So Who Killed JFK?

[GoSlash27]

What bugs me about it isn't Oswald, it's Ruby.

I can accept on the face of it that Oswald was a lone nut. It fits well enough. But the lone nut is taken out by another lone nut?
Okay, that's plausible right up to the point where you research his history and contacts.
Sold horse racing tip sheets in Chicago. Acted as a business agent for a local refuse collectors union that later became part of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Implicated in the fatal shooting of the union's president, attorney Leon Cooke, but was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Frequented race tracks in Illinois and California.
Gets drafted and moves to Dallas upon return to civillian life. Manages several strip clubs and night clubs wherein he developed close ties to many Dallas police officers, who frequented his nightclubs where Ruby showered them with large quantities of liquor and other favors. Goes to Cuba in 1959, ostensibly to visit a friend, influential Dallas gambler Lewis McWillie, an associate of Mafia boss Santo Trafficante.

And that's right in the Warren report too; "Ruby was at least serving as a kind of courier on behalf of gambling interests in Cuba" They also knew that he spent a good deal of time hanging out with Sam and Joe Campisi, who according to the Warren report
"While Campisi's technical characterization in Federal law enforcement records as an organized crime member has ranged from definite to suspected to negative, it is clear that he was an associate or friend of many Dallas-based organized crime members, particularly Joseph Civello during the time he was the head of the Dallas organization. There was no indication that Campisi had engaged in any specific organized crime-related activities."

And I'm supposed to believe that this guy was operating on his own? And even he can't articulate why he did it? I can be had, but even *I'm* not that gullible!

The only rational conclusion is that Ruby was acting at the behest of the Mafia, which raises the question "why". And if Oswald was truly a lone nut, there's no reason for the Mafia to want him dead, is there?

The simple, obvious answer is that Oswald wasn't acting on his own, but rather at the behest of the Mafia and it was Ruby's job to tie up the loose end. I've never seen anything to convince me that the official story is true or that this one is false.

 

[CGSteve8718]

To go along with what BillCA was trying to get at. Before the Italians, there were the Irish. The earliest establishment of the lawman, the politician, and the gangster was accomplished by the Irish first.

Joe Kennedy was not an exception. He made his family fortune during Prohibition being in league with some shady characters involved with illegal booze smuggling, distillation, and other organized crime rackets. Later on in history, the gang wars between the Italians and the Irish pretty much saw the Italians take over, but that did not mean "Papa Joe" as he was called did not keep his "friends". His real family, did not really know of his earlier history and associations. Some would say, through Papa Joe's close circle of friends, the mafia was influential in helping JFK to obtain the presidency. Remember, there was a time were the Irish were looked down upon as bad as the blacks, and even during Kennedy's time, there was still negatives to being an Irishmen, and especially a Catholic. His obtaining the presidency was extremely symbolic in putting the final nail in the coffin regarding those sentiments.

But, the actions of Bobby in his fervor to bust down la cosa nostra (see Mclellan hearings) made a lot of people very angry, especially after what they supposedly did for their family, and his father, but he was ignorant of where his family came from as previously mentioned. Bobby, and I guess both brothers were cautiously advised by their father to cease such crusading. I mean, even proponents of the lone nut theory like WA can't deny that a lot of powerful people wanted the Kennedy clan dead directly as a result of the above.

With that said, I still believe that Oswald was in fact the "who" as far as pulling the trigger goes, but the "why" as far as who put him up to it, etc. remains unanswered.

The above is not in any way a conspiracy theory. The historical ties of upperworld and the underworld is very well known in American history and I dare say that it continues to this day in some form. I haven't read every instance or every little aspect about this statement, but those who have any semblance of interest in the other side of American history can just easily type in words, terms, and phrases such as political machines, Tammany Hall, aldermans, vice lords, Boss Tweed, strike breakers, union busters, etc. and how they tie in with historical events, and mainstream public figures. This stuff goes back to the 1800s and like it or not, it's part of what made America great.

I think reading about underworld history would give us a lot of insight or perhaps even answer a lot of questions about events in the upperworld.

 

[macmuffy]

Bush gets the blame for everything else.

Let's blame it on the Bush cartel.





.

 

[madmag]

If this is a intelligence test I want to pass, so I am un-subscribing this thread.

 

[Wildalaska]

One of the members of the Warren Commission was a friend of my family. That person never believed that Oswald acted alone, but signed the report, due to LBJ's pressure and to "unify the country at a time of crisis."

