Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

JFK Assassination


  • Please log in to reply
508 replies to this topic

#421    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:53 AM

View PostMarks_Thoughts, on 08 October 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

I once had a professor who was a specialist on political assassinations. His theory, as explained before he died at a very young age of heart failure, with his research unpublished:
JFK, following in the footsteps of FDR was a closet socialist. His campaign and his personal wealth were partly the result of funds sent to him and the democrats, a small group at the top, who were determined to eventually impose the kind of rule found in the Soviet Union.
Cuba fell apart prior to JFK coming into office, but during his tenure the CIA decided to invade. The US Navy had aircraft with all markings painted over that were to support the invasion. The initial bombing of Cuba by the CIA actually accomplished what was expected, which was not the total destruction of the Cuban airforce. The Navy air cover was essential. Kennedy refused the order to fly in support of the Bay of Pigs and a debacle ensued.
Interestingly, the professor stated that he had found that large sums of money flowed from Cuba to Caribean banks, to the US and US banks, and gone at just that time. He was searching for the final landing of the money. He believed it went into a secret democrat-controlled account.
The CIA determined that the president was, in fact, not working for the benefit of the American people and was part of the Leftist opposition they faced all over the globe.
The Cuban missile crisis followed. Again, the sides were clear in the eyes of the CIA and again the American people were short-changed. Why? Because the US made it clear they would never invade or work to remove the Castros from power. The Soviets viewed this result as a huge victory that made the Monroe Doctrine null and void. Hence, they could do what they wanted all over Central and South America, which has been the clear result.
Kennedy dies in Dallas, Texas.
What tied the whole thing together for the professor was that the Watergate Burglary was so tightly controlled and executed by the same group that had planned and executed the Bay of Pigs. They risked their lives and reputations on the chance that they could find the real accounting ledgers of the democratic party at the location they were caught. Ever notice that no real specifics of what they were really after ever came out? What else would cause a group of paper-pushers essentially to keep this so closed that they included not one real professional thief to help them?
Remember, this was only possible because LBJ was out of office. He was fine with the death of JFK, he benefited greatly from the event and was certainly part of it. However, he would almost certainly not have been fond of his party being tainted with close ties to Cuban and Soviet communists who were contributing to democrat elections and activities.
:w00t:

Whew....the imagination runs utterly kook fringe!

Edited by MID, 11 October 2012 - 12:54 AM.


#422    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 30 September 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

nobody ever seems to mention the elevation of the shot. a gun would have to be calibrated differently to fire downwards from a height, effects of gravity on the bullet would be different. is it likely Oswald had a rifle calibrated for this. i doubt it.

A bit, but that's not a significant factor given the distances of the shots.

Keep in mind that the first shot missed entirely, the second shot was low, and it was only the last shot that hit Kennedy in the head.  Oswald was a trained marksman and had practiced with his rifle.  He would have known how to aim and correct shots.

As I've said before, these aren't hard shots to make.  With a few hours instruction, even a novice who had never picked up a rifle could score 1 out of 3 on a slow moving man-sized target at these distances.

Edited by Rafterman, 11 October 2012 - 02:34 PM.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#423    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:32 PM

View Posttribalactivity, on 08 October 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

The committee has found credible evidence indicating Ferrie and Oswald were seen together in August 1963 in the town of Clinton, La.

You're not the only person who thinks that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK. You're not making outlandish claims about Oswald's involvement with Ferrie or the CIA.

Although any poster who tries to involve the Queen Mother as a possible shooter is just pushing it too far.... :whistle:


#424    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 13 October 2012 - 10:14 PM

View Posttribalactivity, on 08 October 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

What's outlandish about saying Oswald was CIA? If he wasn't CIA what was he? Definitely not a lone nut. He had connections with Ferrie and Ruby, Ruby was the mafia connection or a hired party. A well known Heroin trafficker and gun runner. Oswald had U.S military training and was Russian. The perfect person for a patsy.

I guess we should all know what Oswald was, huh?

Let's see, "IF HE WASN'T CIA, WHAT WAS HE?"

What a great non -answer.  You say Oswald was CIA, and I question that statement, and you answer like this?

You state the obvious (Oswald had military training), as if that's relevant, then you state a complete falsehood, that he was Russian.  He was American.


I can see this won't go too far.

:no:


What was Oswald?
All anyone knows is that he was an employee of the Texas School Book Depository.  He apparently  was a problem to his wife.  He had a little baby daughter, and some fairly wild ideas about opeople and events.  He was also accused of shooting a police officer to death, and of assassinating the President, none of which were ever proven, and he was murdered two days after the President's  murder.

