at that Pepsi meeting in Dallas too, R437.

by Anonymousreply 43711/24/2013

"Bobby Kennedy had once been such a rabid anti-Communist that he’d worked for Red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy."

That's because McCarthy was a friend of daddy Joseph P. Kennedy.

by Anonymousreply 43811/24/2013

Sure she did, R438. Yeah, that's it.

by Anonymousreply 43911/24/2013

r439 Yes, we know. You are not talking to newbies here. Try to focus.

by Anonymousreply 44011/24/2013

How I figured out that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. One man's journey from conspiracy theory believer to being convinced of Oswald's overwhelming guilt.

by Anonymousreply 44111/25/2013

r442, Marc Mind-binder is a well-known CIA shill, PERIOD. And if he ever does come around to a conspiracy, it will guaranteed to be some variant of Castro/the-Soviets-did-it.

BTW, the Zapruder film was edited after C(IA).D. Jackson bought it for Harry Luce. Time-Life's private war against Cuba is a story in itself.

by Anonymousreply 44211/25/2013

In the Zapruder film, it clearly looks like he was hit from two different directions

by Anonymousreply 44311/25/2013

Don't blame me: I was in the Bedroom having a threesome with Mrs. White and Mrs. Peacock.

by Anonymousreply 44411/25/2013

jesus did it

by Anonymousreply 44511/25/2013

My family was as close with JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger as anyone could get. I still hvae a picture of them at a dinner party with "Lucky Pierre." (His horse handicapper nickname from his first newspaper job).

If Pierre had any idea who killed JFK, he had plenty of time to tell my parents, who would certainly have told me. No one could silence my parents by threatening anything; they just coudn't be bought or intimidated.

Pierre never said a word.

On another note, I believe he had good information about Flight 800, but that it was too easyto dismiss it as an internet hoax.

by Anonymousreply 44611/25/2013

If anyone thinks Hinckley had some ties to Bush and the CIA, then that would implicate Bush in Hinckley's stalking of Mimmy Carter, prior to Reagan taking office.

by Anonymousreply 44711/25/2013

Exactly how many hundreds, thousands of people had to be in the conspiracies the handful of conspiracy theorists who post here repeatedly weave?

by Anonymousreply 44811/25/2013

List of dead witnesses connected to the Kennedy assassination:

by Anonymousreply 44911/25/2013

What's next, R450? A link to the Lincoln & Kennedy similarities?

by Anonymousreply 45011/26/2013

R440 Veda, don't say that!

by Anonymousreply 45111/26/2013

People who say conspiracies involving dozens of people forget the Manhattan Project. That one involved thousands. That one was kept pretty secret. The total of all the people involved in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, MLK and Malcolm X is a tiny fraction of the thousands involved in the atomic bomb project.

What about the black projects in Nevada? There's millions of Americans involved in secret projects and operations that the public knows nothing about.

People who claim that governments can't keep a secret are either a fool or liar or both.

by Anonymousreply 45211/26/2013

The BBC did a documentary on Kennedy. Worth listening to.

by Anonymousreply 45311/26/2013

R447: Yea, and Bobby Kennedy doubted the Warren Commission report yet never said anything publicly. Two of his kids just talked about his doubts in a fairly recent interview.

So maybe Pierre never having said anything means nothing.

by Anonymousreply 45411/26/2013

in 50 years from now at the 100th anniversary, people will be talking about the JFK assassination like they do about Lincoln's, probably sooner when all eyewitnesses and anyone connected w JFK are dead.

Maybe when Caroline and the current generation passes away will be the end of this constant talk and interest.

by Anonymousreply 45511/26/2013

My local librarian told me she counted 27 books recently published on who killed JFK. I have begun to read them. Start with the one by Law and Order actor Richard Selzer. It is quick, detailed but not too much and in thorough.

by Anonymousreply 45611/26/2013

When Jackie and family exited the church after the funeral mass, Rose stood directly behind Jackie you could barely see her.

Is it traditional for the widow to walk with the mother of the deceased directly behind her like that?

by Anonymousreply 45711/26/2013

With all due respect to Pierre Salinger, he was not privy to the same information RFK would've been.

by Anonymousreply 45811/26/2013

Dear r449 when ever I read someone saying that conspiracies are not possible I just look at American history. You say and others like you say impossible but I look at the level and depth of something like institutional racism and sexism. These are things that exist throughout society and have for a very long time. It is conspiracy against the Black community and against women.

I will always remember Vice President Cheney saying ON TELEVISION broadcast out to the world that a shadow government exists and is active in this country. That really happened. People all over the world witnessed that. That is conspiracy.

Take your head out of your ass. Or no, keep it there. You obviously must be one of the ones who benefit from the corruption of society. Or you enjoy it whether you benefit or not because you know it means you get to keep your White privilege.

by Anonymousreply 45911/26/2013

R460, it isn't useful to be so judgmental or accusatory. There are some people out here that legitimately believe that Oswald acted alone. They aren't part of some vast conspiracy.

They are people who have a level of trust in their government, and with authority in general, and it gives them peace of mind. These are the same people who figured that when Bush invaded Iraq, he "must know what he's doing, he's the president."

This attitude often allows these people to walk away from their own obligations and "let the experts handle it." This laissez faire attitude permeates other facets of their lives. In another era they were the "Good Germans."

I personally believe there was a conspiracy, even though I may differ with others as to the "vastness," or the particulars of who was responsible.

A lot of people benefited from the assassination. It's possible that it was encouraged directly and indirectly by some of those beneficiaries, even if it involved people who weren't part of the highest circles of power.

by Anonymousreply 46011/26/2013

Right and those are the same people that never considered that police departments are sometimes corrupt and were surprised to find out in some news stories that they are. These are attitudes that White people feel comfortable in keeping alive because then they do not have to think. It helps them feel secure and that everything is right in their world.

Many people of color never take anything at face value because they know that there is a system in place and that system is there to oppress some and to give privilege to others.