BS....name him.

I don't know the answer; neither does the OP

Ah but I do. The warren commish gave us the answer.

If mocking others beliefs was not allowed here, the OP's post count would only be about 100.

Isn't that just so cute LOL
WildweknowwheretheystandAlaska LOL

 

[Pat H]

I don't really know who killed John F. Kennedy, nor why they did it, at least not reliably so; but I do know who did not kill Kennedy, Lee H. Oswald.

 

[gc70]

... but I do know who did not kill Kennedy, Lee H. Oswald.

Are you so certain because you were having lunch with him at the time of the assassination?

 

[Garand Illusion]

No one's ever convinced me that it wasn't a single nut job named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Go to the museum there around Daley Plaza and walk around a bit. Any decent marksman could make the shot with a halfways decent rifle (on a good day I certainly could). And he had a rifle, he worked in the building, he had access to that window ... no reason at all the story can't be true EXACTLY has told.

And someone who says they only know who didn't kill Kennedy ... the one who was accused ... why? Like I said, he did have access and he did have opportunity and he clearly had any number of mental/political issues.

And if he weren't involved, he probably wouldn't have been so antsy as to have shot that cop and then try to hide in a theater.

If the government/shadow government actually running things were as successfully wiley and conniving as some in the tin foil hat brigade would have us believe, we damned sure wouldn't have the problems in the world we have. And they would have pulled off the Kennedy assisation in some more mundane manner -- like a heart attack, shot in a place not swarming with civilians who's stories and cameras couldn't be controlled, etc.

There were MANY places better controlled than Daley Plaza. And assuming another shooter on the *snort* grassey knolll ... what assassin would base his attack on shooting from an open and easily viewed area near train tracks? How would he be able to control who was up there and observing him?

Sorry guys ... for better or worse the world is as it appears. Our government is a bungling bunch of mostly white guys, the UN is a impotent organization corrupted by conniving but overall ineffective 3rd world states and weak European nations, and you either succeed or fail in life based on your own effort and intelligence and eduction.

 

[LightningJoe]

There doesn't seem to be an explanation that makes a lot of sense. The Oswald-acting-alone one has the virtue of simplicity. He does seem to have been the type. If he had been tried and ended up in a penitentiary, there'd be no questions. But when a very shady character manages to kill him while he's in police custody (try that some time--I've seen it done but only by a large gang like the Mexican Mafia), this makes me wonder.

 

[Unregistered]

If mocking others beliefs was not allowed here, the OP's post count would only be about 100.

Isn't that just so cute LOL
WildweknowwheretheystandAlaska LOL

Thank you for proving my point.
Don't take it personally.

 

[nate45]

I thought I'd heard all the typical conspiracy theories, but this one has me thinking and wondering;

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/filestruth.htm

I like to read all the theorys for a chuckle, but I have to concur that it's the best alternate theory I've ever heard.

To top it all off I was talking to my father this evening and telling him about it and he said his friend has an original factory barreled, Remington XP-100 chambered in .222!

In the frames of the Zapruder film on the web site you can clearly see JFK's hair part and head move backwards after the first bullet hits from the rear. It sure looks like two seperate shots.

Over the years I have heard all the theorys and accepted it was Oswald alone this is the first time I've had real doubts.

 

[PWK]

I believe Oswald acted alone as much as I believe that Vince Foster committed suicide.
Trust the FBI/govt.............not on your life.

 

[B.N.Real]

On one hand the government says Oswald acted alone and killed Kennedy.

On the other hand,superpowerful people killed Kennedy to prove a point that nobody can rub them the wrong way.

In the first case,the killer is found and the case is solved.

In the second case,a person as powerful as the president was killed by people whose families still run the country.

I think I'll go with Oswald killed the president and acted alone.

 

[tplumeri]

I voted for lee harvey and the mafia.
I have an uncle who was involved.

 

[STAGE 2]

but I do know who did not kill Kennedy, Lee H. Oswald.

Based on what?

I've been to Dealey Plaza. I've been on the floor of the book depository and seen the angle and distance at which Kennedy was shot.

I also own a carcano and just for kicks done some "tests" at the range with some of my friends to see how difficult a shot this was. What Oswald did was by no means an impossible shot. Even with iron sights its not exceedingly difficult.

 

[Unregistered]

I would like to hear more about your tests.

Were you shooting at a moving target?
Was your target a living person?

I think that shooting at a moving US president would probably be a harder shot than you think.

