Just a thought on why John F Kennedy was killed

snafuk35

Conas wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MLc0udf_74

The Oliver Stone film is very entertaining but it is a fabrication from beginning to end. It is worthy checking out this link where the movie if debunked point by point:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

To begin with the epileptic at the begining of that scene DID arrive at Parkland hospital:

But the individual in question hardly "vanished"; his name was Jerry Belknap, an epileptic who had suffered seizures since childhood. He was located by the FBI on May 26, 1964, and to prove his identity, he produced his receipt for the $12.50 he paid for his ambulance ride to Parkland Hospital. He explained that he had left Parkland without registering because he felt better after being given a glass of water and an aspirin. Moments later, the President's motorcade pulled into the hospital's parking lot, and Belknap realized he was not likely to see a doctor anytime soon anyway.(2)

Oliver Stone's Dealey Plaza scenario, it would seem, is off to an unfortunate start.

The back and to the left motion was caused by a combination of a bullet strike to the back of the head and explusion of tissue through the exit hole in the front top right side of the head and a neurological muscle spasm. If JFK was shot from the front and right as conspiracy theorists claim there would have been a small wound of entry on the front right of the skull and a large wound of exit in the left rear of the skull. The muscles of the neck spasmed and since the muscles at the back of the neck are more powerful than the front of the neck, the head jerked backward.
Frames 312 and 313 of the Zapruder film show that at the moment of the bullet strike the head was driven forward a few inches before the more apparent backward head snap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWSgcuYqDo

I have already posted two videos showing volunteers firing the Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 bolt-action rifle. Jesse Ventura is clearly pretending to have problems firing the gun.

This video shows a man on a range firing 6 shots in 5.1 secs with the same model rifle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4c5Zr7hzzA

This video shows another gun enthusiast shooting the Mannlicher Carcano rapidly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-to90d1Uf8

The Mannlicher Carcano was used by the Italian military throughout most of the 20th century and it is a good military rifle and compares well next to the Mosin-Nagant, Lee-Enfield, Mauser, Springfield and other bolt-action weapons of the period.

Dionysius2

Treora wrote: »

Dude, you post on a conspiracy forum something as close minded as that and everyone will think that you are one off four things: a right wing extremist, a big pharma research case, a card carrying sock puppet or a malware bot.

My money is on a bot. It is due to the force of convinction and the need to have others think a certain way on a topic that no one trusts. You talk in certainties of things as though you have had personal conversations with LHO but offer no links from verifiable unbiased sources to support your claims. There is no critical reasoning to your statements it is a sort of willful ignorance and a zealotry only seen in an extremist. So I think you are a bot modelled on an extremist. :eek:

No offence if you are not, it is just how you appear from your comments.

Wrong.....Snaf has it right and well summarised. The rest is the grist associated with the conspiracy theories. I worked for many years in a job where second guessing was second nature and the number of people who 'knew' things that were simply untrue was amazing......but they 'knew things' and so that was their truth.

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

What does this prove? It certainly doesn't prove Shaw was involved in a plot to kill JFK

It proves Clay Shaw commited perjury in court and was a liar, does it not? I mean, if you choose to discount Corrie Collins testimonies because you believe Collins was lying in court , how can you believe Shaw's testimonies were true when it has been proven that Shaw was lying?

buried

Dionysius2 wrote: »

Wrong.....Snaf has it right and well summarised. The rest is the grist associated with the conspiracy theories. I worked for many years in a job where second guessing was second nature and the number of people who 'knew' things that were simply untrue was amazing......but they 'knew things' and so that was their truth.