Like I said, keep you head in your ass or in the sand where ever you find it most comfortable.

by Anonymousreply 46111/26/2013

Oswald had no motive R461.

by Anonymousreply 46211/26/2013

I agree, R463. As far as we know. I think he could've been coerced into participating for any number of reasons, but I don't think he killed Kennedy. I believe it's possible he was part of it, at some level, but certainly not the "lone gunman."

by Anonymousreply 46311/26/2013

People say, Oh, he wanted attention. But that's inconsistent with his killing to get away and claiming to be a patsy.

They say he had a political motive, but then why shoot at Kennedy AND Walker, who were deadly enemies. No political motive makes any sense.

They say, well he was working there and the route passed in front of him, so it was opportunity. Yet he chose the harder shot, not the easier one down Elm Street.

What we do know is that he was hard up for cash, as was Ruby.


by Anonymousreply 46411/26/2013

plus, r465, they say he was an excellent marksman. Then why didn't he manage to kill Walker? Apparently it was at pretty close range.

by Anonymousreply 46511/26/2013

R463, motive isn't the element of the crime of murder. Investigators haven't discovered a motive for the Sandy Hook massacre yet we know that Lanza was the killer. In any event, killing the head of what the Marxist Oswald regarded to be a fascist country would surely be sufficient motive for this desperate wannabe. And there was this little thing about the Kennedy administration's efforts to kill Oswald's hero Castro ...

by Anonymousreply 46611/26/2013

An FBI agent submitted a report to Hoover saying General Walker paid Loran Hall and Elladio del Valle to kill JFK. Nothing was done with it.

by Anonymousreply 46711/26/2013

[quote]motive isn't the element of the crime of murder.


by Anonymousreply 46811/26/2013

Oswald was a nutcase who wanted to kill someone.

Who joins the Marine Corps, defects to Russia, returns to the U.S. and then tries to emigrate to Cuba from Mexico? Dude was a hardcore communist and Kennedy was the opposite.

No motive? Give me a break. He had the skill, the opportunity (he worked at the book depository) and the fucked up motive as an ideological worm who sought to become a world-historical figure.

Case closed.

by Anonymousreply 46911/26/2013

R469, the following Wikipedia definition of murder sets forth the MOTIVE-FREE elements of crime of murder:

The elements of common law murder are: 1.Unlawful 2.killing 3.of a human another human 5.with malice aforethought.[4]

The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war.[5]

Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[4] – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[4]

of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.[4]

by another human – at early common law suicide was considered murder.[4] The requirement that the person be killed by someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought – originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are: i.Intent to kill, ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

by Anonymousreply 47011/26/2013

Oswald obviously shot at Walker - with the same mail-order rifle he used to kill Kennedy. Did he do that alone or was that also part of a conspiracy? He told his wife he wanted to shoot Nixon. Nixon was reportedly quite shaken after the assassination, believing he could've been the target had he won the 1960 election. I somehow doubt we'd be having these intellectually spurious, if not outright dishonest, conspiracy claims if Nixon, not Kennedy, had been Oswald's victim.

by Anonymousreply 47111/26/2013

r470 is so typical of the people that r461 and r462 describe.

r471 keep your day job - which obviously isn't criminal defense attorney.

For the non-psychotic among us, here is a very interesting article by WaPo's Jefferson Morley describing what happened when he interviewed former CIA official Jane Roman, whose initials appear on several CIA Oswald cables. I think it's a must-read.

by Anonymousreply 47211/26/2013

JFK conspiracy theorists, truthers, birthers, climate warming & Holocaust deniers are really all of a piece. From both sides of the political extremes, they're all just bat-shit crazy in their all-consuming paranoia & inability to accept facts. And it's everyone else who can't see through their distorted prism who are either venal or stupid.

by Anonymousreply 47311/26/2013

R473, any first-year law student - of which I once was - would know that motive is not an element that a prosecutor must allege, let alone prove.

by Anonymousreply 47411/26/2013

...looks like the whackjobs have taken their tinfoil hats and retreated to the "Education (sic) Forum", leaving the DL to its saner residents..

by Anonymousreply 47511/26/2013

Death panels!

by Anonymousreply 47611/27/2013

CIA and Military-Industrial Complex

JFK fired the big wigs at the CIA right before he was killed. JFK actually wanted to completely dismantle/destroy the CIA. If JFK had his way there would be no CIA today.

I say motive is clear as day....self preservation. They killed him to prevent him achieving his goal of destroying the CIA.

I will say this about Oswald. So we now know he was FBI and CIA. So he says on t.v. that he is a patsy. As far as I'm concerned, people who want to assassinate someone such as the President would surely want to take credit for it. We are supposed to believe that Oswald was this big communist who hated JFK. If so, why don't we see his behavior match this. We don't see this angry man. We see this bewildered man who claims to be a patsy and to be innocent. Something just isn't right. Not to mention Jack Ruby who was almost allowed to kill Oswald and who not only had ties to the Mob but some have speculated may have had connections to Oswald prior to the assassination. It's just very strange. I think we should not rule out anything, including that Oswald may have been innocent after all.

Finally, I will end with this. The alleged gun that Oswald used to kill JFK was allegedly bought by Oswald via mail. There are receipts of sale. Here's the problem. Why in the world would Oswald do this? This was an age before gun control. You could walk in any pawn shop or gun shop and buy a gun without a waiting list and without any records. If Oswald wanted anonymity he could have traveled to say Oklahoma to buy the gun. But instead he allegedly buys it via mail which causes a paper trail to be formed. Was he that stupid or was this part of a set up to present to the public "proving" that Oswald was the killer?

by Anonymousreply 47711/27/2013

[quote] As far as I'm concerned, people who want to assassinate someone such as the President would surely want to take credit for it.

And give up his opportunity for a major show trial?! Are you nuts?? Well, I think that question too easily answers itself.

by Anonymousreply 47811/27/2013

If all Oswald wanted to do was keep himself remembered and talked about by killing someone, he picked the right person to murder - JFK (or any president would have been fine).

We forget the name of the Columbine murderer or the name of the Newtown murderer at some point, but Oswald is mentioned along with the name JFK. he made and changed history.

by Anonymousreply 47911/27/2013

Every time we're presented with "evidence" provided by the DPD and agencies of the Federal government, I just shake my head.

