Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Who really did kill JFK? Options · View
angieseroticpen
Posted: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:48:19 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 786
Location: United Kingdom
Most of us will be reflecting on the events in Dallas 50 years ago today when John F Kennedy was assassinated. One question still remains though, after all these years, and that is Who did kill him?
The lone gunman, in the form of Lee Harvey Oswald theory went out of the window years ago. Most now believe that more than one gunman was involved and that it had to be a conspiracy. The latest revelation is that Jackie Onassis left behind a tape in which she says that Lyndon B Johnson had her husband killed. Leading historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr recorded the tapes with Jackie Kennedy within months of her husband’s death.

Whatever the so called merits of these tapes, the fact remains that someone, somewhere knows what really happened. What are your views?


“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
DLizze
Posted: Friday, November 22, 2013 4:50:11 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
I have long believed it was probably a "mob hit" paid for by big business. The banking, oil, insurance and war industries have all gained by his death, just as much if not more than organized crime. I also believe that Oswald really believed he had done it himself. But of course he had to be killed, otherwise the truth might have come out in the course of investigation and close examination. Had that happened, the entire thing would have unraveled. Though I know Jacqueline always believed Lyndon Johnson had a hand in setting it up, I suspect whatever part he played was more like that of King Henry, referring to Thomas Becket, and asking, "Won't someone rid me of this man?" I believe he was torn between the enormity of the actual deed, and his wish for gain, and truly believed his wish to be rid of President Kennedy was idle speculation.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Guest
Posted: Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:48:06 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,818
I don't know if I believe it was a mob hit but I do believe that our government might of had something to do with it. Won't know if my life time.
CrossOfStAndrew
Posted: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:25:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/23/2011
Posts: 130
Location: United States
I think Lee Harvey Oswald did it. I know it's hard to believe that a schmuck - albeit a schmuck with a "marksman" status (or damn close to it) in riflemanship from the Marine Corps - can singlehandedly take down someone as charismatic and popular as JFK was, but that's what the objective evidence points to, unfortunately. I think that Jack Ruby probably did kill Oswald for one of two reasons: a) a genuine, albeit misguided, sense of vengeance and "patriotism" for Oswald having killed the sitting presidend ; b) the risk of Oswald fabricating/exaggerating a so-called relationship with Ruby himself and organized crime generally, to try to IMPLY a conspiracy so as to attempt to strike a possible plea deal (yes, I do believe Oswald's mind was that convoluted and twisted) ; or c) some odd combination of a) and b)....I think Ruby was a guy who was a fry or two short of a Happy Meal himself.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Oswald, having been in the USSR and in the military, may have been approached by the CIA to see what he (Oswald) could offer in terms of information about the people he came in contact with in the USSR (and, undoubtedly, the KGB) and, like the KGB, ultimately found him of no real use as a potential asset. The thing about Oswald that's been consistently observed across the board by everybody that's been involved with that investigation - in an official capacity or not - and including his own sibling - is that Oswald wanted to be a "somebody". He wanted to seem like he was a "mover and a shaker"....That he was someone "in the know". He wasn't.

And YES, he could've (and DID) gotten those shots off with a Carcano rifle. Yes, he could've scored those hits (and DID....just watch Full Metal Jacket for a quick explaination as to how....lol). And NO, there was no "magic" bullet - that bullet is NOT, in fact, in "pristine condition": it bears all the damage you'd expect that kind of bullet to have after it travelled at - or "thereabouts" - the trajectory outlined by the Warren Commission. And NO, the Warren Commission itself is not a government cabal - or "kangaroo committee" - assigned from the first to "cover up the truth": they did their job as best as they could as they understood it....and got well within the ballpark- if not spot on - as to what happened.

Some analyst interviewed for one of the myriad of JFK assassination specials that have aired explained it best: The Holocaust: world's greatest crime, committed by the world's greatest criminals = it adding up. JFK assassination: charismatic, intelligent, handsome leader of the Free World taken down by a crazy loner = doesn't add up. Ergo, it must've been a conspiracy....NOT!!!!