In fairness to myself, I never said I 'Knew things', Ive just done a lot of reading into the histories of people that were involved, mostly in the HSCA case which was a investigation performend by the U.S. government, the anti Castro, mob and far right groups that the HSCA investigated, granted the HSCA concluded most of those groups were not involved apart from individual members of organized crime who may have been involved, nonetheless that investigation opens up a lot of fascinating information and questions about that time in history and the characters involved.
And concerning the Warren Commision reports findings, the other official commitee, I do not trust the Warren Commision report whatsoever, and since many people in the establishment ( who definetly did "know things") didnt trust the Warren report, people such as Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Nikita Khrushchev, Charles De Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker...if they did not believe it, why should anybody else?

Tipsy McSwagger

The ironic thing is all these CTs who don't believe the Warren Commision will use it to make a point.

buried

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The ironic thing is all these CTs who don't believe the Warren Commision will use it to make a point.

Yes. I am making the point that Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Nikita Khrushchev, Charles De Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker didn't believe it either.

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

In fairness to myself, I never said I 'Knew things', Ive just done a lot of reading into the histories of people that were involved, mostly in the HSCA case which was a investigation performend by the U.S. government, the anti Castro, mob and far right groups that the HSCA investigated, granted the HSCA concluded most of those groups were not involved apart from individual members of organized crime who may have been involved, nonetheless that investigation opens up a lot of fascinating information and questions about that time in history and the characters involved.
And concerning the Warren Commision reports findings, the other official commitee, I do not trust the Warren Commision report whatsoever, and since many people in the establishment ( who definetly did "know things") didnt trust the Warren report, people such as Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Nikita Khrushchev, Charles De Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker...if they did not believe it, why should anybody else?

I have read the Warren Commission and the evidence all points to Oswald. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone else but Oswald being involved.
I think the physical evidence has already been discussed here at length and clearly Oswald was the only trigger man in the deaths of JFK and Tippet.
The links I have posted already have dealt with whether Oswald was involved with Shaw, Ferrie, Ruby etc and clearly he wasn't.
Oswald only came in contact with Ferrie when he was fifteen and spent a shot few months in the Civil Air Patrol.
There is no evidence whatsoever linking Shaw to Oswald.
The Garrison case was thrown out of court after an hour of jury deliberation.

I would give Oswald's brother Robert the final word:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZXKWpiNM0

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

Yes. I am making the point that Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Nikita Khrushchev, Charles De Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker didn't believe it either.

So what?

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

So what?

I am confused as to what you mean by 'so what'. Are you saying that you have no opinion as to why all of these people, some that were inside the circle of events, one of them the former head of the FBI, some of them world leaders with a considerable amount of covert intelligence information, Presidents, Senators, aides to government, the absolute credible apex of the establishment, that all of these did not believe the results of the Warren Commision and you have literally no opinion on that and can also discount it as 'so what'? Especially as you so vehemently believe the Warren report yourself?

You never answered my question concerning Shaw commiting perjury of the court, that is the reason you have discounted Corrie Collins testimony, would you also not discount Shaw's testimony given that he also lied to the court?

Tipsy McSwagger

buried wrote: »

Yes. I am making the point that Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Nikita Khrushchev, Charles De Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Senators Gary Hart and Richard Schweiker didn't believe it either.

LBJ - Believed LHO killed the president. Admitted there might have been a conspiracy involving 'international connections'.

Robert Kennedy - Believed LHO killed the president. Initially blamed himself for getting his brother killed because of his strong tactics against the mafia. Believed the mafia or Cubans were involved.

Jackie Kennedy - Believed LHO killed the president. Believed Lyndon B. Johnson and Texan tycoons were behind it.

Hoover - Believed LHO killed the president. Supposedly believed the mafia were involved.

Now all these people have 4 things in common,

1. They all believe Oswald was the shooter.
2. They may have hinted at a conspiracy at one point.
3. They all blame a different conspirator.
4. They are all included in conspiracies to kill JFK.

