Who was behind the killing of Kennedy?

[Dave In Canada]

Okay, I'll bite.

There is no way that Oswald could have gotten off those shots that quickly with the piece of crap he had in his hands. He was a patsy and probably only one of two shooters. I believe that Oswald took the shot that went thru Kennedy's throat and hit Connally. The one that took off the chunk off his head probably came from another shooter.

[Spy_007]

Correct, he could not have gotten off the shots. Also the only
bullet recovered that fit his rifle was found on the stretcher
at least 30 minutes after John Connally had been removed from
the stretcher. The bullet was pristine, which was an impossibility
when you consider that bullet fragments showed in xrays of
both JFK and Connally. With those fragments shown by xray
to be in two different bodies, the actual bullet could not have
been pristine missing none of its construction. Without that
one pristine bullet, there was no evidence that Oswalds
rifle was even used. The most logical answer to how the
bullet got on that stretcher was that it was planted. In
fact there was no actual evidence that Oswald was a
shooter. In fact the bullet on the stretcher is just another
factor setting up Oswald as you put it, as the "patsy".

[Dave In Canada]

Here is an interesting video about a computer simulation on the 1st shot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

[Spy_007]

I have seen this video before, and you have to put
it in context of the time it was done and the
purpose. It looks very convincing and good, as
it was intended to look. However, it really
has the purpose of making a story that seems
perfectly believable, and it is unless you know
a lot of facts that it leaves out. Also it
contains information that is assumption, and
one of those assumptions is that Oswald fired
the rifle, because it was his rifle and it had
his finger prints on it. It even assumes that
the rifle was fired, and for all we know a
different one could have been used and not
left behind, and that would explain other
individuals seen there at the time. It also
assumes the bullet found on the stretcher was
the one that came through the two individuals
and it goes to great lengths to show that it
COULD have happened just that way. It does not
though establish that is what did happen, only
that it could have. If you look at all the
information, like testimony of those eating lunch
with Oswald, that information says that Oswald
was not even on the high floor at the time of the
shooting but having a coke at a lower level just
after lunch, and that is what his coworkers said.
Now there was eye witness evidence of two men
standing in the window at the time of shooting
and neither eye witness identified features
that were those of Oswald. The video leaves
that eye witness testimony out. There was also
plenty of eye witness testimony that placed
a shooter across the street behind the wall.
This testimony was also suppressed.

To find out why these other facts were suppressed
you are going to have to read some thorough
disclosure such as the over 900 pages given
in "Ultimate Sacrifice". There is no way that
all the pertanent information can be covered
here or in a video that was made in so-far-as
we know in order to support the STORY of what
happened.

It is an established fact that the first two
official explanations were cover ups, so
anything connected with them is not to be
taken too serious. You have to look at the
whole picture.

The last official explanation given by the
HSCA came the closest to the truth and it's
explanation was that the mafia was behind
the hit. So if you want to believe the
official explanation, their last word was
mafia was behind it. This is not conspiracy
theory nuts, but the HSCA. Why would they
say that after years of investigating and
after receiving hundreds of new government
documents? The answer is pretty simple,
and it is because they were getting much
closer to the truth.

[Spy_007]

Here is a thought for you. Since even the HSCA finally came
to the conclusion that the Mafia was behind the killing, how
does that coincide with Oswald being the killer? Simply it
does not, since Oswald never had a connection to the mafia.
Oswald had no connection to organized crime. All his history
was connected with Communism, Russia, and Cuba. How
would you reconcile the Mafia contracting with someone like
Oswald to do a major killing, when he had never done one
before in his life? On top of that his marine records at shooting
showed that he could not hit a barn if he was inside it. He
had extreme trouble getting his bullets on the paper, forget
about hitting the bulls eye. He only achieved 2 points above
the lowest score they had for shooting. Why would the mafia
contract with a guy who never shot anyone and could not
shoot straight to do a major killing of a president? Next ask
yourself, why did Ruby kill Oswald? Ruby was mafia, had been
for all his adult life. Why would the mafia have someone kill
Oswald if they had contracted with Oswald to kill JFK? Your
knee jerk answer would be to keep his mouth shut. That would
also be the correct answer. What they were keeping shut
though was not information implicating the mafia, it was
information showing that Oswald did not kill JFK. By killing
him, it stopped him from talking about anything. It stopped
the story from coming out that the US was only about a
week away from backing a coup in Cuba. That is where
the investigation would have gone if the investigation
continued. The solution for keeping this lid on that information
was to let Oswald take the fall, and say it was a one man
nut killing the president. The strategy for Ruby was to get
him off with a couple year sentence, because the nature
of his crime in Texas that would have been a likely result.
It did not work out very well though because his lawyer
tried some really idiot defense and blew it, but this gave
the mafia immunity from getting punished for the killing of JFK
and it gave the CIA immunity from being exposed for being
up to their eyeballs in a coup against Castro in Cuba. So
you had the CIA doing their best to cover things up, and
their best is very good. Even Bobby Kennedy was deep in
the cover up, he had to be because he was the architect
of the Cuban coup plan. If you really get into the story deep,
you are amazed at all the people who were involved and also
all that were eventually killed to keep their mouths shut.
Possibly even Bobby eventually was killed over it. This is not
known for sure to have happened, but suspicion
is there because Sirhan's first lawyer was also the personal
lawyer of one of the main mafia figures that the HSCA finally
named as one of the figures behind JFK's assassination. Ask
yourself, is just coincidence that Sirhan's lawyer just happened
to get picked by chance, and turned out to be the lawyer
of one presumed to be behind JFK's killing? I hope O'Reilly
does a good job telling this story. It has been known for
some time, yet the average person has no clue about it.

[Jack]

To find out why these other facts were suppressed
you are going to have to read some thorough
disclosure such as the over 900 pages given
in "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Not only does it appear you're shilling for this book, it also appears you're staking all your claims on it, which means your opinion is no better informed than those who you denounce for believing the select committee's findings.

[Spy_007]

So, I am shilling for the book, and possibly for
the one coming out by O'Reilly. Every once in
a while a book comes along that stands above the
others, and is worth talking about. As to my
opinion being no better than the HSCA, well you
have to look at the evidence to judge whose
opinion is best. If you can look at the book
and see errors then you can make an informed
opinion, until then you are guessing in the
dark, aren't you.

[Spy_007]

Correction, I am not shilling for the book. I looked it up
in the dictionary.

shill - a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others
into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

I was not posing as a customer, or posing as buyer of the book.
I was an actual customer, a buyer. I bought it, paid for it, was
quite satisfied with it, and I am testifying for it, because it impressed me.

So you can take your shill comment and eat it. Hope it tastes good.

[Century 25]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/vanunu.html

[Spy_007]

Interesting, seems like everyone wants to get in on the
killing of JFK. On the surface this one seems far fetched,
since the reason given was that JFK opposed Ben Gurion.
Does not seem like much of a reason to assassinate
the president. If you want to look for further ties to
Israel, Jack Ruby was Jewish, but he worked for the
Mafia, not Israel. He had also been a CIA asset, when
the CIA used him for selling stolen arms to Cuban Guerillas.