No it doesn't, but it begs the question as to why they were covered up and once again lends credence to conspiracy theories.
The government is so stupid sometimes. They draw attention to themselves when they don't want to.
The Great Controversy of Our Time--The Kennedy Assassination
-
baby tuckoo
- Deluded Simpleton
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
- Location: Sacramento
I come late to this party, but I come well informed.
I've read everything from "Rush to Judgement" to "Case Closed." And I've a copy of the Warren Report on my shelf, and its succesors, not that the details help much. Rather, they confuse the issue.
Physical evidence? Poorly tracked or lost or evaluated in an archaic manner.
Let's get circumstantial.
Like Vison, I was there in a school room when the news came. The day before we'd had a nuclear threat lockdown drill. But I didn't think for a moment that the commies had done it. I still don't. It ain't their way.
Let's get circumstantial. It's the best kind of evidence.
1. Oswald might have acted alone. But it's unlikely. He was not a man of initiative or especially bent on vengeance. He had an attitude, yes. His politics seemed insincere. He was not a fire eater. He might have been trying to impress somebody; exactly who that might be is a conjecture many have made.
Yes, he could have fired those shots. Several people of similar experience have duplicated the circumstances and have been able to do it. To get the job at the Depository in coincidence with the President's visit is fortune of the sort I don't believe. But it's not impossible.
2. Jack Ruby didn't act alone. Nothing about him speaks of a man of conscience intent on avenging this political murder. He was in bed with the mob and I can't buy any of his changing stories about his motivations.
Yes, the Dallas Police could be so inept as to let Ruby in and to give him access to Oswald. And Ruby knew it, as did his directors.
3. No one of credibility has copped to direct involvement since. This only happens in the mob and the CIA. But I doubt the CIA. These guys have channels and reports. I don't think people keep quiet if they know direct dirt about this stuff, even CIA. They might have run Oswald for a while in Russia, or even in Mexico and New Orleans, but he wasn't a real asset. I don't think they initiated it.
The mob was recently divorced from Cuba. They held a grudge. Clearly, so did Castro. More important, Bobby K was hitting them hard from Justice. I don't buy Sirhan's story either.
Both murders were mob hits.
That's my opinion. It's circumstantial.
I've read everything from "Rush to Judgement" to "Case Closed." And I've a copy of the Warren Report on my shelf, and its succesors, not that the details help much. Rather, they confuse the issue.
Physical evidence? Poorly tracked or lost or evaluated in an archaic manner.
Let's get circumstantial.
Like Vison, I was there in a school room when the news came. The day before we'd had a nuclear threat lockdown drill. But I didn't think for a moment that the commies had done it. I still don't. It ain't their way.
Let's get circumstantial. It's the best kind of evidence.
1. Oswald might have acted alone. But it's unlikely. He was not a man of initiative or especially bent on vengeance. He had an attitude, yes. His politics seemed insincere. He was not a fire eater. He might have been trying to impress somebody; exactly who that might be is a conjecture many have made.
Yes, he could have fired those shots. Several people of similar experience have duplicated the circumstances and have been able to do it. To get the job at the Depository in coincidence with the President's visit is fortune of the sort I don't believe. But it's not impossible.
2. Jack Ruby didn't act alone. Nothing about him speaks of a man of conscience intent on avenging this political murder. He was in bed with the mob and I can't buy any of his changing stories about his motivations.
Yes, the Dallas Police could be so inept as to let Ruby in and to give him access to Oswald. And Ruby knew it, as did his directors.
3. No one of credibility has copped to direct involvement since. This only happens in the mob and the CIA. But I doubt the CIA. These guys have channels and reports. I don't think people keep quiet if they know direct dirt about this stuff, even CIA. They might have run Oswald for a while in Russia, or even in Mexico and New Orleans, but he wasn't a real asset. I don't think they initiated it.
The mob was recently divorced from Cuba. They held a grudge. Clearly, so did Castro. More important, Bobby K was hitting them hard from Justice. I don't buy Sirhan's story either.
Both murders were mob hits.
That's my opinion. It's circumstantial.
Ok poor terminology.
The mob has been decimated in recent years/decades compared to what it use to be.