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

I am confused as to what you mean by 'so what'. Are you saying that you have no opinion as to why all of these people, some that were inside the circle of events, one of them the former head of the FBI, some of them world leaders with a considerable amount of covert intelligence information, Presidents, Senators, aides to government, the absolute credible apex of the establishment, that all of these did not believe the results of the Warren Commision and you have literally no opinion on that and can also discount it as 'so what'? Especially as you so vehemently believe the Warren report yourself?

Yet no evidence has ever emerged proving Oswald had any connection with the mob, CIA, pro-Castro Cubans or any other group.
As I have already pointed out and you conveniently ignore time and time again - the physical evidence shows Oswald fired the three shots from the 6th floor window. Oswald got the job at the Book Depository through Ruth Paine's neighbour whose son worked at the building and who heard there was a vacancy. Roy Truly met the young polite ex-Marine and was impressed that he addressed him as "sir" and hired him.

You never answered my question concerning Shaw commiting perjury of the court, that is the reason you have discounted Corrie Collins testimony, would you also not discount Shaw's testimony given that he also lied to the court?

Shaw lying about involvement with the CIA proves nothing. Shaw was like thousands of other international businessmen, journalists, tourists, students and others who are regularly contacted about what they know about foreign countries by intelligence services. Nothing about Shaw indicates any involvement with Ferrie, Bannister, Ruby or Oswald.

The only reason Ferrie's name ever came up at all is because Guy Bannister got into a fight with Jack Martin after he discovered Martin had made some unauthorised long distance telephone calls from his office. Martin then saw a picture of Ferrie in the CAP with a young Oswald and made wild allegations of a conspiracy. Perry Russo was hypnotized and convinced he had seen Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald at a party. Dean Andrews under the influence of drugs contact law enforcement and claimed someone called Clay Bertrand hired him to defend Oswald.
Then Garrison claims Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand are one and the same person!

And that's the case! I call BS on that.:rolleyes:

Conas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FDflK_Iug

Conas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_wP-kCdQPE

Tomk1

I've enjoyed reading this & not up with the experts here on the subject.

Keeping with the OP question, if some group was backing Oswald, what was the motive, and resultant course-change in world history, if anything the assassination just reinforced JFK's policies.

In any murder there has to be some motive, that's the key point, forget magic bullets or dog in car equates to a conspiracy.

From events the USSR could have gone to war but instead after Cuba opened up negotiatons with the US, so if they were involved in the assassination of a president, it would of meant immediate war & that they wanted a war, didn't happen, doesn't make sense.

Likewise, the VP & CIA & SS & other US arms interests, motive should also have been war, which didn't happen.

It's 50 years since it happened, if there was a conspiracy it would of involved dozens of people, you would expect someone after their death to have that info released, like Deep-throat. But nothing.

Maybe Oswald knew people who would of said they liked JFK dead, but in reality no intention of carring it out, just talk.

The CIA involvement: can't see why they wouldn't have of had operatives keeping an eye on fringe groups (there's even a thrend here on anonymous), an assassination attempt on the president would have been high priority, so these groups would of been infiltraded, maybe Oswald was contacted/investigated and seen as no threat.

I love the JFK conspiracy, it has given many great TV-show stories, but apart from people trying to join random dots, none of the reasons for the assassination makes sense, no motive, apart from some lone nut seeking fame.

On Ruby, some low level Mob thug, with a gun, angry at the death of the president of his country, within hours of the assassination comes face to face with the assassin with expected results.

chinwag

Any time I see the tv footage of Oswald being led away from the police station after being charged with the murder, I ask myself why did the cops and authorities place this man in such danger by placing him in front of a really hostile crowd (if not a potential lynching mob). It's almost as if they wanted Oswald to be bumped off.
Also, didn't many members of the Warren Commision die in mysterious circumstances afterwards?