I've said it many times, but WTF. I believe Oswald was involved but did not act alone.

by Anonymousreply 48011/27/2013

Ruby's nieces gave an interview shortly before the 50th anniversary. They said he was sorry for killing Oswald.

It's too bad no information was ever gotten or attempted to have gotten from him. Theories may have been put to rest.

Now all we can talk about is a lot of what ifs, if Kennedy had lived, if Oswald went to trial.

by Anonymousreply 48111/27/2013

The concise answer to r478.

1. Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's.

2. Oswald never practiced at the target range with the rifle.

3. Oswald never posed for a photo shoot with Marina with the rifle.

Despite what George de Mohrenschildt's memoir, "I'm a Patsy," the testimony of Ruth Paine and Marina's claim to be another Diane Arbus, there is no proof that Oswald ever owned any rifle, let alone a Carcano, PERIOD.

BTW, TPTB initially said Oswald was on the 2nd floor of the Book Depository, then the 5th floor, finally settling on the 6th floor. A 30-06 brass shell was found on the roof years later. The whole issue of anyone shooting from a window is artificial.

by Anonymousreply 48211/27/2013

This idea that Oswald didn't take credit for killing the president because he wanted a major show trial (as if, if he HAD taken credit for it, he wouldn't have gotten a trial at all? or not a "major show" one?????) is the most amusing thing I've read this week.

by Anonymousreply 48311/27/2013

From the link at r432:

But now he said he would take questions from the sea of San Fernando Valley State College students who covered every inch of the campus quad in Northridge, Calif. Instantly, the questions began to fly, shouted out from various corners of the crowd.

“Will you open the archives?” a man yelled, prompting several others to chime in with, “Open the archives!”

“Who killed John Kennedy,” a woman screamed. “We want to know!”

Bobby, whose arrival that morning had been warmly cheered and had attracted the biggest crowd for any speaker in the history of the sleepy college, was clearly annoyed. To the female questioner, he cracked, “Your manners overwhelm me.” But a recording of the speech shows that after he sighed in exasperation, he appeared to grow reflective. “I haven’t answered this question before,” he said. “But there would be nobody that would be more interested in all of these matters as to who was responsible for the, ah, the death of President Kennedy than I would.”

To the specific question about whether he would open the Warren Commission archives, Bobby said that, if it were in his power, yes, he would, “at the appropriate time.”

Frank Mankiewicz, who as Bobby’s press secretary was forever at his side, was stunned.

He said in a recent interview that the exchange has forever stuck with him because it seemed to be a moment of public candor about a topic Bobby seldom wanted to discuss.

Mankiewicz took it to mean that his boss would open up the investigation files if he was elected president. But the exchange also stuck with Mankiewicz because Bobby’s comments reflected his internal struggle over his brother’s murder. On that hot day in California, Bobby also told the crowd this: “I have seen all of the matters in the archives. If I became president of the United States, I would not reopen the Warren Commission Report. I stand by the Warren Commission Report.”

Mankiewicz knew that wasn’t true, based on the dismissive comments about the report that Bobby had privately made to him. The press secretary figured that Bobby had determined he could get to the bottom of his brother’s murder only after he had regained the full reins of federal power.

by Anonymousreply 48411/27/2013

What I've never understood is that we're fascinated by JFK, but almost completely ignore Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy even though there's a very good chance that the three are all interconnected.

King was almost certainly a contract killing, but the men who paid for it died peacefully in their beds, and Sirhan Sirhan has been ignored by the press even though he's alive and well in a California prison.

by Anonymousreply 48511/27/2013

Oh God. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. My do-gooder sister is inviting a distant relative-in-law who is a "researcher into the assassination", i.e. a tinhat nutjob.

This guy hasn't had a job in 20 years, nobody can figure out how he supports himself. He's weird, lived with his Mom till he was 50, never married, never had a girlfriend/boyfriend, doesn't have any friends or any interests beyond spending his days on the internet quarrelling with conspiracy theorists with different theories.

He's beyond obsessed (like some of the posters on here). I wonder if the people who want to believe Oswald wasn't guilty, aren't people like Oswald (and my sister's relative-in-law): loners, dubious mental health, desperate to be recognized as "Somebody", no social skills, think there's a conspiracy against them. Maybe they look at Oswald as being their mirror image as a fellow loser and so - of course - he wasn't the assassin, nor was he a loser, that 23 year old high school drop-out and nutjob was CIA and FBI!

Sad and pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 48611/27/2013

r487, you're a sad attention whore projecting your loser-self on everyone in the world. Best get out of the basement of your mind and smell the coffee.

Unless you're a shill for an alphabet agency needing a paycheck. In that case, keep the ad hominem going. Just don't make the mistake of actually trying to answer any question. So far, you've only shown that you don't have the intellect to do it.

by Anonymousreply 48711/27/2013

JFK fired the brother of the mayor of Dallas for his involvement in the Bay of Pigs. Who decided the motorcade route with the car having to slow to make the 110 degree turn? The mayor of Dallas.

by Anonymousreply 48811/27/2013

Oswald did not shoot at Walker. The bullets don't match. If he did, Walker was sitting motionless in a lighted room. Hard to miss from ten feet away.

by Anonymousreply 48911/27/2013


Although I doubt the "Oswald did it and it was not a conspiracy!!!" people will believe it, that's a compelling article, especially in light of 18 years of new revelations and developments-- all of which dovetail nicely which what Morely wrote in 1995.

I like how he doesn't speculate, just lays out the facts from the main source, and the subsequent support for those facts that came to light years later.


After FINALLY waking up to the fact that our government lies about everything- from Nixon to Reagan to Bush (1&2) all the way to Obama (you can keep your doctor...) - it isn't hard for me to believe that the CIA was complicit, if not active, in killing JFK.

by Anonymousreply 49011/27/2013

Everyone blames the CIA because of the amount of stuff that was made public about them by the Church Committee. But the veil of secrecy over the Pentagon, where Kennedy had fired several dozen generals, remains intact.

by Anonymousreply 49111/27/2013


Pentagram (typo stays), Secret Service, Federal Reserve, CIA- who cares which evil branch of government murdered him- it is THE CONSPIRACY and the cover up that matters.

by Anonymousreply 49211/27/2013

[quote]JFK conspiracy theorists, truthers, birthers, climate warming & Holocaust deniers are really all of a piece.

r169-r474 likes to create distractions by dragging in unrelated issues such as "Holocaust-denial." A CIA operative, Mark Weber, backed by real estate mogul Andrew E. Allen, is promoting De 'Nile river, mostly a COINTELPRO operation, like "JFK conspiracy denial."

