Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mark's right. People make up fantastically complicated variations and their plot usually involves unlikely people doing impossible things.
And not one of them can explain why Oswald filled out a job application at Barr Printing in Fort Worth a few days before he landed the job in Dallas. Oswald was a hapless *******(Jeez it really wasn't all that bad of a word!) of a job hunter who was placed by fate and nothing else.
In my opinion.
Oswald did it. The Warren Commission got it right.
A good starting point for anyone who wants to know the truth would be to personally go to Dealey Plaza and look at the road, the School Book Depository, and the grassy knoll. What you will learn is the distances involved are much smaller than television pictures would lead one to believe. Oswald's shots were not particularly difficult. The only thing that makes them a bit difficult is that he is hitting a moving target. Imagine your target simply getting smaller though. That's really what was occurring as the car moved forward.
Oswald qualified in the Marines as sharpshooter at one point. Later, his shooting scores were not quite as good and he qualified only as a "marksman". The way I read this, is that his potential was always on the "sharpshooter level" because he had shown at one time he could shoot that well.
Now, a few other things. How many people know that Oswald tried to murder someone else before he murdered Kennedy? He tried to kill General Walker ( a right wing military figure) by shooting him through the window of his home. The attack on Walker failed and he was only slightly wounded by the glass in his window. My question though is who would hire or retain someone this unstable to kill President Kennedy? Oswald was simply a lose cannon, looking for a figure of authority to kill over imagined slights and grievances he had against the USA.
Oswald got his job at the School Book Depository a few weeks before Kennedy's assassination. At that time, no one knew that the President would be making this trip or that the motorcade he would be in would be going by the School Book Depository either. How did Oswald find out this would be the case? Easy. A few days before Kennedy's assassination, the route of the motorcade was published in the Dallas Morning News and other papers in the area. The conclusion is virtually inescapable that Oswald harbored long standing grudges against the USA and when he saw this story in the paper, a light went on in his mind. He decided instead of killing General Walker that he would kill the President of the United States instead.
Its craziness to imagine that conspirators could have somehow known about this route weeks before it was published in a newspaper and gotten Oswald a job at the School Book Depository for the sole purpose of assassinating Kennedy. It was simply a plan he put together on his own.
Finally, the Jack Ruby Assassination of Oswald. Many people insist that Ruby murdered Oswald simply to "shut him up". My theory is that Ruby shot Oswald to make him suffer for what he did. There is evidence that Ruby was a long time democrat and admirer of both Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Sometime, look at those t.v. pictures of Ruby killing Oswald. Where does he aim? The head? The chest? No, he deliberately shoots Oswald in the abdomen which often produces non-fatal wounds. My theory is that he either wanted to badly hurt of kill Oswald as retribution for killing his hero. A true assassin would have aimed for the chest or the head.
For whatever its worth, Ruby also stated on his death bed that he acted alone and for personal reasons when he killed Oswald.
But Ruby wasn't a true assassin just like I don't believe Oswald was. They were both used. The truth will come out eventually though but it will be a long time before that happens.
People interested in what happened in Dealey Plaza 11-22-1963 should research the following names:
James Sutton Files
Charles Nicoletti
John Roselli
David Sanchez Morales
Richard Carr
David Atlee Phillips
William King Harvey
Charles Harrelson
Chauncey Holt
Luis Posada Carriles
Frank Sturgis
E Howard Hunt
James Jesus Angleton
Cord Meyer
Lyndon B Johnson
Topics:
Algerian Independence movement
Bay of Pigs
Vietnam
Permindex
Kennedy Administration position on Nuclear development
Dimona Nuclear reactor
Military Trade to countries pre 1964 and after in aggregate and percentage increase.
Golden Triangle Drug Trade (see Dope Inc. Lyndon LaRouche Jr. and Politics of Heroin, Alfred W McCoy)
Read, Plausible Denial, by Mark Lane
It was about a libel trial whereby the jury was asked to find for the defendant BASED on the jury becoming convinced that the CIA was in fact implicated in the assassination. The jury forewoman issued a statement upon the release of Mr Lane's written account of the trial, "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude the CIA had killed President Kennedy."
Who pulled which trigger(s), who was 'watching' and who gave the 'orders' many authors / investigators have different opinions.
I suggest you ask yourself the old question:
Cui bono?
Cui bono is the idea that the responsibility for an act can usually be determined by asking who stands to gain as a result of the act. It's first recorded in a speech by Cicero attributing it to the Roman consul Lucius Cassius.
The book Final Judgment is also very thorough in showing the relationships between various 'players'. Its likely one of the ones another poster referenced as being difficult to find and commanding a premium.