dogmax

First of all I just want to say I always had a open mind on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and as for the Warren report I have to agree yes it is accurate in certain parts of this case, and I don't think anyone is disputing that but the other side would be right in saying that the Warren report is not a complete report, now the second investigation into the assassination of President John F Kennedy started in 1976 by the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, The Committee investigated until 1978 found that on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy, now this HSCA report was set up because of a earlier report carry out by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence (Church Committee) which started in 1975 following the Watergate scandal, this committee open up a whole can of worms in both the FBI and the CIA on a whole lot of issue including assassinations, and they also found out that both the FBI and the CIA where operating like this long before the assassination of President John F Kennedy, now some may say that the Warren report was only dealing with the assassination of President John F Kennedy and that it, well, all I can to say to that is bull****, there was already talk of a inside job as a result of a conspiracy straight after Kennedy's assassination, so all this prove to me is that the Warren report is actually a FBI and CIA report, because if the Warren report was to do there job then why did everyone have to wait over ten years to hear the truth about the FBI and the CIA, and some may say that these reports are inaccurate well if they're inaccurate then why did their own Government make changes and serious changes following the Church Committee report in 1975, changes to both the FBI and the CIA, so my conclusion is the Warren report is not a complete report, and believe me if the CIA can put dictators in power in Foreign Countries under the noses of their own people, then I wouldn't be so quick to believe the evidences that you read in the Warren report, or should I say the FBI and the CIA report, and another thing, we're talking about the Sixties here, it was a whole different time then, so try and think in that time, and please, don't reply with the conclusions of the Warren Commission still stands, thanks.

saywhatyousee

I believe JFK was killed because of Executive order 11110 which striped the Federal reserve bank of the power to loan money to the U.S government at interest

snafuk35

Conas wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_wP-kCdQPE

Bowers told the Warren Commission and he told Mark Lane in another interview that he saw two men on the high ground between his control tower and Elm Street. These men were standing on the north side of the fence which means they were standing in front of it and not behind it. He saw one of the men seem to appear and to disappear which could only have been possible if he was standing in front of the fence and not behind the fence.
Photos and films of the assassination show a group of men standing on the steps on the incline that lead up to an ornamental pergola and these men testified to the Warren Commission and none of them mention a shooter on the knoll.
Zapruder and his secretary who were only feet away from the fence saw and heard no shooter either.
A black couple were sitting on a bench by a low wall near the pergola and fence and they saw no shooter.
The only other people he saw were the cops and a group of workmen on the triple underpass watching the motorcade. He also said he heard three shots from either the Texas School Book Depository or the Triple Underpass (this is common in Dealey Plaza due to physical shape of the area). He never claimed to have seen a gunman behind the picket fence and never claimed to have heard a shot or shots from the knoll.
Bowers died in a tragic car accident.
There is nothing whatever that is suspicious about his death.

snafuk35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

Madeleine Duncan Brown is lying. She never was a mistress of LBJ and her whole story is a complete fabrication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FDflK_Iug

E. Howard Hunt's confession is also a pack of lies.
He claims to be one of "three" tramps who were photographed in the custody of Dallas police.
The official records show these three men were Harold Doyle of Red Jacket, West Virginia; John F. Gredney, with no listed home address; and Gus W. Abrams, also with no listed home address.
FBI Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a nationally-recognized expert in photoidentification and photoanalysis with the FBI photographic laboratory, had concluded from photo comparison that none of the men were Hunt or Sturgis (Hunt's alleged accomplice).

snafuk35

saywhatyousee wrote: »

I believe JFK was killed because of Executive order 11110 which striped the Federal reserve bank of the power to loan money to the U.S government at interest

How did the conspirators get Oswald the job in the TSBD? Oswald was hired after Ruth Paine referred him to Roy Truly who was foreman in the building. He was hired there more than a month before the assassination and the route of the motorcade was not finalised until four days before the visit to Dallas.

snafuk35

dogmax wrote: »