The "Birther" issue was invented on the West Bank by Orly Taitz, but I doubt she's a Holocaust denier, despite her appearances on Jeff Rense, who is as much as psychopath as the Birther Queen herself.

Since you shill for Establishment views, your inclusion of "climate warming" is puzzling. Maybe you really meant "climate warming denial." But I regard Al Gore as much of a psychopath as all of the above personalities.

We wait on tether hooks for r169-r474 to tell us the health benefits of SSRIs, MSG, HFCS and trans-fats.

by Anonymousreply 49311/28/2013

Although I have seen the footage of Oswald's first encounter with the media after his 11/22 arrest countless times over the years, I, a lawyer who at one time could've been characterized as a Warren Commission skeptic, gained new insight - and further grounds to support my unshakeable belief in his certain guilt - upon watching it yet again amidst the flood of 50th anniversary coverage.

When asked if he shot the president, Oswald's first response was to say that he had been arrested for working "in the building." No reporter had mentioned the building, yet he raised it gratuitously. A follow-up question asked if he was working in the building at the time of the shooting. He said that naturally if he was employed in the building he would have been working there then. Evidencing his own culpability, Oswald betrayed his repeated claims of innocence by implicitly conceding the relevance of the Texas School Book Depository as the source of the shooting. No mention by him of the grassy knoll - a fixture of the cottage industry of professional conspiracy theorists who were to spring up only after Oswald's death.

There were other indicia of his guilt by his post-arrest behavior. His own brother - knowing Lee would have screamed his actual innocence from the highest mountaintop - was convinced beyond doubt of Lee's guilt when he witnessed his serene behavior while he visited him in jail. And his jailer, the still-living James Leavelle, said that Oswald smiled when, as he was about to lead him to his death at the hands of Jack Ruby (btw, if he was shooting to kill, why didn't Ruby aim for the head, rather than the gut?), he told Lee that if anyone was going to take a shot at him he hoped they would be as good as shot as Oswald was. No defiant protestations of his wrongful arrest, just an appreciation of a compliment. And while the rest of the nation mourned JFK, Oswald not only never expressed any sympathy but was saying that Kennedy would be forgotten in a matter of days.

Professional deniers will always deny Oswald's guilt - as that is part of their psychosis - but anyone who addresses this crime honestly cannot help but arrive at the same unanimous conclusion of guilt reached by the objective jury impaneled in the 1980s for the trial of Oswald - represented by the brilliant Gerry Spence - in abstentia.

by Anonymousreply 49411/28/2013

r495, the one here with the psychosis is you with your ridiculous lies. Why don't you stick to shilling penny stocks, mobile homes or used cars?

It's important for Oswald's widow, daughters and grandchildren that LHO be exonerated. They've suffered enough. He has never been convicted in court for anything, only in the star chamber of Mainstream Media.

by Anonymousreply 49511/28/2013

I beseech you to please check your meds, R496. I truly care for your well-being.

by Anonymousreply 49611/28/2013

Unfortunately, though I do wish for a bizarre and complex conspiracy, the fact that no American can ever keep any secret (book deals, Oprah, TMZ, etc.) is the best answer and sufficient proof for me. The larger the conspiracy, and some of these post make the DaVinci Code seem plausible by comparison, the more likely to leak.

In my occupation I've seen quite a bit of illicit government activity that I would broadly call criminal conspiracies, but these misdeeds have never interested investigative journalists, so they haven't been exposed. I can't believe that the many millions of hours devoted to JFK never yielded anything resembling a consensus, other than the most disappointing conclusion: Lee Harvey.

by Anonymousreply 49711/28/2013

Sorry, Curt, but Americans keep lots of secrets. Always have. The reason there is no consensus is because the people who did it create noise and distraction anytime the subject comes up.

by Anonymousreply 49811/28/2013

R498 Curt, check out the Manhattan Project. Thousands of people kept the secret. They build entire cities to work on it. So yes, people can and do keep secrets.

by Anonymousreply 49911/28/2013

[quote]I beseech you to please check your meds, [R496]. I truly care for your well-being

r497, are you now practicing psychiatry on this forum, as you do law, without a license? Don't worry, we won't tattle on you.

your non-arguments remind me of "Mommie Dearest," in which Joan says, "No wire hangers!"

Apparently the only one who understands what you're trying to say is you. But basically you're saying "No wire conspiracies!"

We got 'cha Joanie.

by Anonymousreply 50011/28/2013

I don't know about Manhattan. Hitchcock was approached by the feds asking why was he filming Cary Grant and Ingrid in Notorious fooling around with this concealed wine bottle with rare refined uranium, since it was supposed to be 'top secret'. Where had he heard about it? It all became common gossip on the set and at Hollywood parties...the big uranium maguffin for the 'A' bomb. What a secret. He agreed to keep it generic, just stuff in a bottle. It wasn't so secret as you think. The whole atomic bomb idea and project had been known for years, with the Nazis and Stalin as well hoping to solve the problems. Garden variety stuff, for years the history yaks about it endlessly with file footage, interviews, whatever, people blabbing, whatever. Rosenbergs, even.

Bottom line, my opinion only, people want to make it massive coverup. If anyone had the answer, besides, of course, Clint in the ending of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, then they'd be billionaires, trillionaires. It's been made into the biggest mystery of all time. Someone, in true capitalist fashion, would capitalize on this information,

by Anonymousreply 50111/28/2013

Like R495 - I've also wondered why Jack Ruby didn't aim for Oswald's head - particularly if he was doing a hit for the mob. Survival rates for gunshots to the abdomen are pretty high.


by Anonymousreply 50211/28/2013

Regarding Jack Ruby's style of shooting:

[quote]The British Special Operations Executive (SOE) of World War II also taught the technique. See, for instance, the following passage from the now out-of-print book "Kill Without Joy" by John Minnery. On page 51 of KWJ it discusses the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby: "The grip on the gun is also interesting and further backs the suspicion of Jack being a pro. He's using his middle finger to squeeze the trigger and his index finger, the normal shooter's trigger finger, is pointed right at the target. He shoots where he points. This method is not too well known in the States but the method was SOP with wartime SOE and SIS agents of Britain."

