Posted on 11/24/2008 12:59:19 PM PST by AJKauf
Two massive books by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, most recently Legacy of Secrecy have me going back to the Mob hit theory although I just don’t buy their unnecessary post-assassination cover-up theory which involves a supposed coup against Castro. Like that was more shameful than the murder of a president. But they’ve done a service by digging up the deepest, darkest, most disturbing archival evidence to support their Mob hit theory.
Anyway, I’m interested: what do people think, those of you who still think about it? Some may say, who cares we’ll never know, it’s old news, but I’m not satisfied with that. Historical truth means a lot to me. At one point LBJ said nuclear war was at stake. I want to know if there was someone behind Oswald and why. It’s more important than how Yale could allow Harvard to score two touchdowns (and two two-point conversions) in 42 seconds–though I still can’t reconcile myself to that either...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I’m not overly much on conspiracy theories but I think LBJ was involved.
Here’s an interesting picture:
http://www.rense.com/general41/wew.htm
Albert Thomas Texas Congressman and friend of LBJ, was one of the reasons JFK went to Tx. JFK and LBj were at the dinner for Thomas in Houston the night before and Thomas joined them in Dallas. He was in the motorcade and got on Air Force One after the murder. Check out the wink to LBJ after the oath.
“First of all, the shot or shots were pretty remarkable, not necessarily for the accuracy but the speed in which they were fired.”
Two shots in more than five seconds? Big deal.
“Also having a Mafia character shoot the shooter was something right out of the movies.”
He wasn’t a mafia character. Mafiosos don’t live in bubbles; they have to run into people who have no connection to the underworld every once in a while.
Anyway, if the movie was about a conspiracy, I’d question the logic of a plot that has Ruby shooting Oswald after he’d been in police custody for two days, plenty long enough to spill the beans. If it was a movie about an emotionally disturbed fellow who struck out in vengance for a fallen hero, I’d say it was melodramatic but effective.
This is the part I like,
“But they’ve done a service by digging up the deepest, darkest, most disturbing archival evidence to support their Mob hit theory.”
But I really like the following much more:
“The murky depths of fear they plumb’
to dredge up theories blind and dumb,
while thin coincidence begets a tome
and endless shooters find a home.
No contra truth makes them repent,
in gassy volumes they give vent
to promises of sunlight shone
on grassy knolls where shooters hone
their sights on mortal flesh and bone.
How a single shooter can sire a crowd,
only dreamy writers lift this shroud
with details enough to make us slumber,
yours for just your credit card number.
From The Atkinsville Action Alert Newsletter, doggerel section.
“If Oswald did it why did he avoid a great total body shot as Kennedy APPROACHED the book depository and take a fading head shot?”
Because the slope of the road when the car was moving away from Oswald made it basically a stationary target. Anyway, it doesn’t much matter what Owald’s reasoning was. The forensic evidence speaks for itself.
The Discovery Channel show this year demonstrated that the fatal shot came from above and to JFK’s right (the TSD). If the head shot would have come from the grassy knoll, it would have caused a massive exit wound on the left side of JFK’s and would have also likely killed Jackie. Neither the Zapruder nor the Nix film show any brains going out of the left side of JFK’s head. Further, assuming Jackie would have survived a grassy knoll shot, her suit, hat, face and hair would have been completely covered blood to an exent not supported by the photographic evidence.
SS agents? Those Germans hold a grudge a long time!
Sure, that's the official line. Would you have expected them to praise him openly before sending him back here to perform a 'hit' on an American president? (assuming of course they were behind it) They would want to distance themselves from him, at least publicly.
“This seems to be all the justification that would be needed by whoever would assassinate JFK.”
Maybe. Of course, we have a perfectly legal process for removing the president. Seems a bit rash to me that someone would go ahead and kill him instead of going public, considering that an election was around the corner.
I can't remember how many years but it was a long time, anyone else remember?
Jack Ruby: A loser with terminal cancer that wanted to and did make history.
Jack Ruby: A loser with terminal cancer that wanted to and did make history.
“The blame would have ultimately been put on Castro but Ruby fouled it up”
Huh? Where would the evidence have come from? Why didn’t the Warren Commission find any? As we all know (even if we don’t want to admit it), the Commission dug up more evidence then ever would have been touched a Oswald’s murder trial. If anything, Ruby made it more likely that we’d have found a Cuban connection.
The JFK assassination is an important topic because it allowed the left to perpetrate a myth to suit its own ends. Lefty commentators then and now desperately wanted to pin this on the “right-wing” to marginalize conservatives as dangerous extremists.
In a similar vein, it is interesting how Sirhan’s motive for killing RFK is never really discussed. It was the first act of Palestinian/Islamic terrorism on American soil.
In reality, LHO was a revolutionary Marxist. Like those BH0 workers in Texas, he was a fan of Che. IMO there were a number of reasons LHO shot JFK. He probably thought he was striking a blow for Castro and against the entire capitalist system. He may have also been motivated by sexual jealousy as Marina would tell him that JFK reminded of a former and better lover.
Mostly, however, I believe that LHO always saw himself an historic figure. The shooting gave him a chance to be one. In this, he succeeded.
(1) Castro did it, and the truth had to be suppressed to prevent a war with Cuba and the Soviet Union and to avoid the domestic repercussions that would have ensued from revelation of Kennedy administration assassination plots against Castro with the help of the mob.
(2) Kennedy was killed by a wide ranging conspiracy set in motion by LBJ using Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis, E. Howard Hunt, and other CIA agents and operatives working free lance. To help carry out the plot, the conspirators recruited the Mafia based on their grievances against JFK.
Texas oil interests provided some of the financing and assistance in Dallas. Additional financing came from the Mafia and may also have come from cash provided by the CIA to the Cuban exile group DRE.
