JFK assassination: conspiracy or what???

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hey guys,

Never being a JFK fan myself, as you may easily suppose, the date Nov. 22 has always been enigmatic to me. Maybe because of Oliver Stone movie, I don´t now.

But, the fact is:

Was JFK killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, firing his cheap italian rifle from the Book Depository?

Or was he killed by a quite organized conspiracy that framed Oswald and then put Ruby in position to kill the guy?

As far as I researched I have this pretty made up:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. Maybe he fire his gun, maybe don´t. It´s not relevant.
2. Because there were other shooters at Dealy Plaza which were the ones that killed Kennedy
3. And the I don´t know who, of many options, did it:
3.1 Fidel Castro
3.2 The Soviet commies
3.3 The Mafia
3.4 CIA
3.5 The conservatives
3.6 The same liberals trying to make a martyr
3.7 His brother
3.8 Some Marylin Monroe fan
Who? Why?

Best regards,

Karl

[Bgile]

My family bought the Warren report. I read it, and it made sense to me. I don't much believe in conspiracy theories, and so far haven't seen any reason to change that opinion.

[Vic Dale]

To Karl.

My money goes with the conspiracy.

The Mafia had plenty of reason to kill Kennedy after he loused up their operatrions in Cuba. But they did not have the influence over the military and plice to be able to pull sucha thing off.

The soviets would have scored a true own goal if they killed him during height of the cold war. Such a move far from strengthening their position in the world would undermine it by causing the sympathy vote to rally round the beleagured USA at the time of their tragic loss. Castro goes in the same bin on that one.

Kennedy's brother doesn't rank as capable either, even though political ambition ran very high in that family. If Kennedy were to be bumped off by Bobby, it would be a family affair a tragic car or plane crash, an accident with bottle of digitalis, or a failure to apply the Heimlich appropriately. (Has anyone ever beem Heimliched to death?) The liberals would have been flushed out by their own youngsters with political ambitions.

If you want to go into politics, never kill for the party they'll stitch you up quicker than look in the event of an investigation. If you want to kill with impunity join the CIA or whatever the British are using these days or a death sw quad somwhere. They'll teach you to do all the wet-work you want and they'll pay you to do it.

Our deranged Monroe Fan would have hanged himself long ago to be with his true love and willhave written a tearful confession telling all and and es xpressing his love for Marylin.

My money is on a state coup, conducted by high-ranking officers of the armed forces, the CIA, FBI and influential representatives of the arms cartels, plus one or two politicisns. This group would be relatively small, but ensconced in key positions, so that busy-bodies who might interfere or get in the way, may be sent on pointless missions to the Antarctic.

It is only this group who could muster the organisational wherewithal to make it go according to plan. The head of security had been sent abroad, security that day was organised by men who could not be located afterwards and the autopsy was carried out under the direction of army officers. The brain and parts of the skull were "Lost" - particularly the bits which would show from which direction the fatal bullet came. That lethal bullet was removed from the car because it was not fired from Oswald's rifle (or the rifle placed in the repository) and an unscathed round fired into a pillow or something so that the bore characteristics could be matched to Oswald's rifle, was found on the stretcher, having mysteriously fallen out of the President's body.

The death car was steam-cleaned and repaired very quickly before it could be forensically examined and Jack Ruby who was known to be dying from cancer and a former CIA man was allowed to get to Oswald.

Oswald was definitely a patsy and setting him up had been planned over a long time to get his legend straight - communist sympathiser who went over to the Russians and was then allowed back without comment - it just does not wash.

Motive? Plenty had motive, but none had the power and the urge to get rid of him like the arms cartels and the army. The former had been making fat money out of the Vietnam War and if Kennedy got his way, the USA would be out of it quite soon. They found suitable bed-fellows in the tops of the army because without Vietnam they would be without jobs and the sumbitch might easily conduct an investigation into the excesses they had carried out - on the nation's behalf of course. Significantly Johnson performed an ideological volt-face when he took office and carried his party with him. Possibly it was this act which forestalled an all-out miltary coup in the US.

In raising this question you have probably - conciously or otherwise - expressed the unconcious thoughts of many Americans and people around the world; "What will they do to Obama if he pulls the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan?" The USA made it's position as the leading world economy, off the back of arms sales and the guardians of US supremacism are not going to let some jumped up liberal get in the way - black or white.

The fact that he is black would be the perfect cover for him under normal conditions, but with a deep and terrible recession ahead, the rise of social tensions may develop to the point where the only way of preserving the existing order would be to shoot him, in the hope that such an act would put black and white at each other's throats again. There are plenty of neo-nazis and racist thugs who would gladly go down in history as the man who got Obama. Such an act would be the perfect agency to begin a policy of divide and rule.

Vic Dale

[Karl Heidenreich]

Vic,

I agree that there are a lot of paralelisms between JFK anb BO. But there is one main difference, also. In 1963 the USA was facing an incredible powerfull and organized enemy: the USSR. Nowaday, if the terrorists stand as an implacable enemy but they are not a threat in the order of destroying or invading USA. The military in USA, as I see it, is now more a political animal than a real "independent" thinking entity. Just look some two examples of their new kind of commanders: Powell and W. Clark. They can be hardly be described as descendants of Grant, Pershing, McArthur, Patton or Le May. I don´t think the modern US military are bold enough to do something like staging a coup.

I also agree that the mob or some extreme right wing political group were the responsibles of killing JFK. But as I stated before, I have gone so far as to the shooting ground at Dallas. Not Oliver Stone myself can´t figure out the dinamics behind the conspiracy.

Best regards

[Vic Dale]

Hi Karl.

Pinochet was no hero either and Chile had a democratic constitution as old as Britain's. Salvatore allende was elected head of a government with which the military disagreed and they topped him.

Vic Dale

[Vic Dale]

Vic,

I agree that there are a lot of paralelisms between JFK anb BO. But there is one main difference, also. In 1963 the USA was facing an incredible powerfull and organized enemy: the USSR. Nowaday, if the terrorists stand as an implacable enemy but they are not a threat in the order of destroying or invading USA. The military in USA, as I see it, is now more a political animal than a real "independent" thinking entity. Just look some two examples of their new kind of commanders: Powell and W. Clark. They can be hardly be described as descendants of Grant, Pershing, McArthur, Patton or Le May. I don´t think the modern US military are bold enough to do something like staging a coup.

I also agree that the mob or some extreme right wing political group were the responsibles of killing JFK. But as I stated before, I have gone so far as to the shooting ground at Dallas. Not Oliver Stone myself can´t figure out the dinamics behind the conspiracy.

Best regards

I think the guy who dyed his hair said it all, if the President was going to be shot they would need a cone of fire and that is what the mystery bullet is all about. Attributing an exaggerated number of strikes to one bullet is a way of accounting for unjuries which could not otherwise be explained by just three shots.

I have not been able to watch the film again lately, though I am sure your thread will get me there soon, but I seemt o recall that there were two target opportunities from the repository and Oswald is supposed to have chosen the hardest. The hardest shot from the repository matches the best area for the cone of fire.

Regards Vic

[RF]

Given all the conspiracy theorising and intangibles involved there will I suspect will never be a definitive answer to all this.

My impression is that the Warren Report is probably mostly correct, except that motive and who was behind the assassin cannot be determined beyond doubt.