This British-style of shooting includes stamping your foot forward and shooting in that direction. That Ruby didn't shoot Oswald in the head may have something to do with the possibility of missing the target's head in a crowded situation. So Ruby choose the sure hit.

This British shooting technique ushers in the specter of Canadian lawyer and J. Edgar Hoover squeeze, Louis Bloomfield, who sat on the board of Permindex (Permanent Industrial Expositions). Bloomfield was part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-intelligence group Division Five, as well as the Canadian MI-6 during WW2. Most posters here will be familiar with the Permindex subsidiary in New Orleans, International Trade Mart, along with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.

by Anonymousreply 50311/28/2013

R502 I'm calling b.s. Post links to back it up please. Manhattan project was one of the biggest secrets the government ever kept. They built entire cities of people to work on it. The only thing that is considered to be bigger than the Manhattan project is the UFO cover-up. Dr. Robert Sarbacher (physicist, DOD consultant, founder of Washington Institute of Technology) told Will Smith (Canadian Radio Engineer who worked for the Canadian Government on it's UFO study) that the U.S. government viewed UFOS to be more sensitive than the H-bomb. Sarbacher would later claim that the U.S. government recovered a crashed UFO, complete with occupants. Sarbacher claimed he was asked to take part in the secret U.S. analysis of the wreckage and bodies but he turned it down. However, Sarbacher did name names. Click the link to read more from Sarbacher.

by Anonymousreply 50411/28/2013

r502, the atomic bomb was a staple of Sci-Fi, beginning with H. G. Wells' "The World Set Free" (1914). To equate a movie script to the Manhattan Project is disingenuous.

r505, your introduction of the off-topic UFOs is suspicious. r497 has been trying to smear posters with similar topics. I knew a man retired from US Air Force intel and he thought the UFO thing was a psyop. What's your agenda?

by Anonymousreply 50511/28/2013

Sure [R505] Alfred Hitchcock: A Life In Darkness and Light by Mr Hollywood doppelganger, Patrick Macgilligan. But told to Truffaut (Truffaut/Hitchcock) and many other books. Hitch was a raconteur of some repute. A conissoeur of the dirty joke, too, as is clear in Ingrid's autobiographies--and she tells her version of the maguffin uranium in her film with Hitchcock and Cary. One of the bios of Hitchcock even includes a reproduction of a newspaper article on uranium/atomic topic and Hitchcock dated in early/mid're straining my memory to recall!

As for the obsession with acquisition of the atomic bomb? It's one of the major topics of the history channel, cycling among the perennial subjects: Hitler henchmen, Hitler's Bunker, JFK etc. The bomb was known, the progress was secret.

by Anonymousreply 50611/28/2013

I'll start with an apology for following this so far off topic, but that's where we find ourselves right now, off on a tangent, if not a snipe hunt. That said, re: Hitch, Ben Hecht and Notorious, uranium and the bomb: '

[R505] request:

"As the two developed the story, Hitchcock came up with an idea for the "MacGuffin," centering the Nazi spy plot around wine bottles filled with uranium ore. According to the story Hitchcock told for many years, the idea came to him in 1944 (a year before the world became of aware of the atom bomb). He said a writer friend of his had told him about a secret project in New Mexico, and he also claimed to be aware of the Germans conducting undercover experiments in Norway. And Hecht read an article about uranium, which he believed had something to do with the work being done in New Mexico and Norway and was rumored to be development of an atomic bomb.

Hitchcock and Hecht went to see Dr. Robert Millikan at the California Institute of Technology to run their uranium idea by him. He warned them they could get arrested if they discussed the atom bomb too much, and told them hydrogen was the element they hoped to harness, not uranium. Satisfied they weren't giving away government secrets, the two kept the uranium idea. But Hitchcock claimed he was kept under surveillance by the FBI as a result of the idea and the meeting with Millikan.

Hitchcock said Selznick decided not to produce the picture under his own banner because the uranium plot was too unbelievable. The producer sold the entire package - director, script, and cast - to RKO for $800,000 and 50 percent of the profits. Hitchcock and RKO's William Dozier took over as production executives."

So much for secrecy! Hitch and his buddy Ben, were among the least discrete people in Hollywood, much to the delight of their friends. Ben, a real news hound, came from Chicago and was hugely important in his era as a tough and smart screenwriter. His IMDB page (Scarface, The Front Page, Gaily, Gaily, His Girl Friday, Gone With The Wind, Wuthering Heights (the screenplay, of course), Stagecoach, Gunga Din, Angels With Dirty Faces, A Star is Born, etc .

160 screen credits (is this a record?)

by Anonymousreply 50711/28/2013

"So much for secrecy! Hitch and his buddy Ben, were among the least discrete people in Hollywood,"

..."discrete" means differentiated...

by Anonymousreply 50811/28/2013

[R509] Hate spelling errors too, even when typing so fast, no excuse...since you didn't correct it precisely, I will: discreet. And I was an editor and plagued writers, too.

by Anonymousreply 50911/28/2013


[quote]In my occupation I've seen quite a bit of illicit government activity that I would broadly call criminal conspiracies, but these misdeeds have never interested investigative journalists, so they haven't been exposed. I can't believe that the many millions of hours devoted to JFK never yielded anything resembling a consensus, other than the most disappointing conclusion: Lee Harvey.

Re-read some of the "conspiracy theorists" and see how they were shut down from publishing anything that contradicted the official story.

If anything your position as someone who "KNOWS" that conspiracies exist, and how the government seeks to dismiss them or sully the character of the "conspiracists"---that should make you more likely to give credence to these obvious conspiracies.

by Anonymousreply 51011/28/2013


Trying to convince people who have decided the government is GOD and that conspiracy by government actors is impossible---Sisyphus would be proud!

by Anonymousreply 51111/28/2013

Yes [R512], absolutely right.