Buz
Posted: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:11:08 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,834
Location: Atlanta, United States
Lee Harvey Oswald. He easily had the skill and the marksmanship records in the Marines. The History Channel had a 70 year old ex-US Marine Corp veteran recreate the shot with the same type, slightly clumsy, bolt action rifle, and he did it also. Several times in fact. Lee Harvey Oswald was very disgruntled, hated the USA and capitalism, and believed he was meant to do something great to impact the world. If he lived today, he'd easily make the news as one of those mass shooters.

Was he also spurred on by someone else? Quite possibly.

The Mob had motive. JFK's father, Joe Kennedy, Sr, called in Mob support to guarantee the votes of Labor Unions under their control. They came through with the votes, then JFK's little narcissistic brother Bobby, as Attorney General, went on a campaign to put the Mob in prison. A few years later he also was assassinated by a 'crazed' gunmen. No doubt about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, but were they spurred on by the Mob? Maybe. Probably. It certainly would not have taken much coaxing.

I believe if JFK had not given the Attorney General position to his brother Bobby that he would never have been assassinated and would've been elected to a second term by a much wider margin than the razor thin victory he had over Richard Nixon in 1960.

PS. Even though JFK and Nixon were political opponents in 1960, they considered themselves to be good friends. That sure wouldn't happen today would it?

Weavindreams
Posted: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 9:15:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 5,681
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
As I posted on another thread of this same sort. It WAS a mob hit, Set up by Sam Giancana "The Butcher"the Chicago mob boss, Marcello (Dallas/ New Orleans), Trafficante (Miami) and Colombo (New York) agreed to it but Giancana made all of the arrangements. (See the book "Double Cross" written by his younger brother Chuck Giancana). Which was unintentionally aided and abetted by an accidental discharge of the AR-15 in the Secret Service "trail Car" that is the ONLY other rifle KNOWN to have been in Dealey Plaza that day. For those who contend that Oswald was the triggerman in the book depository building: First, while I do not remember what book I saw it in, there WAS a photo taken that day which clearly shows the fin of JFK's limo as it turned the corner. In the very back of the crowd on the steps of the building stood...OSWALD. Next, IF he had been the shooter; kindly explain the following: WHY after two full days of interrogation was there not ONE tape recording made NOR even ONE single note taken? We're not talking about GTA here (if they arrest you for THAT they record EVERY WORD YOU SAY!) We're talking about the murder of the President of the US! TWO DAYS? NOT ONE NOTE? Next, WHY would the Warren Commission need to phony up photos of "Oswald" holding the rifle? (YES, they ARE phony! Look at the first photo, you'll see a guy with a BROAD, SQUARE chin. Look at any KNOWN photo of Oswald! He had a NARROW, POINTY CHIN! The head shot was obviously dropped in. The "head size" in BOTH photos is...IDENTICAL. yet they were taken at different angles and different distances (that's a photographic impossibility.) Johnson, J Edgar Hoover and a few others hand a hand in the cover up BECAUSE they were either owned by the mob (LBJ) OR were paid off BY the mob (Hoover. The SAME Hoover who KNEW a deal had been cut with them to protect the Eastern Harbors from Nazi sabotage in WWII and yet denied the very EXISTENCE of 'organized crime in America" UNTIL televised testimony by Joe Valaci left him NO other choice than to suddenly DISCOVER IT!) Read the book "Act of Betrayal" to learn more about Hoover's part in it all; and his motives.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 9:17:01 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,818
The mob in concert with Hoover. I don't believe it was Oswald. I think he was a patsy and I will explain. I think he was a dupe but that he had no idea that he was a dupe and I think someone else was the true sniper. Jack Ruby had mob connections and Oswald could have confessed that he did not do it and then probes would begin. My theory anyway.
Weavindreams
Posted: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:12:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 5,681
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
NickiC wrote:
The mob in concert with Hoover. I don't believe it was Oswald. I think he was a patsy and I will explain. I think he was a dupe but that he had no idea that he was a dupe and I think someone else was the true sniper. Jack Ruby had mob connections and Oswald could have confessed that he did not do it and then probes would begin. My theory anyway.


