Book links JFK murder to killing of RFK and MLK

Philly .com ^ | January 8, 2008

[Oldpuppymax]

But why would this guy have King killed? I still think it was Marilyn Monroe’s ghost getting even for the Kennedy’s having bumped her off.

[mlo]

Oswald had the means.

[John 3_19-21]

There should be a tinfoil hat usage requirement to read this article

[freekitty]

They all had the means; but the government is the only one that has the full ability to coverup.

[JoeA]

He did? What were they?

[mlo]

But it’s not covered up. The crime was solved at the time.

[freekitty]

The Kennedys had ties to both the mafia and the government. I still say our government had the complete means of covering this up. The others may be involved; but the government is the only one that could carry the coverup out.

[mlo]

He worked at the place the shots were fired from. He owned a rifle. He took it to work that day and used it. His rifle fired the bullets.

What else did he need?

[freekitty]

I am sure they are.

[freekitty]

Sure it was. Maybe in some circles; but not the ones we are privy to.

[mlo]

No, it' not. You are just as free to know the facts of this crime as anyone else.

Oswald took his rifle to work and shot the President. It's one of the most documented events in history. There are many details. But that is the bottom line.

[freekitty]

Maybe; but is it the truth?

[browardchad]

The Kennedys had ties to both the mafia and the government.

The Kennedys had ties to the government? I did not know that!

Of course, then, it had to be a government conspiracy.

It all makes sense now.

[Raven6]

Having just completed the book Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder by Gus Russo and Stephen Molton, I would agree with you 100%.

This book was given to me as a Christmas present... At first I thought "why this title?", as I had expressed no interest in further study of the assassination... But after flipping the book open to the middle just to see how it was written and then finding myself having covered 40 pages without putting it down, I thought "Wow, go back and start at the beginning... These guys have done their homework!" As it turns out, it was 30 years worth of homework...

The book is very hard to put down once you start it... The authors are tying things together with facts discovered through their research of documents in the U.S and Russia, along with interviews of former Castro confidants that left Cuba. One interview was with Rolando Cubela Secades, who help Castro with the revolution only to feel betrayed by Castro when Castro turned to communism. Cubela stayed with the revolution with hopes of taking out the Castro brothers and bringing true democracy to Cuba.

Many people don't understand that the revolution wasn't originally communist, but was instead "anti-Batista." It wasn't until after Batista's overthrow and after much pushing by Raul [always the more devout communist than Fidel] that Fidel publicly stated that he was a "Socialist". I always found it offensive for Castro to call himself a "socialist" since I was taught in high school that the chief difference between socialism and communism is that socialism comes about through gradual change, while communism comes about through violent revolution...

Raven6

[RedMonqey]

“...all of Michael Moore's stuff is heavily researched, also, but it doesn't make it true”

Exactly. What this means is the author had to cover up his lies with piles of “What Ifs” “Could Bes” or May Haves” The truth is usually simple.

Oh and that the author has no social life beyond mommy's basement and the library...

[gusopol3]

the elite media has been shielding Castro for almost 50 years, throwing a cloak of “good intentions” over him, That’s why the notion that it’s only been recently that we’ve gotten away from journalistic objectivity or balance is such a howler. And that goes for Watergate and the readily accepted concept that Nixon was some kind of sinister aberration from politics as usual.

[indthkr]

"I still say it’s our government that did it. They are the only ones that have the means to do it."

Our government couldn't have kept the lid on this for 40+ years unless it had help from the target of the crime, or his extended family. Now why would they not want all the data to get out?

Maybe JFK wasn't exactly an "innocent" victim. The Kennedy brand must be maintained after all.

.....or maybe just Oswald did it.

[JoeA]

He worked at the place the shots were fired from. He owned a rifle. He took it to work that day and used it. His rifle fired the bullets. All of the points you make are open to debate. For example, when his wife Marina was questioned, she was unable to identify the rifle as Oswald's. She later changed her testimony in this, as in many other matters.

There's more evidence that Oswald was not the shooter, than evidence that he was.

[freekitty]

Maybe he did; but our government can keep the lid on. They are the only ones that can.

[TalBlack]

“I also found the book DoubleCross to be very believable. I believe the mob was involved in some way.”

I wonder if there weren't TWO shooters present that day who weren't in any way involved with one another or even aware of one another’s presence. There is pretty good enhanced photographic evidence (BBC'S ‘The Men Who Killed The Kennedys’’) that another shooter was behind a fence (on the knoll?) Between the two (Oswald and Anonymous) they may have represented some combination of lone nut/Castro/Mob. This would cut the number of people actually in on the plans down to a very small number, all the while creating confusing evidence that naturally hinted at some kind of Big Plot. I have always had trouble believing any conspiracy involving a lot of people would have been kept quiet.