Conspiracy Theory Sat-Who do you think Killed JFK? (influence, Lincoln, USSR)

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by bobspez

Just your words, not anyone with any credibility, there is no mounting evidence that LHO was the assassin unless you count that old Popular Mechanics piece about debunking the JFK assassination theories. The case is closed for you, complete with a emoji and an exclamation point. That's good. It was closed for the Warren Commission in 1964. Not for anyone else who questioned those conclusions.

I'm not sure if you're confused or responding to someone else, but we're clearly on the same side here, brother.

[madison999]

Originally Posted by Dd714

I know you are somewhat spiteful in your answers, but thanks for the response. Keep calm, no one is attacking you or your theories.
So still some followup questions. If one was familiar with the Mafia one would know they are an Italian organization. Ruby was jewish. His ties with organized crime I, again, understand to be tenuous. People like you that hold to this theory say he was connected, others say he wasn't. What source is more objective? So we are stuck in the middle and I don't wish to get into this "he said, she said" discussion. It goes nowhere.

So let me get into the logic discussions again:

1. question 1 - You failed to answer why he was "compelled" except to claim some loyalty to a criminal organization to commit such a blantant crime that it would certainly result in either a death on the spot, a death sentence in the courts, or life in prison. The Mafia button men don't engage in suicide missions. Gosh golly, excuse me if I don't understand that logic.
2. question 2 - Kennedy and Giancana. OK so you are saying Kennedy reneged on a deal. So the motive was revenge. OK I can sort of see that, IF he was a fellow mobster. But this was the president of the US. Their has to be something more to commit such a risky act as detection would certainly result in the destruction of the mafia. Still doesn't make sense.
3. bonus question 1 - Understood he meant to fire 3 times, indicating premeditation. But again that doesn't makes sense when you consider no way he could have gotten 3 shots off with a room full of policemen present. OK he wasn't that smart, understood, then why would the mob rely on such a unreliable source? .38 special a prefered mob weapon? You made that up didn't you? Come on, admit it.
4. bonus question 2 - Ruby trusted to keep his mouth shut. Why? See we are going in circles here, why didn't they just hire a person that they "trusted to keep his mouth shut" in the first place to kill JFK? Once again - doesn't make sense.

OK followup questions again on your bonus statement which has me perplexed - why would Ruby call the police department to tell them to change Oswald's route when he intended to kill him in the first place. How would that have helped him get out of a charge of killing Oswald? It actually suggests just the opposite, that it was premeditated. So, I know I sound like a broken record here - but that again does not make sense.

Ruby being Jewish would just mean he couldn't be made, the outfit is far different than the five families. So being Jewish meant little.

1. These were the days long before wholesale ratting. You did what you were told. Giancana made his deal with JOE Kennedy, not JFK.

Yes they used .38's. it's small. Guys doing hits like small guns. Giancana himself was murdered with only a .22 pistol, you know the wimpy gun where the bullets bounce off you (according to tough guys). And Ruby should have been able to get three shots off, it was a double action Colt. No need to **** it each time.

This theory says Ruby's job was to take Oswald out, not that the mob had anything at all to do with Oswald being picked, or anyone else.

On the last paragraph, it indicates that he was trying to get out of killing him because he didn't want to get killed by police, the chair, or life. As in, he was ordered to do it, he didn't volunteer. If they re-route him, Ruby goes in armed but impossible to do it, he saves face.

This is the mob, not showing up to a meeting can be a death sentence. Let alone refusing an order. These guys operate through fear and getting dirt on someone and blackmailing and extorting them.

[madison999]

Originally Posted by Dd714

No not fully, see post #159 where I thanked you for your response and had once again some follow up questions. Thanks for your patience.

Not sure why you say never on it - we had a good discussion going that was all totally on topic although you called my questions "stupid". What is it with you guys? Man last discussion I had like this was in the P&C forum, which is why I avoid it now.

Edit: Let's discuss further because it's curious now we have the CIA angle and it seems the motive from the other guy may be some military-industrial complex shadow group which involved a hodgepodge of just about everyone, who were mad at JFK (which is kind of strange, considering that JFK was in the process of escalating the conflict in Vietnam and thus giving the military-industrial complex tons of business)...so curious, how does that jive with your mafia motivation of it being because JFK somehow betrayed the Chicago outfit and Giancana? Don't the two contradict each other? Thanks in advance for your response which I hope will be civil.

Again, this theory is not mine. I called your questions dumb, not stupid. I consider dumb a step above stupid. More like ignorant.

The CIA and mob only care about their own interests. If they could cooperate and take out a HATED enemy, why wouldn't they? The mob would have been happy to help kill any of the three, if the CIA is going after JFK, why would they say no?

A question for you. Why do you think Ruby kill Oswald?
All testimony from people who knew him says he was involved in gambling from the age of 11, and throughout his life, then nightclubs, prostitution, smuggling boatloads of guns to Cuba.

They said he would work for whoever paid him the most and that he had absolutely ZERO loyalty or love for country or any politicians or beliefs. By all accounts he sounds amoral. Do you really believe he killed Oswald to repair Dallas's image and because he thought JFK was a great man?