First of all I just want to say I always had a open mind on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and as for the Warren report I have to agree yes it is accurate in certain parts of this case, and I don't think anyone is disputing that but the other side would be right in saying that the Warren report is not a complete report, now the second investigation into the assassination of President John F Kennedy started in 1976 by the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, The Committee investigated until 1978 found that on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy, now this HSCA report was set up because of a earlier report carry out by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence (Church Committee) which started in 1975 following the Watergate scandal, this committee open up a whole can of worms in both the FBI and the CIA on a whole lot of issue including assassinations, and they also found out that both the FBI and the CIA where operating like this long before the assassination of President John F Kennedy, now some may say that the Warren report was only dealing with the assassination of President John F Kennedy and that it, well, all I can to say to that is bull****, there was already talk of a inside job as a result of a conspiracy straight after Kennedy's assassination, so all this prove to me is that the Warren report is actually a FBI and CIA report, because if the Warren report was to do there job then why did everyone have to wait over ten years to hear the truth about the FBI and the CIA, and some may say that these reports are inaccurate well if they're inaccurate then why did their own Government make changes and serious changes following the Church Committee report in 1975, changes to both the FBI and the CIA, so my conclusion is the Warren report is not a complete report, and believe me if the CIA can put dictators in power in Foreign Countries under the noses of their own people, then I wouldn't be so quick to believe the evidences that you read in the Warren report, or should I say the FBI and the CIA report, and another thing, we're talking about the Sixties here, it was a whole different time then, so try and think in that time, and please, don't reply with the conclusions of the Warren Commission still stands, thanks.

If the Warren Report is inaccurate as you claim then how was Oswald framed? Only Oswald could have written the mail order for the assassination rifle and the .38 revolver used to kill Tippett.
Oswald was photographed by Marina Oswald in their backyard posing with the rifle and revolver.
Oswald told Marina Oswald he tried to kill General Walker.
Oswald arrived on Thursday 21 Nov 1963 at the Paine house where his wife was staying rather than his habitual Friday.
The next day he rode to work with a long paper package containing "curtain rods" even though his rented room already had curtain rods and no curtains rods were ever found by cops in the Book Despository.
A paper package was found next to the sniper nest on the 6th floor and the rifle he had purchased by mail order was found on the same floor with fibres of his work shirt on the stock, fibres of the blanket it wrapped in from the Paine garage and his palm print on the dissembled barrell.
Only Oswald could have brought that rifle to work that day.
A man fitting Oswald's description was seen shooting the rifle from the 6th floor.
The bullet and two bullet fragments recovered were ballistically matched to his rifle.
The trajectories of the shot that hit Kennedy and Connally and the shot that killed JFK and wounded James Tague all originated in the 6th floor window.
Oswald was the only employee of the TSBD missing after the shooting and he was seen frantically boarding a bus which became snarled in traffic before boarding a cab to a spot after his rooming house.
He entered the house changed his clothes and put on a jacket before leaving.
Witnesses ID'd him as the man who Officer Tippet who would have heard the APB for a suspect matching Oswald's description which was taken from Howard Brennan who saw the man shoot from the 6th floor window.
When Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theatre he was carrying the .38 revolver used to kill Tippet and he tried to draw it during the struggle with the cops and kill more police officers.

So all these witnesses must be lying or have been intimidated right? All the cops must have been lying or intimidated or in on the plot right?

For Oswald not to be guilty is just laughably absurd.

The HSCA committee found no evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy except the dictabelt recording of four shots in Dealey Plaza which was later proven to be four non gunshot noises recording elsewhere and at a different time.

No rifle, no spent shells and no knoll shooter.
All the physical evidence demonstrates Kennedy was killed by shots from the TSBD.

snafuk35

Any time I see the tv footage of Oswald being led away from the police station after being charged with the murder, I ask myself why did the cops and authorities place this man in such danger by placing him in front of a really hostile crowd (if not a potential lynching mob).