I have no inkling any more than the next guy as to the motive, but as sure as I am standing here this is a fishy story. LHO may have been the lone nutjob on the case but the government covered things up for a reason. Until they reveal why, people will speculate. Wildly at times to be sure.
The mob has been decimated in recent years/decades compared to what it use to be.
I have no inkling any more than the next guy as to the motive, but as sure as I am standing here this is a fishy story. LHO may have been the lone nutjob on the case but the government covered things up for a reason. Until they reveal why, people will speculate. Wildly at times to be sure.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46485
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
It is very well known that the CIA and the Mafia were heavily entwined during that time period. Personally, I think both were involved, and some other heavy hitters.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
baby tuckoo
- Deluded Simpleton
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
- Location: Sacramento
I do too, VTF, and I don't think the physical evidence will help because it has been so profoundly compromised.
Eyewitness won't help us either. Not then, not now.
On the other hand, I don't see holes in the circumstantial evidence.
Yes, it's the crime of my century, not the Lindberg kidnapping.
No one will fry for it. Historically, JFK has suffered, especially as his charisma wanes.
Frankly, baby t never felt it, even in the day. Too much hair, too much money. But no one should kill the Prez and get away with it. Did they?
Eyewitness won't help us either. Not then, not now.
On the other hand, I don't see holes in the circumstantial evidence.
Yes, it's the crime of my century, not the Lindberg kidnapping.
No one will fry for it. Historically, JFK has suffered, especially as his charisma wanes.
Frankly, baby t never felt it, even in the day. Too much hair, too much money. But no one should kill the Prez and get away with it. Did they?
Yeah, that is very much my impression as well. And you have to remember that we're not talking about *all* the employees of the CIA and every Italian-American being involved, or even the top people in government organizations. I don't know so much about how the Mob is organized, but I do know that the last of the Philly mob was taken down in the 1980s, and the mobsters who's names were connected to the Kennedy assasination have all been disappeared or jailed or, like Lansky, fled the country.
The one person I never really suspected was J. Edgar Hoover. I believe he falls into the category vison was describing: he may have hated Kennedy, but would Hoover sit down and plot an assassination, given all he had to lose and the number of people who were probably already blackmailing him over his homosexuality? Very doubtful, in my opinion. And when you read his correspondence you can hear how pissed he is. He was probably afraid that the FBI would be tarred for not preventing the assassination.
People like Oswald ... they may be insignificant to the larger picture, but there are always jobs for which they are the perfect match, the perfect profile, the expendable asset.
It occurs to me, as one possible scenario ... just speculating here, no evidence to support this ... but it occurs to me that Oswald might have been pegged for an assassination *attempt*, and didn't realize there was to be a real assassination.
This is semi-related ... they've got that movie coming out about the Black Dahlia murder in Hollywood and I've been listening to some of the advance interviews ... and there was a program about the murder on PBS a few weeks ago but I didn't see all of it. Two people have written books claiming that their fathers committed that murder. They can't both be right, obviously.
But there was a guy who wrote a book claiming that his father shot Kennedy. The father was a police officer and supposedly wrote about the assassination in his diary, but the diary can't be located for proof? ... something like that. Anyway, I found it so appalling that people would make claims like this. If my father had chopped a woman in half or murdered a president, I wouldn't want anyone to know! But this craving for recognition - even infamy is better than anonymity. It's really sad and horrible.
Jn
The one person I never really suspected was J. Edgar Hoover. I believe he falls into the category vison was describing: he may have hated Kennedy, but would Hoover sit down and plot an assassination, given all he had to lose and the number of people who were probably already blackmailing him over his homosexuality? Very doubtful, in my opinion. And when you read his correspondence you can hear how pissed he is. He was probably afraid that the FBI would be tarred for not preventing the assassination.
People like Oswald ... they may be insignificant to the larger picture, but there are always jobs for which they are the perfect match, the perfect profile, the expendable asset.
It occurs to me, as one possible scenario ... just speculating here, no evidence to support this ... but it occurs to me that Oswald might have been pegged for an assassination *attempt*, and didn't realize there was to be a real assassination.
This is semi-related ... they've got that movie coming out about the Black Dahlia murder in Hollywood and I've been listening to some of the advance interviews ... and there was a program about the murder on PBS a few weeks ago but I didn't see all of it. Two people have written books claiming that their fathers committed that murder. They can't both be right, obviously.
