Posted on 11/20/2009 11:29:24 AM PST by AtlasStalled
LBJ was in there somewhere
“Nothing I have read gets me to the place that LHO was smart enough or committed (witness his ‘defection’) enough to have pulled this off by himself”
He was stupid to even want to go, but you can’t say he wasn’t committed enough in the case of his defection. How many libs talked about it? He actually went. As for the shooting, how much committment did it take? He only need have planned it sometime before he went home and picked up his rifle and after he learned JFKs head would be passing by his window.
Pretty simple thought process. I have a gun; I have bullets; I can carry the gun in and say it’s something else; I can get to an upper floor and wait. What he didn’t plan is how he’d get away with it, but he didn’t need to. That’s the sort of detail lone nuts don’t bother with.
Your smarts issue is misguided. How smart do you have to be to shoot someone? It’s not like he got away with it. Heck, billions of people on the planet are smart enough to shoot someone and get caught.
“Yes, his commitment to life in the USSR was, oh wait, no it wasn’t.”
Actually, his commitment was solid. So very few carry out such plans. As for not remaining committed after he arrived, that’s another matter. It’s called facing up to grim reality. Fanatical socialists have been honest enough to cop to the Soviet Union being a living hell.
But to arrive at the meat of the matter, your whole committment obsession is off the mark. Oswald was not enlisting in the Marxist army to fight as long as it takes. Assassinating people for lone nuts is not a conscious decision to do the deed and face the consequences for the cause.
It’s more akin to committing suicide by shooting yourself in the head or jumping off a building. You make the decision once, often in the heat of the moment, and then it’s done. Your entire committment is over as soon as it goes into action. Same with Oswald’s decision to shoot Kennedy. He couldn’t take it back, no matter what he felt, unlike with the defection.
So when you speak of him not having the commitment to stick it out in Russia as proof of his not being able to kill JFK, I call bunk. Whatever he did in one case has nothing to do with the other. Think about it closer, and his troubles in Russia is proof of the opposite, i.e. that he’s the sort of person who would throw his life away on a whim. He pulled the trigger and went to Russia without realizing how much he would hate it. He liked to pull big triggers.
“There are so many theories, including the lone gunman, that I’m not sure what we can see through the smoke”
I’ll tell you how to clear the smoke: HARD EVIDENCE. Only one side has it: the anti-Oswald side.
All conspiracy theorists do is pick apart Warren Commission evidence, conjecture based on uncorroborated “evidence” like deathbed confessions, and dispute the new arguments brought forth by anti-conspiracy agents. Conspiracy nuts have found nothing, absolutely nothing, concrete demonstrating that either Oswald was innocent or some other individual or group was involved.
“What about those three hobos, huh? That’s pretty weird, them three hobos and stuff, huh?”
Not to mention the guy with the umbrella. It wasn’t even raining! That must mean he was a super-spy with poisonous darts or an “ice bullet” or something. I mean, it’s not everyday you see an umbrella near a president.
That film has been slaved over so often I’m surprised there hasn’t been a book written about what each individual blade of grass knew and when it knew it.
“I have read both pro-sewer and anti-sewer, but I can’t remember the arguments.”
The arguments are as follows:
(Pro-sewer) It couldn’t have been Oswald, because I don’t want it to be, so the real shooter must have been somewhere. Umm...in the sewer! It was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles! That’s the ticket.
(Anti-sewer) The trajectories don’t fit. Horrible spot to shoot from, in any case. Someone would have seen it. Besides, why not choose any number of other spots from the surrounding buildings? I mean, who shoots from a sewer? It’s weird.
I’m just reporting the facts as was reported in the newspaper in that time. You can draw your own conclusions, or none if you choose. The discussion was about Carlos Marcello maybe killing the Kennedys, and this newspaper article was part of the discussion. Read into it whatever you want.
“I stand by my statement. Yes, I do know. Ask my cousins Dominic and Guido.”
Please, provide a list of all the famous government authorities that were killed by the American mafia. What does it amount to? Cops? A judge or two? Maybe a DA? I don’t know. But that wasn’t the rule, and if any of them were within 72 steps on the hierarchy of the president, I’ll eat my hat.
Mafiosos ae businessmen, in a manner of speaking, not crazy blood-feuders. Killing the president offers no certain benefit and a suicidal risk to the bottom line.
I am not one to worry too much about Kennedy’s death, but, an older friend recently died, so I guess I can pass on his story:
He was a young Navy SEAL and was assigned to the CIA. He was originally going to help with the Bay of Pigs, but was not deployed (lucky...)
He told me that some of the folks he worked with killed Kennedy as retribution for the loss of CIA operatives in the failed Cuba invasion. He directed me to this URL and said this was 99% accurate:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html
Essentially, the CIA shot a poison-filled flechette at Keenedy’s throat from a 15-20 foot distance. The poison paralyzed Kennedy so others could have an easier shot.
Food for thought.
I actually think that Connely shot him when he turned towards him and that Johnson took the kill shot from his limo. My book comes out November, 2010.
“The poison paralyzed Kennedy so others could have an easier shot.”
Why bother? He wasn’t dancing the Charleston in the back of that limo. He was basically a stationary target and Oswald had three tries to hit him where it counted.
Wow!!! that interview is terrific.
Just last month I visited Dee Lee Plaza in Dallas and the Johnson Ranch in Johnson City. There was no question but that LBJ was involved and that was my note in the visitor’s register.
The whole incident is fresh after the visits. The National Park Service guide asked me “ How in the world did Al gore ever lose Tennessee.” I guess it is because he did not have enough folks killed.
LBJ was the servant of the people and squandered their money on himself and his ranch.
Oswald's motive was to show his wife he was 'somebody'. He didn't expect another wanna-be-somebody, like Ruby to kill him.
The Kennedy assassination isn't about all the people gunning for him (pun intended), it's about Oswald.
There is business, there is personal.
They do what they do, because they are who they are.
Did they kill Kennedy, I don’t know. All I am saying is if they did, know one would know.
lol...
The Fed is not a person and is therefore not responsible.
.......I did not know that Johnson thought he was about to be indicted......
Me either. For What was he to be indicted.
I concluded years ago that LBJ was responsible.
I watched the youtube clip with one of Johnson's girldfriends about the meeting in Texas the night before the assassination. Her story is revealing about some of the power players in Texas and how they felt about the Kennedys; including some damning statements from and about LBJ.
“There is business, there is personal.
They do what they do, because they are who they are.”
I’m not sure what ou’re saying. I am sure mobsters sometimes allow personal matters to affect their business. But that usually amounts to “I’m gonna whack the guy who hit my sister,” not, “Hey, let’s go jeopardize the future of our livelihood with little to no hope of advantage and kill the most powerful man on earth!”
“Oswald, from the TSBD, with 3 shots. 1 miss, 2 hits.”
Really, it’s more like two misses, since the target was presumably his head.
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.