I find it hard to believe, in such an explosive decade of assassinations, that sufficient precautions weren't taken to make absolutely certain, that the President of the United States was well protected. I don't believe Oswald acted alone. I feel that by OMISSION, others were culpable. This includes those who were assigned to guarantee the security of the President, those who had the intelligence and means to thwart potential assassination attempts, the CIA, maybe the FBI. There was a colossal failure here and I think it was deliberate. It enabled a lone gunman like Oswald to secure himself in a location which maximized his success, as well as the success of anyone else who wanted to help.
I just don't believe he acted alone. Others made it possible for him to be successful by what they didn't do to prevent it. Ignore, shameful times, times which show that this country has severe limitations that prevents it from being a great nation.
JFK was an incredible man and a beloved President. He should've been protected more securely than a newborn baby.
I tend to side with the people who believe the Cosa Nostra was the prime mover here; they tend to cover their tracks pretty well (consider Hoffa as another case in point) and a lot of questions with regard to both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the eventual bail-out of the prisoners have never been addressed.
As a chief Executive, however, JFK was a mediocrity who appealed to the collection of teenyboppers and simple minds who have always formed a key element in the Democrats' core constituency -- just as with the current occupant of the White House. His overuse of painkillers (at least as well documented as Rush Limbaugh's -- but held to a different standard) and his sexual irresponsibility are always conveniently swept under the rug.
I find it hard to believe, in such an explosive decade of assassinations, that sufficient precautions weren't taken to make absolutely certain, that the President of the United States was well protected. JFK was an incredible man and a beloved President. He should've been protected more securely than a newborn baby.
Kennedy was the one who insisted he not be surrounded by bullet-proof glass because he wanted to be closer to the people.
JFK was an incredible man and a beloved President. He should've been protected more securely than a newborn baby.
I want to address two things here.
First, the assertion that "he should've been protected more securely than a newborn baby". Certainly, by standards of today, the security surrounding JFK was poor. However, I sometimes ask people how isolated they think they should be from their leaders. Theoretically, we could put a President in a bullet proof glass shield everywhere he goes. We could keep him from shaking anyone's hand. He could wear a bullet proof vest and protective armor under all his clothing. The public could be kept a minimum of 150 feet away from him at all times.
All these acts would reduce the probability of a presidential assassination to near zero.
It would also render the President unable to have contact with the very people who elected him to office. Is that really appropriate? I have a different point of view. My point of view is that security today is too intense and the President has too little contact with people. I think the reason we have a vice president is so that if a president is killed, we can replace him and move on. If anyone doesn't want to be President than they don't have to run for office. I have found all the talk about JFK and his assassination over the years to be a bit much. People are born. People die. Our system has a mechanism to carry on. In addition to all that, I think most Presidents, given the choice, would simply prefer to take a few risks and have more contact with the public. Its the Secret Service that prevents them from doing so.
Second, was JFK an incredible man and a beloved President? Yes and no. The revelations that have come out about him since his death should make people think a little. He was definitely a womanizer. Although, I wonder if Jackie didn't know exactly what he was doing and simply made a choice to tolerate it. He may have been a user of recreational drugs. I won't go into details, but I have a personal source that is pretty hard to impeach who told me some things that were pretty amazing. That being said, I think JFK did handle the Cuban Missile Crisis particularly well. It frightens me to think what the outcome might have been if someone else had been Commander-in-Chief at that time. I also think JFK's "sex-ploits" are exaggerated. What people often lose sight of is that from a physical standpoint, he was a very sick man. He suffered from severe back pain, ulcerative colitis, and Addison's disease (which was fatal before cortisone became available as a treatment). Jack was hospitalized seven times from 1951 to 1960. His Presidency lasted from 1961-1963. Given his condition, I don't think he was destined to live a long life.
There is no question that there is a fascination with him and he was an excellent speaker. His good looks, his youth, and his strange death created a sense of mystery that for some people has caused them to see him a better light than he should be seen.
Some experts believe there is no much conjecturing about a conspiracy because psychologically people cannot accept the notion that a down-and-out loser like Lee Harvey Oswald could have murdered a popular President of the United States. I don't find any conspiracy arguments very convincing and I think there may well be something to this explanation.
Last edited by markg91359; 11-09-2013 at 08:09 AM..
Some experts believe there is no much conjecturing about a conspiracy because psychologically people cannot accept the notion that a down-and-out loser like Lee Harvey Oswald could have murdered a popular President of the United States. I don't find any conspiracy arguments very convincing and I think there may well be something to this explanation.
This and there is a conspiracy for everything. It's a hobby for some people and a way to make money for others. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is showing Oswald did it alone, there will always be folks that believe otherwise and it's pointless to argue with them.
Oswald did it. The Warren Commission got it right.
