Posted on 10/30/2021 1:22:01 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW
Almost 40 years after his death following a bar brawl in Key Biscayne, Ricardo Morales, known as “Monkey” — contract CIA worker, anti-Castro militant, counter-intelligence chief for Venezuela, FBI informant and drug dealer — returned to the spotlight Thursday morning when one of his sons made a startling claim on Spanish-language radio:
Morales, a sniper instructor in the early 1960s in secret camps where Cuban exiles and others trained to invade Cuba, realized in the hours after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963 that the accused killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been one of his sniper trainees.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I don’t know. I am just drawing upon the direct knowledge of someone knew him.
Smart enough to create an alibi. Connally did as well. Bush tried "I don't remember where I was" but then some folks came through with the Tyler story.
Some shots came from the rear, and LBJ was in the car behind him, wasn't he.
I guess it's been long enough to let the cat out of the bag. Ari Onassis. Coincidence that both of Ari's kids died young?
Of course, after Ari's son died in a plane crash, JFK's son would die in a plane crash. Sending a message?
Soros is in his 90s. He would have been 33 at the time.
“ why his head would jerk backwards if shot from behind and wouldn’t the exit wound be the biggest hole which is in the BACK of his head?”
Imagine that there was a film made of the shooting that wasn’t very well seen. It wasn’t corrupted because there wasn’t the technology in existence that could fabricate film. Imagine that this film showed the SS driver of Kennedy’s limo quickly turn around, and he’s got a nickel plated ,45 in his hand, and he shoots Kennedy at point blank range. Now imagine that Kennedy’s wife sees what just happened and tries to exit the limo from the rear, but is pulled back in by another SS agent. Yes, it’s hard to imagine all that, but if you saw a video of it would you believe what you saw???
The book Disinformation by former Romanian spy chief Pacepa claims the Soviets trained Oswald so well to assonate Kennedy he couldn’t be deprogrammed when they no longer wished to kill him.
I've long since grown tired of this which is why I rarely get involved in these discussion and I knew I should have stay out of this one for obvious reasons.
I have no idea why Oswald didn't take the perfect shot when you believe he could have. Maybe he wasn't in place. Maybe he heard someone in the hallway behind him. Maybe he would have had to hang out the window and risk being seen. Maybe he had a moment of doubt or panic. I don't know. It comes down to you believing he didn't take the shot when you believed he had the best chance for a good shot. This is an opinion not evidence.
You can ask all the whys and hows you want. Everything I've read and watched is consistent with Oswald shooting Kennedy from above and behind. What you're proposing is alleged conspirators making split-second decisions within an 11 second time frame and risk being seen by all the people watching. (Occams' Razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.) Also this article is based on nothing but one persons' opinion that Oswald wasn't a very good marksman.
Here's a 6 min video for consideration.
This is Mr. Zapruder interview with WAFTV right after the assassination
His head jerked back because of the explosive force of the exit of the bullet.
Ballistics 101. Entrance and Exit of a bullet:
Maybe Biden will try it too.
Connally was in the car with Kennedy and the bullet hit him.
“a loser a communist, a temper, a punk”
You just described JFK’s killers, including GHW Bush, and the entire kabbal from bottom to top.
Kennedy was in a slowly moving car, along a know route published in the newspapers. It was not until after Kennedy was dead that people realized there was a sniper shooting at him. Everyone was taken completely by surprise.
Oswald was trained in the Marines and an above average shot. Not Carlos Hathcock, still above average. The shooting was between 50 to 85 meters away using a Carcano with surplus military ammo. The Carcano uses a 6.77mm/.267 caliber bullet, not typical U.S. .257 caliber bullets. U.S. manufacturers tended to used undersized U.S. bullets, which gave poorer accuracy. Using proper sized milspec rounds, the typical Carcano is no more or less accurate than service rifle of its era. It was mechanically capable of shooting a slow moving target in the back at under 100 yards. Oswald's rifle had a low power scope and was using a windowsill as a rest.
People tend to forget Oswald already had a round in the chamber. He only had to work the bolt twice in five to eight seconds to fire three shots. He did not have to run a full mad minute, and only had to fire three shots fast and leave.
Planning, preparation, poor security, the FBI's habit of ignoring advance warning, getting complete surprise, and Oswald being 100% bat guano crazy is what got Kennedy killed.
Deep state probably existed in some form since the Wilson era but flourished during jfk and LBJ admin.
I am sure if you have not shot a rifle in 20 years, then you would do pretty well on a range. Thanks for your service. One of my fondest memories in college was entertaining a Marine Dinner at the Naval Armory nearby to school. One of then was a teacher at my school, but I never had him. Not my major.
I have seen that one, and they duplicated the shot almost to every detail. They used gell for soft tissues, and small rope for ligaments and tendons. And they heated this up to body temp, too. Very professional.
I have seen that one, and they duplicated the shot almost to every detail. They used gell for soft tissues, and small rope for ligaments and tendons. And they heated this up to body temp, too. Very professional.
Hard to come up with a better alibi than taking a bullet with the target.
yeah right......of which you not a shred of real evidence while the evidence of Oswald is overwhelming.....get outta here....:)
The evidence you have is merely that presented by the establishment.
The establishment has no credibility. Its evidence is fake.
In fact, to find the most accurate conclusion, all you have to do is choose the one most resisted by the establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.