But there was a guy who wrote a book claiming that his father shot Kennedy. The father was a police officer and supposedly wrote about the assassination in his diary, but the diary can't be located for proof? ... something like that. Anyway, I found it so appalling that people would make claims like this. If my father had chopped a woman in half or murdered a president, I wouldn't want anyone to know! But this craving for recognition - even infamy is better than anonymity. It's really sad and horrible.Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I also remember that sad day, I was in the 4th grade. Our teacher put her head in her hands. I had an almost irresistible urge to laugh, and a girl nearby did start laughing. I think this was a nervous reaction. I also remember the shock of seeing Oswald shot live on television. Would we have known more if he had lived?
A couple of related things I recall: we used to give these reports in class on newspaper articles. That is, we were to read a newspaper article and then go in front of the class and relate what it said. I recall one day a boy was doing this (this would have been before Kennedy's death) and in the course of his explication he casually remarked that President Kennedy had been unanimously elected. I didn't bat an eye because this seemed perfectly likely to me -- we loved him so much. Of course, the teacher interjected, 'No, no ... ' and explained, and I have always remembered my surprise, that anyone would have voted against him.
I recall vividly the day of the televised funeral. There was a rip-roaring game of ringaleevio going on out front; my mother and father suggested that I might regret it if I went out to play rather than watch the funeral, but I went out anyway. I think that probably made the moment more memorable than if I had watched.
In high school our social studies teacher got ahold of a copy of that infamous tape taken by a bystander, and we watched it. I don't remember what theories he propounded about the assassination, if any.
Many years later, it struck me as odd when I learned that C.S. Lewis had died the same day Kennedy did. I thought how little his passing must have been noted here.
A few years later my sister and I and a friend went to St. Patrick's to pay our respects to Bobby Kennedy after his assassination. I remember I cursed the fact that I'd worn a (in those days exceedingly short) dress, as we were ducking under police barricades to advance in the miles long line (our friend was a very nervy girl and felt no compunction about cutting in). Even so, when we'd gotten as far as we could, we still waited three hours. And then I felt too shy to reach out and touch the coffin, and regretted it afterwards. What a tempestuous summer that was.
A couple of related things I recall: we used to give these reports in class on newspaper articles. That is, we were to read a newspaper article and then go in front of the class and relate what it said. I recall one day a boy was doing this (this would have been before Kennedy's death) and in the course of his explication he casually remarked that President Kennedy had been unanimously elected. I didn't bat an eye because this seemed perfectly likely to me -- we loved him so much. Of course, the teacher interjected, 'No, no ... ' and explained, and I have always remembered my surprise, that anyone would have voted against him.
I recall vividly the day of the televised funeral. There was a rip-roaring game of ringaleevio going on out front; my mother and father suggested that I might regret it if I went out to play rather than watch the funeral, but I went out anyway. I think that probably made the moment more memorable than if I had watched.
In high school our social studies teacher got ahold of a copy of that infamous tape taken by a bystander, and we watched it. I don't remember what theories he propounded about the assassination, if any.
Many years later, it struck me as odd when I learned that C.S. Lewis had died the same day Kennedy did. I thought how little his passing must have been noted here.
A few years later my sister and I and a friend went to St. Patrick's to pay our respects to Bobby Kennedy after his assassination. I remember I cursed the fact that I'd worn a (in those days exceedingly short) dress, as we were ducking under police barricades to advance in the miles long line (our friend was a very nervy girl and felt no compunction about cutting in). Even so, when we'd gotten as far as we could, we still waited three hours. And then I felt too shy to reach out and touch the coffin, and regretted it afterwards. What a tempestuous summer that was.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
That's struck me, too, Cerin.
I was five, but I vividly remember the funeral, all in black and white on the TV, with the harsh glare of the sun on the flags and the horses and the black boots reversed in the saddle. The slow music. The guns firing. In my memory it went on for days.
Now it astonishes me to realize how much had to be done to bring that about, with no notice, in just a few days. (I don't at all mean that this hints at conspiracy. I just am amazed at the logistics, including the gathering of heads of state from around the world, and the huge sad spectacle of that funeral, all accomplished in a few days by people who must have been in shock.)