[R511] Because of my job, or more correctly my second occupation, and those of one sibling (Pentagon) and my best buddy who had a very different career trajectory than mine in the CIA, I've witnessed and researched stories about American activities abroad and been threatened and cautioned about my indiscretion. As a sometimes employee of news orgs, US and other nations, I have a few minor journalist impulses (not my major interest) that make me wish to call out the bullshit, crooks and phonies among groups from CIA, embassies and DEA especially. Yet, no one really cares--it's depressing, actually--about illicit activity by certain among them. Whether its laziness, editorial interference or...? Government? Conspiracy? I'm always told, well, this isn't your permanent job, you're just in blank country as contract/grant/pedagogical whatever...leave it alone Jake, it's Chinatown.

Which is why I tried to couch my words: I've seen activities that I believe are important to reveal to the public, but that journalists find radioactive or boring or too dangerous...? Like JFK?

by Anonymousreply 51211/28/2013

R506 Because they are real. I'm an alien abductee and I'm immortal, a gift from them. When I die I will simply wake up in a new cybernetic body on board one of their crafts. They are a machine-based intelligence. The so-called grays are cyborgs. That's the big reason for the UFO cover-up. Not that they are extraterrestrial, but that they are machines. The powers that be have known they were machines since at least Roswell.

by Anonymousreply 51311/28/2013

Tiresome bloviating. Most shares in American corporations are held by proxy, meaning that the listed owners are not the real owners. So nobody can say for sure who owns America's equity corporations. And yet you expect us to believe that nobody in government could possibly keep a secret, which if the revelation were traced to them, would get them killed? I'm not following this logic. Secrecy is the very currency our society runs on, whether in the private or public sector, and control of information is a life or death matter to all of the wealthy and powerful. You literally cannot read a good history written about twentieth century events because governments have become so addicted to secrecy that virtually nothing you have been taught in school is accurate about this period.

by Anonymousreply 51411/28/2013

r495 r503 r504 Jack Ruby may indeed have been associated with the mob but I don't think he was a professional hit-man. It was a very stressful situation - people all around pushing and shoving and lots of confusion. He probably just took the first shot he could - he was undoubtedly flying high on adrenalin and who knows what else ..

by Anonymousreply 51511/28/2013

[R515] It's Chinatown, Jake. The real estate shares in the valley--in a film about the moral, political and social conspiracies that created the modern LA--are in fact held as you describe, by proxy dying souls in the Mar Vista nursing home. Placeholders in life's purgatory in 1937.

by Anonymousreply 51611/29/2013

"Lee Harvey Oswald" has been used by the US Office of Naval Intelligence since the 1930s, though not necessarily in that word order.

Google "blond oswald" and you'll come up with the images of two other LHOs, neither of them looking like the one assassinated on TV. There's a couple of books published about the bigger, more Anglo looking LHO, whose life paralleled the slightly built, Russian-speaking LHO.

This LHO may have been a war orphan from eastern Europe, though not necessarily Russia. Marina on first meeting LHO thought he spoke Russian like a native. Notice how this LHO speaks English without a New Orleanian accent, yet the "brother" Robert speaks with this accent.

There was a fifth LHO, a Dallas gunsmith who used LHO's identity in Dallas.

The multiple use by intelligence operatives of a single prefabricated ID with past history is a standard operating procedure. Allen Dulles had a great interest in this technique after WW2. His original interest was a pair of identical twins that spoke both Russian and Chinese.

See link below for more info.

by Anonymousreply 51711/29/2013

[quote]When I die I will simply wake up in a new cybernetic body on board one of their crafts. They are a machine-based intelligence. The so-called grays are cyborgs. That's the big reason for the UFO cover-up. Not that they are extraterrestrial, but that they are machines. The powers that be have known they were machines since at least Roswell.

So you're a Mormon....

by Anonymousreply 51811/29/2013

[quote]Mark Lane's 1966 interview of Mrs. Acquilla Clemons. Mrs. Clemons came out of the house when she heard gunshots that resulted in the murder of Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit. Mrs. Clemons observed TWO men, one short and heavy and the other tall and thin. She said that she observed the shorter man with the gun and the UNARMED man was the one who fled down Patton Ave. Her description of the clothing of the UNARMED man (khakis and a white shirt) is similar to the description of other eyewitness to the Tippit murder.

by Anonymousreply 51911/29/2013

Starting at 19:06, the below clip is the first place where I have seen the Zapruder film synched with the police audio recording of the shots.

I hear four shots, with the last two very close together. But clearly not an echo, as the second was far louder than the first.

That is consistent with James Files' version of the events. Files claims that he worked for Charles Nicoletti as a hit man and that Nicoletti was the other shooter. Files also claims that Nicoletti told him to take a head shot if the car got to him without there already being a head shot. Files claims he took the head shot at the last possible moment he could without risking hitting Jackie, but that right when he shot, Nicoletti's shot from behind hit JFK, sending him slightly forward. Files says he was aiming for the right eye, but hit the right temple instead.

by Anonymousreply 52011/29/2013


[quote]John R. Stockwell also researched the story and came up with several reasons why it is not true. He points out that Files makes factual mistakes in his confession about Lee Harvey Oswald, Sam Giancana, and David Atlee Phillips (see below). Stockwell also points out that it was highly unlikely that the Mafia would still be planning the assassination of John F. Kennedy on the morning of 22nd November, 1963.

[quote]In brief, NBC retained me as a consultant for their planned story on Files. I (Edward Jay Epstein) hired the detective firm of Jules Kroll. JK established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963. We then placed a call to Files from Dick Clark's office (DC was producer), and I interviewed Files about Kroll findings. He said he had a twin brother, who no one knew about, and whom he met shortly before November 22, and who he murdered after November 22. He said it was his twin brother in hospital with his wife, not him. His wife, however, said there was no twin, and Kroll confirmed there was no twin. My view then and now is that Files invented the story for the money it would earn him.