[in_newengland]

ciceropolo
Senior Member


Join Date: Apr 2012
3,125 posts, read 2,982,333 times
Reputation: 6911


Quote:
Originally Posted by ciceropolo View Post
If you mean the trigger pullers, probably:
Charles Harrelson
James Sutton Files
Charles Nicoletti
Malcolm Wallace

if you mean the 'conductors' you'd have to understand how the intelligence apparatus functioned and who had the ability to control / orchestrate at highest levels (James J. Angleton, Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms). Sort of like assembling all the players at Dealey plaza like the 'passenger' list on the Orient Express in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.

Most of the 'loose ends' not cleaned up in the immediate aftermath of Dallas from Kennedy's assassination were eliminated before the Church Committee (1975) could talk to them. Lots of convenient deaths / accidents etc... a hallmark of the spook trade.

Lot of people with various political interests and familial bad blood (father Joseph Kennedy's dealing with mafia, from various illegal activities (bootlegging in prohibition, prostitution, drugs) and their helping get his son elected and then having them 'turn' on them by investigating their activities (RFK as attorney general) wanted JFK (based on his policies) dead. The CIA wanted him dead after the Bay of Pigs Anti Cuban fiasco and his notorious quote about wanting to break it up into a thousand pieces.

The military industrial complex Eisenhower spoke of had vested interest in continuing conflicts and escalating armament manufacturing 'military actions' (Vietnam); the Dixie mafia: Marcello, Trafficante, (note there was a threat to JFK in Tampa about a month before Dallas trip) Israel was going nuclear with the Dimona Reactor and JFK wanted to negate that, the Fed etc.. oh and recently noted the Mayor of Dallas Cabell was CIA asset. Who had the ability to alter presidential motorcade route? [Easily deployed as Dallas Police.]
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/da...ion-cia-asset/


There will always be a group of people who accept the government narrative but the Nicholas Katzenbach memo written almost immediately after the assassination spells out the narrative those in charge wanted to propagate.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html

No all encompassing thorough investigation, but rather a 'filtered' and planned investigation and controlled release and prompt conclusion (nothing to see here move along) .


Here's some good content to prove that others were involved. So, yes it is a conspiracy - what LHO role was - well I tend to believe he was what he stated he was - "a patsy". Especially, since the cleaning crew (Jack Ruby/Rubinstein) immediately ended any possibility of him talking as well as many other key kill zone area witnesses in the next few years.

Then anyone who continued investigating independently like Dorothy Kilgallen (she spoke with Jack Ruby/ Rubinstein) and what happened that day and the connections between people in charge of the investigation conveniently was killed and their 'work' confiscated and never found. Or the collateral victims like Mary Pinchot Meyer (Cord Meyer's wife who was one of JFK's lovers).

Originally Posted by ciceropolo

Read the Katzenbach memo put out immediately after the assassination and ask yourself honestly if the law enforcement agencies of the day had any intent to find out what happened on November 22, 1963?


Look at research into the chain of custody of the body. Look into Jim Garrison's investigation of the prior connections between parties involved and the eyewitness testimony of those in the attached video and it is clear the government investigation via warren commission was a farce to wrap things neatly up for the American public.



When a thorough investigation via the Church Committee in 1975 was convened another round of deaths befell parties of interest. Except for a few like in the video, the 'cleaning crew' did a good job.

Was good to see some intelligent discussion instead of what was degenerating into something that resembles what takes place in the P&OC forum!

This post by Ciceropolo also reflected the clear thinking that is needed to discuss this topic. Several things that he brings up ring true and are the same as what I remember reading and studying.

Most of the 'loose ends' not cleaned up in the immediate aftermath of Dallas from Kennedy's assassination were eliminated before the Church Committee (1975) could talk to them. Lots of convenient deaths / accidents etc... a hallmark of the spook trade.

I was reading a list the other day of the people who died in suspicious "accidents" or committed suicide. People who knew too much. People who would have talked. One was journalist Dorothy Kilgallen who was poisoned before she had a chance to publish a book in which she is said to have cracked the case.

George de Mohrenschildt committed suicide on the day he learned he was under investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. There are a lot more examples.

In addition, Allen Dulles was fired from his job as head of the CIA by JFK on November 29, 1961, and yet somehow managed to be seated as a member of the Warren Commission when it was set up after the assassination. Would he have given an unbiased report? They hated each other.

Enemies=Cuban exiles, the Mafia, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, the Texas oil barons, the military industrial complex, and his own Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Prior to Dallas, there were two unsuccessful attempts on Kennedy’s life, both were earlier in November of the same year, one in Chicago and one in Florida.

The men in charge, the global-elite bankers, corporation heads and military men of the monstrous military-industrial complex who were threatened by JFK, some combination of these people must have been behind it. But it's much more complicated than that because, of course, they weren't out on the front lines killing anyone. They knew people who knew people (and the list goes on.) As in anything else: follow the money.

[in_newengland]

Note: I am not debating or arguing; just reading and hoping to learn more. If I contribute anything, it's just things I've studied and read again and again and have come to believe.