I was five, but I vividly remember the funeral, all in black and white on the TV, with the harsh glare of the sun on the flags and the horses and the black boots reversed in the saddle. The slow music. The guns firing. In my memory it went on for days.
Now it astonishes me to realize how much had to be done to bring that about, with no notice, in just a few days. (I don't at all mean that this hints at conspiracy. I just am amazed at the logistics, including the gathering of heads of state from around the world, and the huge sad spectacle of that funeral, all accomplished in a few days by people who must have been in shock.)
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
baby tuckoo
- Deluded Simpleton
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
- Location: Sacramento
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Did he really?I can't think why I didn't know that, but do know that it was also the day the very first episode of Doctor Who was broadcast in Britain.
Both facts seem essential bits of geekery.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
It’s interesting that more questions are not asked about Oswald’s attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963.
Walker, who was a member of the John Birch society and known for his outspoken right-wing views. He was virulently anti-communist, and evangelical Christian, and pro-segregation. Exactly why Oswald picked him as a target, though, is unclear. He carefully stalked Walker for some time, figuring out how to approach the general’s house and escape, and where to hide and shoot from. On the evening of April 10, he told his wife that his name would soon be “all over the papers”. That night, Walker was sitting in his dining room working on his federal income tax return. Oswald hid in the bushes and fired his rifle (the same used in the Kennedy assassination) from about a hundred feet away. Walker was lucky enough to move as Oswald fired, and the bullet lodged into the wall behind him. Instantly, the combat veteran realized that he had been shot at and hit the floor. Oswald escaped, and was never a suspect until his house was searched after the Kennedy assassination.
What I find interesting in all this is Oswald’s simple desire for fame and publicity. As such, I don’t look for a rational motive in the Kennedy assassination – it looks to me like a simple crime of opportunity. Had Walker not lived in Dallas near Oswald, he wouldn’t have shot at him. Had the motorcade not passed under the book depository, I think that Kennedy would have survived.
As to the other points:
What’s the evidence against it (I’m genuinely asking here – I don’t know anything about the bullet trajectory CT).
I’m off to do some reading.
Walker, who was a member of the John Birch society and known for his outspoken right-wing views. He was virulently anti-communist, and evangelical Christian, and pro-segregation. Exactly why Oswald picked him as a target, though, is unclear. He carefully stalked Walker for some time, figuring out how to approach the general’s house and escape, and where to hide and shoot from. On the evening of April 10, he told his wife that his name would soon be “all over the papers”. That night, Walker was sitting in his dining room working on his federal income tax return. Oswald hid in the bushes and fired his rifle (the same used in the Kennedy assassination) from about a hundred feet away. Walker was lucky enough to move as Oswald fired, and the bullet lodged into the wall behind him. Instantly, the combat veteran realized that he had been shot at and hit the floor. Oswald escaped, and was never a suspect until his house was searched after the Kennedy assassination.
What I find interesting in all this is Oswald’s simple desire for fame and publicity. As such, I don’t look for a rational motive in the Kennedy assassination – it looks to me like a simple crime of opportunity. Had Walker not lived in Dallas near Oswald, he wouldn’t have shot at him. Had the motorcade not passed under the book depository, I think that Kennedy would have survived.
As to the other points:
These questions don’t bother me too much. He was a marine (IIRC, he was trained to be a marksman, and was good but not exceptional). He was let back in to the US because a defecting defector is good publicity, and because he was cut some slack because he was young. I don’t know about the pro-Castro groups, but I do know that Lee and Marina fell in with the ex-pat Russian community in Texas, most of whom were anti-communist. There may have been links through them.VtF wrote: 1. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald really? What kind of military training did he really have? Why was he allowed back into the country so easily with his new Russian wife after he supposedly renounced his citizenship when he moved to Russia? And most of all, what about the evidence of his close ties to anti-Castro groups, when he was supposed to be pro-Castro?
VtF wrote: 2. Even assuming there were only three shots, is really possible that Oswald was able to make them from his location, with the rifle that he had, and with his skill (or supposed lack thereof) as a marksman?
What’s the evidence against it (I’m genuinely asking here – I don’t know anything about the bullet trajectory CT).