I tend to agree with Flecher Prouty in that the assassins were probably from overseas. The cutting edge hypothesis for some time is that at least one shooter was a Corsican hitman, with ties to the French OSA and Mossad. This is where the Permindex connection with Clay Shaw and Louis Bloomfield comes in. The CIA and US Army often uses foreign intel services and foreign organized crime to carry out missions for purposes of plausible denial.

James Jesus Angleton is a current favorite for the CIA supervisor for the JFK assassination.

BTW, when this same bunch tried to assassinate Charles de Gaulle, he kicked NATO out of France.

by Anonymousreply 52111/29/2013

[R518] Read your resources and even links provided for more information. The hypothesis is impossible. Two LHOs, groomed since earliest childhood for the American raised distant from the Hungarian/Russian immigrant. And they end of as willing accomplices, and happily end up without any shared genetic material, to look exactly the same! How providential! It would have been unfortunate had this diabolical 20 year plan been undone by them looking at all different, no?

by Anonymousreply 52211/29/2013

r523, nice try Curt, but no cigar. Try r180, but you probably have. But your purpose here isn't enlightenment---of us.

by Anonymousreply 52311/29/2013

What am I missing? I read the whole page and more, plus even went back to other things on topic as suggested at linked material. And what's with the nice try? Like I'm proselytizing? Not me, got me confused with...?

by Anonymousreply 52411/29/2013

There's a second book out on the two Oswald theme---"The JFK Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds" by Pat Shannan. I haven't read this book yet, but I've heard Shannan on podcasts and he says he's added new material beyond the John Armstrong book.

BTW, in the photo below on the right, Marina Oswald and the Dallas Marguerite Oswald appears to be near the same height. Marina is 5'1'.

In the same photo on the left is Robert Oswald Sr., LHO's father. The woman with him is the New Orleans "Marguerite." Robert was 6' tall. The Marguerite here stands at least 5'8". No one in New Orleans who knew the taller Margie in real life recognized the shorter one when she appeared on national television.

The nice looking tall gal is probably the real mother of Robert Oswald and the "real" LHO or "Ozzie" that Richard Bullock in Japan knew. The other LHO, or "Bugs" (a nickname derive from Oswald the Rabbit), is definitely not the son of this lady.

The shorter TV "Marguerite" is not the mother of Robert or either of the two LHO.

by Anonymousreply 52511/29/2013

But here's the interesting thing about the French connection (and I believe Loran Hall was French). The CIA paid the OAS $100,000 which the OAS used to try to assassinate DeGaulle. Supposedly, DeG learned of this in 1966 and that's why France pulled out of NATO. But the transaction was well before 1963, and since the French had penetrated OAS, it is highly likely they knew all about it long before, giving DeGaulle the best motive of all for offing Kennedy.

by Anonymousreply 52611/29/2013

Below is a link to photos of the two Marguerite Claverie Oswalds. Correction to the above posts: the taller Marguerite is 5'7", the shorter dumpier one is 5'.

Regarding Jack Ruby's use of his right hand, it appears when he was living in a Chicago ghetto as a boy, his index finger was bitten off. This would account for the use of his middle finger as the trigger finger. Still his shooting technique and stance is identical to the British WW2 Special Operations Executive version. In 1940 SOE operatives passed on material and training to the Shai, which as intelligence agency set up by David Ben-Gurion as the forerunner to the Mossad. Funny how a little thing like point shooting can give the game away.

r527, but if de Gaulle had Permindex assassinate JFK, why would the same bunch then turn on Chuckie?

by Anonymousreply 52711/29/2013

Permindex tried to kill DeGaulle so he would have sent SDECE to kill Kennedy.

by Anonymousreply 52811/29/2013

Oops Loran Hall was Cuban. I forget what the Corsican's name was.

by Anonymousreply 52911/29/2013

For the person who asked some pages back about why there isn't a thread on RFK's murder, too: I would participate in such a thread.

Bobby was far more fascinating to me, than Jack, and I hate that he gets less attention because he had as much, if not more, influence on the Kennedy presidency as his brother. And his life and work after Jack was killed, was very important - much more than is acknowledged by popular media today.

by Anonymousreply 53011/29/2013

For those who don't know the name of France's CIA, it the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage (External Documentation and Counter-Espionage Service) or SDECE.

Section five of SDECE is "Action" in which Corsicans dominate. The SDECE works with Corsican organized crime. Maybe r530 you're thinking of OAS mercenary, Jean Souetre, who was picked up in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and deported. Or Michael Mertz using Souetre's ID. Mertz was a SDECE agent connected with the Luciano-Lansky crime syndicate, as well as the Corsican mob.

Getting back to Souetre, he maintained an office at at Guy Banister's headquarters at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. So we're back to Clay Shaw and Permindex.

Before we go further with de Gaulle killing JFK theory, we should remember that both had the same internal and external enemies.

r531, the same people who kill JFK, killed Bobby, who privately vowed to avenge his brother. Looks like they got away with it. Or did they?

by Anonymousreply 53111/29/2013

I know, r532. They did get away with it. It's frustrating.

by Anonymousreply 53211/29/2013

Remember James Jesus Angleton's infamous quote: Deception is a state of mind---and the Mind of the State.

Interesting article on Angleton in the link.

by Anonymousreply 53311/29/2013

Who deported Souetre? the FBI?

by Anonymousreply 53411/29/2013

Or maybe the $100,000 the CIA gave to the OAS went to kill Kennedy. It would make more sense for the CIA and Pentagon to hire a foreigner to do it, and keep the records in say NATO HQ in Brussels rather than in the US.

by Anonymousreply 53511/29/2013

Not coincidentally, Angleton was the first one I thought of when I wrote my post at r533.

by Anonymousreply 53611/29/2013

R531: In the newly published letters of Arthur Schlesinger, he all but acknowledges that Robert Kennedy only won the NY senate seat in Nov. 1964 because LBJ won the state by 2.5 million votes.

RFK was a junior senator from NY from Jan 1965 to his death in June 1968. Yes, he was a very important voice for liberal causes, but sadly only spent three and a half years in the Senate. I was a big supporter of Kennedy in '68 and met him briefly in Philly when we were the first two people at a Vietnam war peace rally. But, even I know that RFK would not have gotten into the presidential primary race in '68 if Eugene McCarthy hadn't almost beaten Johnson in the NH primary.