A good starting point for anyone who wants to know the truth would be to personally go to Dealey Plaza and look at the road, the School Book Depository, and the grassy knoll. What you will learn is the distances involved are much smaller than television pictures would lead one to believe. Oswald's shots were not particularly difficult. The only thing that makes them a bit difficult is that he is hitting a moving target. Imagine your target simply getting smaller though. That's really what was occurring as the car moved forward.
Oswald qualified in the Marines as sharpshooter at one point. Later, his shooting scores were not quite as good and he qualified only as a "marksman". The way I read this, is that his potential was always on the "sharpshooter level" because he had shown at one time he could shoot that well.
Now, a few other things. How many people know that Oswald tried to murder someone else before he murdered Kennedy? He tried to kill General Walker ( a right wing military figure) by shooting him through the window of his home. The attack on Walker failed and he was only slightly wounded by the glass in his window. My question though is who would hire or retain someone this unstable to kill President Kennedy? Oswald was simply a lose cannon, looking for a figure of authority to kill over imagined slights and grievances he had against the USA.
Oswald got his job at the School Book Depository a few weeks before Kennedy's assassination. At that time, no one knew that the President would be making this trip or that the motorcade he would be in would be going by the School Book Depository either. How did Oswald find out this would be the case? Easy. A few days before Kennedy's assassination, the route of the motorcade was published in the Dallas Morning News and other papers in the area. The conclusion is virtually inescapable that Oswald harbored long standing grudges against the USA and when he saw this story in the paper, a light went on in his mind. He decided instead of killing General Walker that he would kill the President of the United States instead.
Its craziness to imagine that conspirators could have somehow known about this route weeks before it was published in a newspaper and gotten Oswald a job at the School Book Depository for the sole purpose of assassinating Kennedy. It was simply a plan he put together on his own.
Finally, the Jack Ruby Assassination of Oswald. Many people insist that Ruby murdered Oswald simply to "shut him up". My theory is that Ruby shot Oswald to make him suffer for what he did. There is evidence that Ruby was a long time democrat and admirer of both Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Sometime, look at those t.v. pictures of Ruby killing Oswald. Where does he aim? The head? The chest? No, he deliberately shoots Oswald in the abdomen which often produces non-fatal wounds. My theory is that he either wanted to badly hurt of kill Oswald as retribution for killing his hero. A true assassin would have aimed for the chest or the head.
For whatever its worth, Ruby also stated on his death bed that he acted alone and for personal reasons when he killed Oswald.
Of course the CIA and other powers that were involved would pick someone who was a good shot. Of course they would set up a scenario in which it would be relatively easy to Oswald to do the job. That's what you do when you want to pin the blame on someone.
A lot of researchers believe he was a low level agent for the CIA who were also involved with the Mafia and with J.Edgar Hoover (who despised JFK), and also involved with high level Texas oil executives--a lot of people wanted Kennedy dead. Powerful people, powerful groups, people in very high places. They work behind the scenes, they find someone else to do their dirty work and they will produce as many red herrings and distractions as needed. Oswald was their patsy.
How would anyone have known the parade route in advance? The people who planned the parade route would know and they could change it at any time. There are stories of big payoffs by Texas oilmen to Dallas police and any other locals they needed to influence. Money talks. Change the parade route, make the cars slow down or stop here, etc.
People have talked. These are people who never dared to speak up before or were never even interviewed at the time. Lyndon Johnson's longtime mistress talked. It's cynical to think that the only reason anyone would talk is simply to sell books or make money. People finally decide to talk when they are older and want to get something off their chest, not necessarily for money or fame. There are people who worked for the powerful people and THEY are talking about what they heard and saw. Not to make money but to set the record straight.
In a way Kennedy got what he deserved. He wasn't exactly known for his good judgement or sense of discretion. He was a notorious womanizer and that was one of his worst failings because that set him up for blackmail. You add in spy agencies like the CIA and the FBI and the fact that they hated Kennedy. They knew what he was doing, they hated him, and he made himself a prime candidate for blackmail. (So did LJB with his mistress--and he had his own scandals to cover up.)
If there was threat of blackmail going on it doesn't look as though JFK took it seriously though because he just kept going forward with plans and programs. I think this was his other serious failing: the feeling that he was invinceable. He went forward with civil rights, with trying to destroy the Mafia, even becoming somewhat anti-Viet Nam War. So he angered a lot of people in very high places. He even seemed to be insensitive to the fact that if you cross the mob, they will kill you. The Mafia had helped him to get elected in the first place!
I really don't think we'll ever know the exact details of who killed Kennedy. We do know who hated him and we do know who had the power to kill him and we do know who stood to gain from the assassination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oswald did not act alone