I tend to favor theory (2) because it accommodates evidence that I regard as persuasive: the stunning taped deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt; the apparent fingerprint of LBJ operative Malcolm Wallace on a box on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository; and the many indications of both Mafia involvement and CIA cover up.
LBJ's motive was his imminent dropping from the ticket in 1964 and prosecution for corruption in the Billie Sol Estes scandal. Cord Meyer's motive was that his marriage had been destroyed by Kennedy's affair with his wife.
As veterans of the effort against Castro, the CIA guys regarded Kennedy as having betrayed the Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs and betrayed the US through, among other things, irregular secret dealings with Kruschev during the Cuban missile crisis, fumbling in Viet Nam, failure to take action against the Berlin Wall, and a liaison with a German national who was a Soviet spy. JFK's philandering was a grave security risk.
The Texas oil interests -- principally H. L. Hunt and Clint Murchison -- hated Kennedy for curtailing the oil depletion allowance and as a grave threat to US national security and traditional domestic political arrangements.
The problem with a Mafia acting alone theory is that they could not be assured that they would get away with it unless they had sanction from the incoming Johnson administration and a full scale cover up based on LBJ's complicity.
The problem with a CIA guys did it by themselves theory is similar. In addition, for the CIA guys, allying with the Mafia brought in essential operational help, a more confusing trail for investigators, and deniability if the Mafia role was revealed.
Also, although anti-Castro Cubans were likely involved in the conspiracy and were angry enough to kill Kennedy by themselves, they lacked the ability to both penetrate Kennedy's security and to put a lasting cover up in place.
In this scenario, Oswald was part of a plot against Kennedy but was left holding the bag. The indications of a connection to Castro that run through Oswald are likely genuine but were contrived by the primary conspirators to provide an additional reason to limit the investigation to Oswald as a lone nut.
The Garrison investigation can be explained as a way for the Mafia to squeeze the CIA and Johnson. Garrison was deeply compromised and aligned with the Mafia and Carlos Marcello. As conspiracy theories swirled even after the Warren Commission, the Mafia and Marcello arranged the diversion of a crazy, publicity seeking DA making allegations against the CIA.
I suspect that the Kennedy family learned the truth of the assassination within a few weeks but judiciously preferred a useful martyr to impossibly contentious and politically disruptive allegations of a conspiracy. With RFK's death and the failure of Teddy Kennedy's campaigns for President, the family lost the prospect of exposing the conspiracy on favorable terms.
Oddly, some sympathy is due the CIA. Their people were used free lance by the Vice President to kill the President. The CIA then had to cover up the conspiracy and the role their people played lest, at the height of the Cold War, the US suffer a gravely damaging domestic political crisis and, in anger, blind itself by destroying its primary intelligence agency.
But a more interesting point is a thread from past Kennedy assassination discussions on FR. I wish I'd bookmarked it but I'll try and summarize.
And please, I'm speaking personally. I don't ascribe any of this to those with different opinions.
The article suggested that conspiracy theories, regardless if they're about Kennedy (either one), 9/11, etc. are mental defense mechanisms; our brains don't like the idea that one twisted, insignificant individual can change world history. Period.
Having found myself sliding off the reality cracker a time or two I realized how much this applied to me. If I was honest with myself it was hard to swallow that such a major event in history was engineered by a lone whack job. It "felt" much better for me to believe that there were large and sinister forces at work and that major world events were shaped by these large forces. Otherwise if a puny twisted puke like Oswald could effect such a change, well, it didn't make my world all that stable.
So there you have it, nothing too shocking that I'm mentally unbalanced but man, when it comes to me that concept really hits the mark.
JFK was at odds with the US ‘Intel’ services, wanted to restrict their power, not to mention doing other things they didn't like.
At this point in time almost all is known about the assassination, who, when, what, where.
The 20 or so Govt Conspirators are listed by name in the book ‘Regicide’, from photocopies of ‘Intel’ records.
Some of these names are corroborated in this years revelations from the E. Hunt confession. A book will be out on that.
The Govt used street level Mafia, Intel, and Cubans to set up the event along with using the Chicago Mafia to contract untraceable foreign shooters.
The on-duty doctor at Parkland wrote a book about the conspiracy, Garrison, Fletcher Prouty, Jean Hill, Tague, Jim Marrs, Stone, and many more revealing the same basic things.
LHO can not be physically put in the crime scene based off where he was and the witnesses. The elevator was shut down, and people using the stairs did not see him use them.
Later info on LHO has shown that he was an Govt informant on the street level ‘Intel’, possibly informing on the progress of the assassination among other things.
Part of our Govt itself admitted that the JFK Assassination was probably a Conspiracy.
Somebody needs to wake up the Mainstream Media to save all of us from having to spend all the time researching this stuff!!
***Anyway, I’m interested: what do people think, those of you who still think about it? Some may say, who cares we’ll never know, it’s old news, but I’m not satisfied with that.***
For more reasons than I have the time to explain here I am 100% convinced that the Zapruder film shows the fatal head shot from in front.
____________________
Get your money back for that degree in physics!! LOL
There has been a computer generated reproduction, here’s the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM
Here’s the whole thing, this is the whole show except the final segment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMrpbGl7_1o
Here’s the simple physics explaining the head wound and reaction of the head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
Maybe your physics training didn’t involve ballistics and what happens when a bullet strikes a head from behind, no harm, no foul. Here’s more evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGciJo0iPo
The bullet entered JFK from the back and pulled the brain matter through and left a large exit wound, as bullets are wont to do. The head then moving back is a natural reaction to being struck from behind, like in the video demonstration with the melon.
Hunt was looking for big money to do a movie, even the biggest quacks take his “confession” with a grain of salt, and that’s saying something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.