Yes. Connally was seated inboard of the President, and his seat was lower. A bullet fired from above, outboard and behind the President could have hit him, especially given that it hit JFK in the head and the Governor in the shoulder.VtF wrote:3. What about the "magic bullet" theory? Is it really possible that a single bullet killed JFK and wounded Connally? What about questions about the autopsy?
Yes, Jack Ruby is an odd one.VtF wrote:4. Who was Jack Ruby and did he really have a prior relationship with Oswald?
No idea.VtF wrote:5. Why did the Warren Commission not interview so many seemingly key witnesses. For that matter, is it just a coincidence that a number of key witnesses died under suspicious circumstances? Why was Alan Dulles, who was forced to resign as head of the CIA by JFK appointed as a member of the Commission?
Don’t know.VtF wrote:6. Is it significant that J. Edgar Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson during a phone conversation the day after the assassination that someone had been impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City?
I don’t believe so, and I doubt it. If it was, then I can’t see why Nixon wouldn’t have copped it.VtF wrote:7. Was JFK really trying to extract the U.S. from Vietnam and ramp down the Cold War? If so, was that enough of a threat to certain elements to justify getting rid of him?
Honestly, that is odd.VtF wrote:8. Why was the Secret Service's protection of the president so lax on that fateful day?
I’m off to do some reading.
Excellent, as usual, Lord_M. Absolutely excellent. I had forgot all about the Gen. Walker thing, but had read it before, long time ago.
As for the Secret Security being "lax" on that day? They look "lax" now, by today's standards, that's all.
Kennedy knew he was hated in Texas. I read somewhere that the SS had warned him there could be trouble and he shouldn't ride in an open car, etc. Kennedy wasn't having it: he wasn't going to hide in a closed car or behind a wall of agents. Fits with our picture of the guy, anyway.
But in the end, it wasn't nasty Texan oil-millionaires who killed him, but a weirdo who wanted infamy.
As for the Secret Security being "lax" on that day? They look "lax" now, by today's standards, that's all.
Kennedy knew he was hated in Texas. I read somewhere that the SS had warned him there could be trouble and he shouldn't ride in an open car, etc. Kennedy wasn't having it: he wasn't going to hide in a closed car or behind a wall of agents. Fits with our picture of the guy, anyway.
But in the end, it wasn't nasty Texan oil-millionaires who killed him, but a weirdo who wanted infamy.
Dig deeper.
There were a bunch of memos within the CIA and between CIA and FBI about this incident. It's one of the things that conspiracy theorists point to in order to prove that these gov't organizations were in on the assassination, but in my opinion it is the one thing that proves the opposite. It also explains *why* Johnson and Hoover and Deputy Director of CIA (iirc; forgot his name) were so concerned that the assassination would pull us into a war.Lord M wrote:Don’t know.Voronwë wrote:6. Is it significant that J. Edgar Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson during a phone conversation the day after the assassination that someone had been impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City?
Oswald was a CIA asset, albeit a weak one, but here some party(ies) unknown to either CIA or FBI seemed to be engineering things to make it look as if Oswald was taking instructions from the Russians or Cubans and making exit plans two weeks before the assassination. It looked as if someone was determined to provoke us into war, and who could know at that moment whether the assassination was the whole of the plan or only Part One. It explains, to my satisfaction at least, why Johnson gave to Warren the instructions that he did.
The panic in those memos sounds very real to me; further, if these agencies had been behind the Oswald impersonation they wouldn't have been talking about it at all, much less faking an interagency scramble to prevent WWIII. The evidence that they labored so hard to conceal is the most exonerating evidence available, in my opinion, at least where the agency heads are concerned. It also, by the way, exonerates both Fidel and Kruschev because if they had really been behind it they would not have needed an impersonator.
But it raises a different kind of question as to whether CIA/FBI might have been right. Having someone impersonate Oswald in this manner suggests that someone already knew Oswald was going to assassinate Kennedy, and that their intention really was to pin it on the Cubans or the Russians. Hard for me to imagine that if this suspicion was borne out by any other evidence, either Hoover or CIA would have dropped it at that, even with the outcome of the Warren Commission guaranteed in advance. We know that Jimmy Hoffa is sleeping with the fishes
because he couldn't disappear without the public noticing; but if there had been a plot by CIA or FBI agents freelancing with the mob, who's to say they were not discovered and simply eliminated long ago and we would just never hear about it?Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.