 

[44 AMP]

No matter what really happened, it was Oswald...

History has already spoken, and it is in the books.

I have no doubt that the shot could have been made with the Carcano. I have no doubt that a FMJ 6.5mm bullet can go through unbelievable stuff without serious deformation.

But the Warren Commission report that it was Oswald and only Oswald....I'm afraid that there have been so many inconsistancies in the reported "evidence" that had it gone to trial, Oswald might have walked. Assuming one could actually get an impartial jury.

Oswald and only Oswald seems to fall into the same category as OJ and only OJ....nobody doubts the guilt, but the govt's case was just so weak and full of contradictions as to be nearly unbelieveable.

Among other things disputed are the ability of the shooter (Oswald) to have made the shots, stashed the rifle on the opposite side of the building, and gotten down several flights of stairs to the cafeteria where he was witnessed calmly drinking a coke less than a couple of minutes after the last shot was fired. And the govt's evidence connecting Oswald to the rifle is very thin as well. A partial thumbprint on the barrel, and the false name the gun was ordered in, found on a piece of paper in Oswalds wallet. That and a photograph that appears retouched, of Oswald holding the rifle. I'm pretty sure an outraged nation would have found it plenty had a trial been held in early 64, but thanks to Jack Ruby, it was never an issue. But by todays enlightened standards, Oswald wouldn't have needed Johnny Cochran to walk, so full of holes was the "evidence".

Isn't it interesting that when powerful political people are killed by "lone gunmen", "acting entirely on their own" that there is so much information and physical evidence that is inconsistant, missing, misplaced, or withheld from the public, for years, even decades afterwards? I know it isn't TV, and real life doesn't often have these things all wrapped up in a neat package, but I have to wonder, why they go to so much trouble not just to not tell us thing, but to make us aware that they are deliberately not telling us these things?

I believe that it was the general public disbelief in the honesty and the accuracy of the Warren Report that drove the final nail into the coffin of trust in the government to act in our best interests and be honest with us.

Of course our government must keep some secrets, to protect us from unfriendly powers, like the exact nature of our strategic defenses, nuclear weapons, etc., etc. But a presidential assassination, or that of a Senator, or even a civil rights advocate is a simple murder case, no different than any other, except for the fact that the victim is famous/politically important. Why should we not have the details the same as any other famous murder case? I see no reason that the physical evidence should be concealed. And it is that obvious concealement that makes us distrust the honesty of our government, and specifically the people in it.

 

[STAGE 2]

I would like to hear more about your tests.

Were you shooting at a moving target?
Was your target a living person?

I think that shooting at a moving US president would probably be a harder shot than you think

We didn't have a 5 story building at our disposal, but we did rig up a cart with a watermelon at the appropriate distance. The cart started at one end of the range and via a pulley and some rope attached to an atv was pulled to the other end while several of us went through a couple of shots with the carcano. None of us had any problems hitting the target.

Not scientific by any means, but still noteworthy and here's why. The angle Oswald was shooting at and the direction the vehicle was travelling (away and slightly to the left) is more favorable to the shooter than being level with the target and having it travel perpendicular to the line of sight. Additionally, this test was done with a stock rifle with irons. Lee Harvey used a scope.

Again, not scientific, but more than enough to dispel the myth that the carcano is not accurate enough, or the action was not fast enought to make the shots that killed JFK.

An average rifleman would have no problem making the shots that Oswald did.

 

[Al Norris]

Does anyone reading this thread, have any questions as to why I close conspiracy threads as fast as I find them? :barf:

Now, just to get in the spirit of things...

Did anyone else read, Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report?

You had to have had the Warren Commission report handy for all the references.

 

[Wildalaska]

I've read the Warren Commission report, plus, and finally, Bugliosi's tome.

Oswald would have been convicted Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


WilditwaslaiensAlaska TM

PS:

Among other things disputed are the ability of the shooter (Oswald) to have made the shots, stashed the rifle on the opposite side of the building, and gotten down several flights of stairs to the cafeteria where he was witnessed calmly drinking a coke less than a couple of minutes after the last shot was fired. And the govt's evidence connecting Oswald to the rifle is very thin as well. A partial thumbprint on the barrel, and the false name the gun was ordered in, found on a piece of paper in Oswalds wallet. That and a photograph that appears retouched, of Oswald holding the rifle.

All of those issues were also considered by the House Special Committee on Assasinations.

It was Oswalds gun. It was the gun used. he shot it.

Undisputed if you read the evidence.