I guess that made him CIA?

Edited by MID, 13 October 2012 - 10:21 PM.


#425    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:19 AM

If he wasn't connected, however loosely, with the CIA, then his giving up US citizenship, going to the USSR, applying for Soviet citizenship, then his returning to the US without apparently any major problems has to be the 59/60/61 adventures of Indiana Jones.

http://www.jfk-info.com/trans-1.htm

This is Oswald's letter to the Soviet consulate.

I don't believe for one moment that Oswald was a trained operative. He was a loose cannon. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been employed by them in some capacity.

If Oswald had turned out to be some guy who'd never lived in the USSR, never been in the military, never hung around on street corners distributing anti-Cuba and pro-Cuba pamphlets, then I'd be more than willing to say that he was the only person who fired shots and killed JFK.

But after 50 years, to me anyway, it still doesn't ring true. He may have been a small fish until he shot at JFK, but this was 1959. Ordinary Americans don't renounce their citizenship to go and live in the USSR then come back and no-one in the State Department goes, h'm, hey now, that's unusual.


#426    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

View PostAntilles, on 14 October 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:


But after 50 years, to me anyway, it still doesn't ring true. He may have been a small fish until he shot at JFK,

But did he shoot at JFK?
I don't recall any evidence of that, nor any evidence that JFK  was struck in the head from the rear (quite the contrary, actually.).


#427    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:06 AM

View PostMID, on 14 October 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

But did he shoot at JFK?
I don't recall any evidence of that, nor any evidence that JFK  was struck in the head from the rear (quite the contrary, actually.).

Ha! Good point. I believe Oswald shot at shot JFK and one of those shots richoted and hit James Tague. Don't know if Oswald hit JFK but I do believe that he was not the only gunman.


#428    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:54 AM

View PostAntilles, on 15 October 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

Ha! Good point. I believe Oswald shot at shot JFK and one of those shots richoted and hit James Tague. Don't know if Oswald hit JFK but I do believe that he was not the only gunman.

Given the fact thet Kennedy was fatally struck in the head from the front, I'd say you have something there. I don't, nor does anyone, klnow who shot the President that day.  Oswald may have fired, but we don't know that either!


#429    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:23 PM

View PostMID, on 17 October 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

Given the fact thet Kennedy was fatally struck in the head from the front, I'd say you have something there. I don't, nor does anyone, klnow who shot the President that day.  Oswald may have fired, but we don't know that either!

I like your use of the word 'given'. I agree. Frontal head shot. Nothing else makes any sense.


#430    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:23 PM

I'm afraid that I still don't agree with the conclusion that he was shot from the front.

The Zapruder footage is clear.  When the bullet initially struck, his head jerks forward.  After the bullet exits, but not before the skull flap has fully extended, his entire upper torso reels backward in an apparent convulsion.  With the initial impact though, his head clearly jerks toward the front.  This is due to the bullet's momentum.  First as it impacts with the back of the skull, and again as it impacts with the inner surface at the front of the skull.  This would not happen if he were shot from the front.

Slightly more graphic reasoning comes with observation of the frontal skull flap itself, which also jerks toward the front as the bullet is exiting.


#431    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:08 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 17 October 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I'm afraid that I still don't agree with the conclusion that he was shot from the front.

Well gosh...now that Arlen Specter has departed us, that pretty much leaves you to carry that tattered, moth-eaten banner!

Posted Image


#432    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:10 PM

Yeah, that's compelling.  :no:


#433    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:13 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 17 October 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Yeah, that's compelling.  :no:

Lol...much more so than the Warren Report, eh?


#434    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:32 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 17 October 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Lol...much more so than the Warren Report, eh?

I'm not even talking about the Warren Report.  I'm talking about my own observations from the footage.  It is as clear as day.

Do you disagree that the initial movement of his head upon impact is forward?  What else but the momentum of the bullet would cause that?  From a basic physics standpoint.  This jolt takes place before any muscle in his body has an opportunity to react.


#435    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 17 October 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

I'm not even talking about the Warren Report.  I'm talking about my own observations from the footage.  It is as clear as day.

Do you disagree that the initial movement of his head upon impact is forward?  What else but the momentum of the bullet would cause that?  From a basic physics standpoint.  This jolt takes place before any muscle in his body has an opportunity to react.

Yeah I know...I was just making note of Mr. "Single Bullet" having passed.

I would disagree the film offers conclusive information in that regard.  It has limited value for ballistics evidence and had been compromised by handlers very early-on through frame deletions anyway.

There are other sources than that film if you're seeking something "compelling".

Edited by hacktorp, 17 October 2012 - 05:37 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users