Oh, for sure. Oswald WAS set up to take the fall AND Jack Rubenstein (aka Ruby) mafia pimp in Cuba and later at the strip club he ran for the Marcello family in Dallas, WAS sent to shut him up permanently. (Which is WHY Ruby said "If you ever want to know the truth you'll have to get ME out of Dallas. Otherwise I'm going to die in here." Also bear in mind that the CIA had been working WITH the mafia in their attempts to kill Castro. thumbup

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:52:27 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Not that living in Dallas makes me some sort of authority on the matter, but needless to say, it comes up a lot around here LOL. They recently ran a special, which interviewed lots of local people that knew all the people involved on that day: Oswald and Ruby most prominently. The presentation didn't really operate on a bias, but a common theme among people that knew him was that Ruby was the last person that the mafia would have trusted to carry out such a high-profile hit, and that he would never have been able to keep such a connection secret. He was a useful idiot for the local mobsters, connected by the bottom rung of association, and trusted with almost nothing (and by implication, certainly not anything involving the coordinated assassination of the President of the United States). He ran a couple of strip clubs back in the day. They even interviewed a couple of the surviving dancers from that era. They said similar things about him: impulsive, hot-headed, a bit of a flake, but to his credit, he did try to manage the place well and protect the girls. Most think he killed Oswald because he was genuinely patriotic and offended that Oswald offed the President, and that sentiment was aided by ego and delusions of grandeur. He wanted to be a hero; he thought that was his duty as an American.

Many disagree, of course.
Weavindreams
Posted: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:29:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 5,681
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
LadyX wrote:
Not that living in Dallas makes me some sort of authority on the matter, but needless to say, it comes up a lot around here LOL. They recently ran a special, which interviewed lots of local people that knew all the people involved on that day: Oswald and Ruby most prominently. The presentation didn't really operate on a bias, but a common theme among people that knew him was that Ruby was the last person that the mafia would have trusted to carry out such a high-profile hit, and that he would never have been able to keep such a connection secret. He was a useful idiot for the local mobsters, connected by the bottom rung of association, and trusted with almost nothing (and by implication, certainly not anything involving the coordinated assassination of the President of the United States). He ran a couple of strip clubs back in the day. They even interviewed a couple of the surviving dancers from that era. They said similar things about him: impulsive, hot-headed, a bit of a flake, but to his credit, he did try to manage the place well and protect the girls. Most think he killed Oswald because he was genuinely patriotic and offended that Oswald offed the President, and that sentiment was aided by ego and delusions of grandeur. He wanted to be a hero; he thought that was his duty as an American.


That could be; as I was in Junior High School hundreds of miles away at the time of both shootings, I certainly wouldn't have any personal knowledge either! And, while I have no doubt that all you say is true; there are other factors that come into play as well. Such as the fact that just like Chicago and New Orleans, the Dallas PD has a reputation for corruption. Also, Ruby was able to gain access to the area BECAUSE some of those cops were "regulars" at the Star Club and were on friendly terms with Ruby. So, while he might not have been the "ideal" choice to kill Oswald in some respects he WAS in others. So, the way I see it; it is a reasonable possibility that his boss in the Marcello family was told to have him see to it that Oswald WAS killed and Ruby just did it himself for the reasons you cited. After all, mobsters and pimps don't BECOME mobsters and/or pimps because they are mentally well balanced or have stable personalities, most of them are psychopaths and/or sociopaths.