Oswald was escorted out through the basement capark of the Dallas PD HQ.
The ramp up to the street was guarded by uniformed cops but Ruby slipped past probably when one or more of the cops was distracted when a vehicle stalled. Ruby had been transfering money in a Western Union across the street two minutes before he shot Oswald. If he was a hitman rather than a nut who shot Oswald on the spur of the moment you would think he would have been in position sooner?

It's almost as if they wanted Oswald to be bumped off.

The Dallas police tried to protect Oswald from being shot by bringing him down through the basement to a waiting car.

Also, didn't many members of the Warren Commision die in mysterious circumstances afterwards?

Nobody died in mysterious circumstances.

This link examines in detail the supposed "suspicious" deaths listed by conspiracy theorists:

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

buried

Tomk1 wrote: »

From events the USSR could have gone to war but instead after Cuba opened up negotiatons with the US, so if they were involved in the assassination of a president, it would of meant immediate war & that they wanted a war, didn't happen, doesn't make sense.

This is a very good point and does not recieve the attention that it should IMO. The branding of Oswald as a communist sympathiser, who had recently returned from the USSR after defecting from the U.S. and then single handedly carried out the assassination, all of this had all the ingredients for a full scale incident between the United States and the USSR. But it did not occur. It did not occur because the Kennedy's had channels of communication open to the Soviets without using the CIA.

Russian historians Andrei Aleksandrovich Fursenko and Tim­o­thy Naf­tal, from their acclaimed 1997 history of the Cuban missile crisis which is based on declassified U.S and USSR documents, have a stunning piece in that book concerning the assassination.

In the book they state that one week after President Kennedy's assassination, Robert Kennedy secretly sent his friend William Walton to the KGB in Moscow, with a direct message for a KGB agent named Georgi Bolshakov. Bobby knew and trusted Bolshakov from the near apocalyptic incidents that occured between the two nations in the missile crisis. Fursenko and Naftal state that Walton informed Georgi Bolshakov that Bobby and Jacque­line believed “there was a large polit­i­cal con­spir­acy behind Oswald’s rifle” and “that Dal­las was the ideal loca­tion for such a crime.”
The Kennedys also reassured the Sovi­ets that despite Oswald’s appar­ent con­nec­tions to the com­mu­nist world, they believed Pres­i­dent Kennedy had been killed by Amer­i­can ene­mies.

This is stunning history, Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy using a close family friend, not CIA, to inform the KGB/USSR - the supposed enemy of the United States, of their own suspicions of domestic enemies being responsible for the assassination. Add to that, the KGB's own views on Oswald, considering the KGB monitored Oswald closely after he defected to the Soviet Union, according to Fursenko and Naf­tali the KGB chairman said of Oswald “I thought that this man could not pos­si­bly be the mas­ter­mind of the crime.” and “Intel­li­gence com­ing to Khrushchev in the weeks fol­low­ing the assas­si­na­tion seemed to con­firm the the­ory that a right-wing con­spir­acy had killed Kennedy.” At the same time, both the French and Cuban intelligence agencies believed the exact same theory.

“One Hell of a Gam­ble" by Alek­sandr Fursenko and Tim­o­thy Naf­tali is the book

Tipsy McSwagger

dogmax wrote: »