I'd rather take the easy way out and become one of those who just says, "Oswald did it." But I was a high school kid when JFK was elected, I watched his inauguration on tv and starting liking him and taking an interest in politics because he gave us hope. We could make the world better, he said.

[bobspez]

My apologies. I misread your statement. Thought you were saying LHO did it, case closed. But you said the opposite. We are on the same side. Really can't understand those who aren't. Maybe they just don't want to believe this was a set up by our own government people, just like RFK.
The thing that gets me is they portray themselves as the reasonable ones and that the lone gunman theory is just as valid as all the facts dug up and presented which contradict it. It seems like a 50+ year campaign of ridicule and injecting all sorts of wild conspiracies into the mix to paint the truth with a conspiracy brush.
The thing is, the same forces that were responsible for the assassinations and the Vietnam war for their own profit are still in power, doing it over again in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there's no JFK around to fight them.

Originally Posted by llowllevellowll

I'm not sure if you're confused or responding to someone else, but we're clearly on the same side here, brother.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by PW DAWG

LBJ heavily leaned on the advice of McNamara, Dean Rusk, and McGeorge Bundy for how to proceed in Vietnam, as evidenced by the numerous taped phone calls during his term in office. All of these men were JFK appointees so it's purely speculative that JFK would have handled the war any differently.

I know some people will mention NSA memo 263, which proposed to withdraw 1000 troops from Vietnam by the end of 1963. However, this was drawn up before the coup of Diem, which drastically changed the US governments belief that South Vietnam could hold off the Communists on their own.

The assassination conspiracy nuts have touted this years. Supposedly, JFK had "to be killed" because he was all set to pull our troops out of Vietnam.

There are so many holes in this theory its just silly.

First, no one knew direction things were going to take in Vietnam in 1963. What we did know was that the Diem Regime was very unstable and did not enjoy the popular support of its people. Its why JFK allowed the South Vietnamese military to overthrow Diem. JFK's support of the coup is--in and of itself--some support for the idea that he had no intention of simply pulling the troops out of South Vietnam. Otherwise, there would have been no need for us to get involved in that at all.

Second, no one knew how long the war would last or the commitment of resources it would require. Johnson held out hopes that he could buy a peace settlement from Ho Chi Minh by offering him the equivalent of an Asian Marshall Plan for construction and economic development. Only later did it become evident that the war would be very long and costly.

Third, one assumes JFK could simply have made any decision he wanted. The problem with Vietnam was that in many ways any president's hands were tied. Withdrawing would have been seen as "appeasing the communists". Any president would have rapidly learned that Congress would have opposed him and probably the majority of the American people. People were very anti-communist and it was common to talk of a "domino theory" whereby if one country fell to the communists it was inevitable that all would fall. People actually talked about fighting the communists in South Vietnam so we wouldn't have to fight them later on the beaches of San Diego.

Fourth, one of the biggest problems with entering a war is that it takes on a life of its own. You can't simply control the outcome. Vietnam fit exactly into this category. Most would have predicted a quick US victory. That didn't happen.

I think we see this theory over and over again that "JFK was set to pull the troops out of Vietnam" because people want to look for heroes and villains. Handsome JFK is seen as a heroic figure who would have rescued the country from Vietnam. Ugly looking Johnson is seen as the villain who took America into that war--against everyone's wishes. This is, of course, a fairy tale. Things were never that black and white.

[histtheo]

I think Eric Jon Phelps, in his book Vatican Assassins Wounded In the House Of My Friends, proved beyond all doubt that Cardinal Spellman the Archbishop of New York and the Jesuits killed JFK, the first Roman Catholic President. JFK was against "Spelly's war" in Vietnam, which has been documented by Avro Manhattan in his book Vietnam Why Did We Go? as a papal crusade against the Buddhists, and JFK refused to bow to the Temporal Power of the Papacy. And other reasons. Eric Jon Phelps' book is beyond a doubt one of the best history books of the last fifty years, with over 650 quotes and many photos.

[bobspez]

There's mixed reviews on this book on Amazon. Unfortunately the used paperback versions sell for $500 and up and a CD version is $145. Doubt if many will be reading it.

Originally Posted by histtheo

I think Eric Jon Phelps, in his book Vatican Assassins Wounded In the House Of My Friends, proved beyond all doubt that Cardinal Spellman the Archbishop of New York and the Jesuits killed JFK, the first Roman Catholic President. JFK was against "Spelly's war" in Vietnam, which has been documented by Avro Manhattan in his book Vietnam Why Did We Go? as a papal crusade against the Buddhists, and JFK refused to bow to the Temporal Power of the Papacy. And other reasons. Eric Jon Phelps' book is beyond a doubt one of the best history books of the last fifty years, with over 650 quotes and many photos.

[histtheo]

Originally Posted by bobspez

There's mixed reviews on this book on Amazon. Unfortunately the used paperback versions sell for $500 and up and a CD version is $145. Doubt if many will be reading it.

I am a fairly new poster, not sure if I can mention websites, the CD version is a lot cheaper on his website. I am sure there will be interviews online.