DLizze
Posted: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:28:48 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
Many years ago, my friend, Dave Littrell and I were sitting at the local watering hole on November 22. After about he sixth or seventh pitcher of beer, we decided we could solve the mystery. Pint Drunk

Here is the scenario we came up with:

Jack Kennedy had Norma Jean (Marilyn Monroe) killed, because she was sure to blab about the affair.
Joe DiMaggio went to the mafia, to set up a revenge hit on Jack, because he was still carrying a torch for her.
The mafia set Oswald up as a patsy, knowing he was a nutcase anyway.
Ruby was a screw-up, and needed to be gotten out of the way, but the Dallas cops used to frequent his club.
So they sent Ruby to kill Oswald, knowing that Ruby would get wiped out, too.
But, even when it is in their interest, the mafia does not work for free if they can see a way to make money on a deal.
The mafia's bill to Joe DiMaggio nearly broke him, and he had to start doing the Mr. Coffee ads to pay them back.

Mystery solved. You are all welcome. Pint Drunk



"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Weavindreams
Posted: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:34:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 5,681
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
An interesting theory. Oh, and it MIGHT have been Jack's doing, but it think it was probably Joe who took out the hit on Norma Jean; but I'm talking Joe KENNEDY and Bobby was at his brother in law (Peter Lawford's house at a small party when the call came in to notify him it had been done.)

HotRodG
Posted: Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:32:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/10/2013
Posts: 1,157
Location: East Coast , United States
This is the only conspiracy theory that I have followed. As to the question, who killed JFK, my answer is I do not know. But I do know one thing. The fatal head shot did not come from the school book depository and it definitely did not come from a 6.5mm, FMJ round.
I think those with experience will know that a FMJ round, entering the back of the head would have blasted right on through the front of the skull leaving massive and obvious damage.
The Zapruder film shows quite clearly, a high velocity round, entering the right front of the skull. That means a second shooter, which equals conspiracy.

As to who planned, organized and then executed the assassination, I am leaning towards the LBJ/Mafia theory.
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:41:05 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,818
Cross of St. Andrew has it right unfortunately, I say unfortunately as I love to argue with him. I base my conclusions on the following information in addition to that already stated. The mob could keep it a secret but would not indorse it in the council. If it were a single Don would have been very publicly executed. It could not be the CIA as they have never been able to keep a secret, and I am sure by now their would be a tell book.
ginger86
Posted: Sunday, December 22, 2013 4:23:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/4/2012
Posts: 11,710
Location: Lost, United States
awwww people, it was jackie kennedy. she had mariyn monroe killed for having an affair with jfk. then she had jfk killed for having an affair with marilyn. she then had rfk killed for arranging all those secret meetings between jfk and marilyn. next, just to throw everyone off her trail she had martin luther king killed. Whistle well I think my theory is as good as some of those floating around. evil4

SexySophie
Posted: Sunday, December 22, 2013 5:41:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/10/2012
Posts: 198
Location: United Kingdom


I wasn't even a twinkle in my dad's eye when it happened .. but he was 18 then and took a keen interest in the whole thing - albeit as an Englishman.

A recent documentary here on British television pointed out evidence suggesting Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets may have hit the presidents car and even caused wounds ... but the fatal bullet clearly and forensically came from one of the cars behind, in which were seated security men.

Dignitaries in cars behind the security car reported a distinct smell of gunfire and being British I've no idea what that smell is. It all sounded very plausible - but then all theories are or can be made to look so.
kiera
Posted: Sunday, December 22, 2013 12:13:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/23/2013
Posts: 10,524
Location: sipping tea , United Kingdom
ginger86 wrote:
awwww people, it was jackie kennedy. she had mariyn monroe killed for having an affair with jfk. then she had jfk killed for having an affair with marilyn. she then had rfk killed for arranging all those secret meetings between jfk and marilyn. next, just to throw everyone off her trail she had martin luther king killed. Whistle well I think my theory is as good as some of those floating around. evil4