First of all I just want to say I always had a open mind on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and as for the Warren report I have to agree yes it is accurate in certain parts of this case, and I don't think anyone is disputing that but the other side would be right in saying that the Warren report is not a complete report, now the second investigation into the assassination of President John F Kennedy started in 1976 by the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, The Committee investigated until 1978 found that on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy, now this HSCA report was set up because of a earlier report carry out by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence (Church Committee) which started in 1975 following the Watergate scandal, this committee open up a whole can of worms in both the FBI and the CIA on a whole lot of issue including assassinations, and they also found out that both the FBI and the CIA where operating like this long before the assassination of President John F Kennedy, now some may say that the Warren report was only dealing with the assassination of President John F Kennedy and that it, well, all I can to say to that is bull****, there was already talk of a inside job as a result of a conspiracy straight after Kennedy's assassination, so all this prove to me is that the Warren report is actually a FBI and CIA report, because if the Warren report was to do there job then why did everyone have to wait over ten years to hear the truth about the FBI and the CIA, and some may say that these reports are inaccurate well if they're inaccurate then why did their own Government make changes and serious changes following the Church Committee report in 1975, changes to both the FBI and the CIA, so my conclusion is the Warren report is not a complete report, and believe me if the CIA can put dictators in power in Foreign Countries under the noses of their own people, then I wouldn't be so quick to believe the evidences that you read in the Warren report, or should I say the FBI and the CIA report, and another thing, we're talking about the Sixties here, it was a whole different time then, so try and think in that time, and please, don't reply with the conclusions of the Warren Commission still stands, thanks.

They came to that conclusion based on one thing, they believed 4 shots were fired (which means a conspiracy) and the fourth shot was picked up on a motorbike cops open radio. It was later proven that the fourth shot that was picked up was recorded a minute after the third shot and was not even a gunshot and did not come from Dealey Plaza.

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

This is a very good point and does not recieve the attention that it should IMO. The branding of Oswald as a communist sympathiser, who had recently returned from the USSR after defecting from the U.S. and then single handedly carried out the assassination, all of this had all the ingredients for a full scale incident between the United States and the USSR. But it did not occur. It did not occur because the Kennedy's had channels of communication open to the Soviets without using the CIA.

Russian historians Andrei Aleksandrovich Fursenko and Tim­o­thy Naf­tal, from their acclaimed 1997 history of the Cuban missile crisis which is based on declassified U.S and USSR documents, have a stunning piece in that book concerning the assassination.

In the book they state that one week after President Kennedy's assassination, Robert Kennedy secretly sent his friend William Walton to the KGB in Moscow, with a direct message for a KGB agent named Georgi Bolshakov. Bobby knew and trusted Bolshakov from the near apocalyptic incidents that occured between the two nations in the missile crisis. Fursenko and Naftal state that Walton informed Georgi Bolshakov that Bobby and Jacque­line believed “there was a large polit­i­cal con­spir­acy behind Oswald’s rifle” and “that Dal­las was the ideal loca­tion for such a crime.”
The Kennedys also reassured the Sovi­ets that despite Oswald’s appar­ent con­nec­tions to the com­mu­nist world, they believed Pres­i­dent Kennedy had been killed by Amer­i­can ene­mies.

This is stunning history, Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy using a close family friend, not CIA, to inform the KGB/USSR - the supposed enemy of the United States, of their own suspicions of domestic enemies being responsible for the assassination. Add to that, the KGB's own views on Oswald, considering the KGB monitored Oswald closely after he defected to the Soviet Union, according to Fursenko and Naf­tali the KGB chairman said of Oswald “I thought that this man could not pos­si­bly be the mas­ter­mind of the crime.” and “Intel­li­gence com­ing to Khrushchev in the weeks fol­low­ing the assas­si­na­tion seemed to con­firm the the­ory that a right-wing con­spir­acy had killed Kennedy.” At the same time, both the French and Cuban intelligence agencies believed the exact same theory.

“One Hell of a Gam­ble" by Alek­sandr Fursenko and Tim­o­thy Naf­tali is the book

It has been proven that Oswald ordered both the rifle used to kill JFK and the .38 by mail order in his handwriting.
As I have outlined in previous posts the final route for the JFK motorcade through Dallas which passed the TSBD was only decided upon four days before the assassination.
Oswald got the job in the TSBD a month before the assassination and he only got the job by pure chance - Ruth Paine who was putting up his wife Marina at her home heard through a neighbour that a job was going at the building and Oswald was interviewed by Roy Truly who gave him the job.
Shirt fibres from Oswald's workshirt, blanket fibres from the blanket in the Paine garage the gun was wrapped in and Oswald's palm print were found on the rifle. Oswald's clipboard was also stashed behind boxes.
Howard Brennan's description of the assassin he saw fire three shots from the 6th floor window matches Oswald.
The CE399 bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland Hospital and two recovered bullet fragments recovered from the limousine were matched to the gun.
Oswald was seen shooting Officer Tippitt and he was also carrying the .38 revolver used in the murder.