I have never know anyone who claims that Robert Kennedy was more important than Jack Kennedy in the Kennedy one.

by Anonymousreply 53711/29/2013

Off topic, but the TV "Marguerite Oswald" makes the real Marguerite Claverie look like Ava Gardner. Not only is she slimmer and seven inches taller, she dresses more stylishly. Claverie reportedly had a cheerful personality, while the dumpy fake makes Bette Davis look like Joyce Bulifant.

Wonder what happened to Claverie?

by Anonymousreply 53811/29/2013

oh, golly, now it's Le Grand Charles who offed JFK! No doubt, to fulfil his prophecy that Jackie would end up "sur le yacht d'un armateur grec.."

Or were there TWO Charles de Gaulles like there are TWO Lee Harvey Oswalds??

I just LOVE JFK assassination fanfic!

by Anonymousreply 53911/29/2013

I was only playing along with the de Gaulle scenario r540. I know it's BS. It's mostly US plus some peripheral Israeli and Commonwealth involvement. The best book on the "French Connection" in the JFK assassination is "Final Judgment," though I differ with the author in that the Israel nuclear program is a side-issue. The invasion of Cuba is paramount to the real killers of JFK.

And speaking of multiple Marguerites, there's Judyth Vary Baker, whom r540 will find some things in common, despite her fantasy romance with LHO, which should be paired with Madeleine Duncan Brown's fantasy romance with LBJ. That Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs, Edward Haslam, Wim Dankbaar and Jim Fetzer (the controlled opposition) have endorsed these two Manchurian Candidates should set off all alarms.

Baker's against the idea of intel agents and assets using the same ID, a SOP which all intel agencies have used for centuries.

by Anonymousreply 54011/29/2013

This link is an mp3 of Dallas radio show the Hardline on KTCK that aired last Thursday. They have on guest Steve Everhart (skip to 2:18:00-ish), a longtime Dallas radio personality and now a Dallas radio historian.

He confirms (2:38:00-ish) that Sam Pate, Ron Jenkins and Carl Jenkins, who were working at KBOX and were actually the only Dallas radio reporters ON SITE with the motorcade on 11/22/63, told him many years ago about how they had to fake the audio of their motorcade reporting later because the station's logger tape is "missing".

He goes on to play portions of KLIF as it aired that day in 1963, and he talks about how Jack Ruby was in the DPD and actually called in to KLIF and got them the exclusive interview with Henry Wade. KLIF thanked him by name and plugged his Carousel Club.

He does not mention that Gordon McLendon, the legendary Dallas radio figure and founder of KLIF, was himself a CIA operative who was close friends with CIA agent David Atlee Phillips, who met Oswald in Mexico, and whose sticky fingerprints are all over this murder, among other things. McLendon tried to help Phillips get a spy television show made on CBS; later, they ended up co-founding the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, which is (in true CIA fashion) designed to be a positive publicity campaign to make the CIA look good and "counter criticism" of the Agency.

McLendon was also a member of the ultra exclusive, moneyed and right-wing group called Suite 8F. You shouldn't be surprised to find who else was part of that group, when you google it.

by Anonymousreply 54111/29/2013

r542, 8F was allied to ex-Cuban ambassador Earl Smith (husband of JFK mistress Florence Pritchett), William Pawley, H.L. Hunt and the rest of the invade Cuba brigade.

To recap the previous posts, Hunt was the one who sent an assistant to check out the security of Dallas police HQ, who reported back that Oswald was unprotected and that anyone could enter the building.

Earl Smith's wife, Florence Pritchett, was a columnist on the "New York Journal-American" and is rumored to be the source of Dorothy Kilgallen's info on the anti-Castro Cuban exile community.

William Pawley was a close friend of Henry and Clare Boothe Luce. Henry after a failed luncheon with JFK over the Cuban issue, ordered Time-Life to conduct a covert war against Cuba. Pawley and the Luces were members of the Citizens Committee to Free Cuba (CCFC). Hmmmm... That sounds similar to the outfit that Oswald belonged to.

That the FBI-controlled Trotskyist Socialist Workers' Party was behind the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" says it all. Trotsky himself was an FBI informant till his murder in 1940. The Trotskyites became McCarthyites and later Neo-Cons and are firmly against any notion of a JFK conspiracy.

by Anonymousreply 54211/29/2013

Is this thread what the screenwriters of "Lost" are working on now they're unemployed?

by Anonymousreply 54311/29/2013

r544, blurb about "The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film and Television."

[quote]What’s your impression of the CIA? A bumbling agency that can’t protect its own spies? A rogue organization prone to covert operations and assassinations? Or a dedicated public service that advances the interests of the United States? Astute TV and movie viewers may have noticed that the CIA’s image in popular media has spanned this entire range, with a decided shift to more positive portrayals in recent years. But what very few people know is that the Central Intelligence Agency has been actively engaged in shaping the content of film and television, especially since it established an entertainment industry liaison program in the mid-1990s. The CIA in Hollywood offers the first full-scale investigation of the relationship between the Agency and the film and television industries. Tricia Jenkins draws on numerous interviews with the CIA’s public affairs staff, operations officers, and historians, as well as with Hollywood technical consultants, producers, and screenwriters who have worked with the Agency, to uncover the nature of the CIA’s role in Hollywood. In particular, she delves into the Agency’s and its officers’ involvement in the production of The Agency, In the Company of Spies, Alias, The Recruit, The Sum of All Fears, Enemy of the State, Syriana, The Good Shepherd, and more. Her research reveals the significant influence that the CIA now wields in Hollywood and raises important and troubling questions about the ethics and legality of a government agency using popular media to manipulate its public image.

The intro to the book outlines Operation Mockingbird of 1948, in which agents were embedded in all the major studio. The CIA agent embedded at Paramount, Carleton Alsop, had the cover of a producer and was married to Sylvia Sidney and later Martha Scott.

JFK assassination figure E. Howard Hunt was the hidden producer and script doctor behind the animated version of Orwell's "Animal Farm."

The government and corporate shills on this forum no doubt wish they had "Lost" on their resume.

by Anonymousreply 54411/29/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!