Lfunny babes many infact agree with your theory with the exception of the MLK, all I know for damn sure is I didn't do it angel7
Ardentmale
Posted: Sunday, December 22, 2013 12:23:59 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 4,551
Location: Jersey Shore, United States
ginger86 wrote:
awwww people, it was jackie kennedy. she had mariyn monroe killed for having an affair with jfk. then she had jfk killed for having an affair with marilyn. she then had rfk killed for arranging all those secret meetings between jfk and marilyn. next, just to throw everyone off her trail she had martin luther king killed. Whistle well I think my theory is as good as some of those floating around. evil4


Exxxcellent theory... Do you have any idea why she let Aristotle live since he didnt put her in his will??... She is a cold, calculated and deadly woman!!

characterized by intense feeling; passionate; fervent

Intensely devoted, eager, or enthusiastic; zealous

vehement; fierce burning, fiery, or hot
GardenerGuy
Posted: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:05:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/29/2013
Posts: 1,092
Location: Victoria, BC
Col Bat Guano
bethalia
Posted: Sunday, January 05, 2014 4:18:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/23/2013
Posts: 82
Location: United States
Oswald alone simply could not have happened - the theory is in conflict with almost all the physical and eyewitness evidence.

Personally, I think the American intelligence community (or some small part of it) is most likely. As they say with murders: they had the means, opportunity, and motive (a great, great deal of motive).

James Douglass published a book titled Unspeakable that goes into a lot of the discrepancies and suggestions of intelligence community involvement (although I take a lot of what he writes with a grain of salt as his book is lightly sourced, or sourced mostly and intentionally with anti-Oswald alone sources).

I'm reading a book now A Cruel and Shocking Act - The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination by Phillip Shenon, a NY Times reporter. It's a good book in that he really doesn't take a position on the 'who' question. Although, he does tend to lean toward Oswald alone. But that's mostly because the book is largely based on conversations/interviews with former members of the Warren Commission, especially junior staff that did the real investigating (at least such as it was - they shied away from input that suggested a wider conspiracy because the head of the commission, Earl Warren, was big on the Oswald alone idea and wanted the commission to come to that conclusion, and come to it quickly).

I'm also now reading The Third Bullet by Stephen Hunter. It is fiction based on the assassination and posits a scenario where a CIA guy gets two other guys together (and manipulates Oswald into the patsy role) to kill Kennedy for reasons far too elaborate to go into here (but which are very ironic). The book is very well written and is an original take on a lot of the aspects of the assassination.

I also recently finished Stephen King's 11/22/63, which has no bearing on anything factual with the assassination, but is a great read with an absolutely heartbreaking romantic sub-plot.

I'm not really terribly obsessed with the assassination. It's just that with the 50th anniversary there's been so much stuff out lately that seems interesting in one way or another.

If you're looking for an early and authoritative study of the assassination then Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas is probably the best and has largely stood the test of time. It was one of the first books, published in 1967. The Warren Commission investigators looked endlessly at the Zapruder film, but Thompson did what they never bothered to do: examine and analyze it in great detail (in terms of the movement of the bodies in the car against fixed reference points). One of his key findings was in recent years disproven (and he has been very up front in admitting he had mis-interpreted) but most of his findings are still solid and prove beyond doubt that Oswald could not have acted alone. Unfortunately, the book is out of print and copies of the original that are still around run hundreds of dollars (but well worth it if you're interested in these issues and haven't been exposed to his findings).
hayley
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:42:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/19/2012
Posts: 608
Location: NYC, United States
angieseroticpen wrote:
Most of us will be reflecting on the events in Dallas 50 years ago today when John F Kennedy was assassinated. One question still remains though, after all these years, and that is Who did kill him?
The lone gunman, in the form of Lee Harvey Oswald theory went out of the window years ago. Most now believe that more than one gunman was involved and that it had to be a conspiracy. The latest revelation is that Jackie Onassis left behind a tape in which she says that Lyndon B Johnson had her husband killed. Leading historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr recorded the tapes with Jackie Kennedy within months of her husband’s death.

Whatever the so called merits of these tapes, the fact remains that someone, somewhere knows what really happened. What are your views?


my view??? ..the fact remains that someone, somewhere, knows what really happened.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.