How do explain all this evidence against Oswald?
How could any of it possibly have been fabricated?

You aren't going to trot out a farcical story about men in black running around with invisibility suits or time machines changing evidence around?

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

You aren't going to trot out a farcical story about men in black running around with invisibility suits or time machines changing evidence around?

Yes, because thats what I have done...:rolleyes: Good lord Snafuk, I think you need to relax a bit, I was merely sharing a source with another member who is interested in the history, a reliable source from credible historians who have stated who Bobby Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Khruschev, the KGB, the French and Cuba Intelligence agencies believed the assassins to be.
I mean, maybe you should take it up with those intelligence agencies how convinced you are it was Oswald, they are the ones who state that they do not believe Oswald acted alone, maybe you can convince them too?

Conas

I'm going to believe everything that the user snafuk35 has said, because he knows a lot about this issue. I'll give him great credit, I've never ever came across anyone who knows so much about the Kennedy assassination than him. After all these years, he's answered everything that I wanted to know, and well done.

Dionysius2

Snafu calls it correctly on the known established facts. The rest are just wandering in smoke and mirrors country. The criminal trial benchmark of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' has been exceeded immeasurably in this discourse. Clutching at straws and whataboutery cannot make inroads when viewed against the tangible evidence. That is not to say that there are not unanswered questions or shadows in certain areas but, my God, how the hell could you view such a tumultuous event in US politics and not have such questions ? If you are looking for total, absolute, verifiable, certainty then that is usually impossible in a world of fluctuations.

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

Yes, because thats what I have done...:rolleyes: Good lord Snafuk, I think you need to relax a bit, I was merely sharing a source with another member who is interested in the history, a reliable source from credible historians who have stated who Bobby Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Khruschev, the KGB, the French and Cuba Intelligence agencies believed the assassins to be.
I mean, maybe you should take it up with those intelligence agencies how convinced you are it was Oswald, they are the ones who state that they do not believe Oswald acted alone, maybe you can convince them too?

We have already been over this.
You can read my posts again where the evidence has been gone through.
Oswald got the job because Ruth Paine told him about it and he arranged to meet Roy Truly who interviewed him and gave him the job a month before JFK's Texas trip. The motorcade route past the TSBD was only decided four days before the assassination.
So tell me please how the conspirators could have arranged that?
Were they clairvoyants?

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

We have already been over this.
You can read my posts again where the evidence has been gone through.
Oswald got the job because Ruth Paine told him about it and he arranged to meet Roy Truly who interviewed him and gave him the job a month before JFK's Texas trip. The motorcade route past the TSBD was only decided four days before the assassination.
So tell me please how the conspirators could have arranged that?
Were they clairvoyants?

Listen Snafuk, clearly I have irked your person, and I apologise if I have done so, but you are failing to see my point. It is not ME you need to convince. I have not stated Oswald commited the assassination with accomplices. All I have done is shown you reliable evidence from tangible de-classified documents from sources such as the U.S. government, the USSR and the Kennedy library where Presidents, family members, Intelligence agencies, World leaders, and (I shall repeat now and underline it for you) it is these people in the establishment who have stated there was more than one assassin. It is these people in the establishment who do not believe the Warren Report.

Why try to convince or seek answers from me? I have seen your evidence and no doubt the establishment and officials have too, but I am not the one you need to convince, go convince the establishment. They are the ones who do not believe the Warren report and have stated so. Maybe ask them the questions because be under no doubt they have more answers than you or I. What answers do you hope I can provide you?