SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The Coup D'etat of November 1963

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The Coup D'etat of November 1963 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=209276)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 2144659)

I find it naive to underestimate the power structure, especially of that time.Kennedy was a threat to the old guard, the heroes of WW II still ran the country.Eisenhower had just finished two terms, Curtis LeMay and other WW II "heroes" were in the highest echelons of the military.Allen Dulles, Helms, Cabal etc were all running the CIA.This was the height of the Cold War, people were literally building bomb shelters and schools ran drills.Kennedy sought to ease the cold war, this had him look like he was soft on the commies to the CIA , especially after the Bay of Pigs.Kennedy stopped trusting the old guard since they lied to him.Kennedy sought to stop the cash cow for the military industrial complex that would become the vietnam war.Kennedy was also going after the Federal Reserve, the ultimate seat of power, the bankers.These are relatively small circles in the bubble of D.C., they intermingle. Quite possible some on the military CIA side saw Kennedy's "soft" approach to Communism as a patriotic reason to take him out, others had financial motives.

The CIA and Mafia had colluded together on other things, entirely possible mob hitman were provided, Oswald who had intelligence training, was made to think he was part of the plane and had a way out and it's possible he did fire shots, but then was cut loose, sacrificed, made the patsy.Of course, we are not likely to know this anytime soon if ever, but it's what I and many others find most likely the truth as far as the who and why goes.

How they did it, just seems so easy to myself and others who see multiple shooters involved and the fatal hit coming from the front.I think the only solace, should something like this happen again, it would be much more difficult to pull it off with all the social media etc, much easier to muddy the waters back then, but then again, nothing would surprise me.

Based on what evidence?
The Zapruder film clearly shows the shot came from behind.

Anyone who sees multiple shooters other than Oswald and Hickey is seeing things that are not supported by any real evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2144698)

Hand them what exactly? It's not like Ruby would have to have been privy to a conspiracy, Oswald either for that matter. Now i'm not saying I buy any of this but Ruby is the only piece of the story that doesn't really fit, in my opinion of course.

Ever hear of a high profile killer just being executed like that by someone who had absolutely no connection to him or the victim?

So whoever tells Ruby to kill Oswald is immune from identification by Ruby somehow? How long it takes to get to the guy that is really calling the shots depends on how many blinds it goes through.

Ruby was considered deluaional, unstable and unpredictable by people who knew him well. Who knows what motivated him? It might have been a mob member whispering in his ear as much as it might have been his own mind deluding him to do it.

Either is as likely as the other. Ruby himself was making a lot of noise about getting to Washington to take a polygraph. The reason he did so was to prove that he wasn't part of a conspiracy. The information debunking the CT rubbish about Ruby is in the links I posted earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak (Post 2144708)

Well like I said I don't buy into any conspiracy theories on the JFK murder but you have to admit Oswalds murder was pretty odd.

[QUOTE=Aktungbby;2142519] in goes Jack Ruby?!!(the real smoking gun) ta finish da' job keep his omerta and die of cancer conveniently;[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 2144504)

I think if any theory is true, it's mob related.
, G. Robert Blakey, told the New York Times in 1979 that in his own mind, the link was much clearer. "I think the Mob did it," he said."

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2144564)

Well, except for Jack Ruby that is...

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2144698)

Hand them what exactly? It's not like Ruby would have to have been privy to a conspiracy, Oswald either for that matter. Now i'm not saying I buy any of this but Ruby is the only piece of the story that doesn't really fit, in my opinion of course.
Ever hear of a high profile killer just being executed like that by someone who had absolutely no connection to him or the victim?

Its really the only thing that makes sense in the long run; Jack and Bobby made serious anti-mob waves, including the teamsters/Hoffa, and debts of honor involving their bootlegger daddy, Joseph senior who had back-channeled his son's victory at the polls, with unrequited gambling issues related to Cuba, and, at the outside, one seriously annoyed mob don who was deported under Bobby's watch. The mob always squares accounts; and Ruby, the 'foot soldier' with 'nothing to lose' was the the closer of loose ends ie 'patsy' removal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2144714)

Well like I said I don't buy into any conspiracy theories on the JFK murder but you have to admit Oswalds murder was pretty odd.

I agree it was odd. But then by all accounts so was Jack Ruby himself.

What makes more sense is a lone nutter with a gun was killed by another lone nutter with a gun. One driven by hatred of his government the other by hatred of the man who deprived his country of its leader.

Haven't any one of you think that Ruby just toke the law in his own hand and killed Lee, whatever Lee was guilty or not.

Remember when Reagan was shot? The shoter was not only arrested, they also made a human ring around him. They would not make the same mistake again.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2144839)

Haven't any one of you think that Ruby just toke the law in his own hand and killed Lee, whatever Lee was guilty or not.

I've thought of it but I can't see Ruby's motive for doing it. It's not like Oswald was going to be set free. He'd have gone to the chair for sure, and as far as I know low level Hoodlums aren't given to acts of civic sacrifice even if that wasn't the case.

Quote:

Remember when Reagan was shot? The shoter was not only arrested, they also made a human ring around him. They would not make the same mistake again.

Sure they would. A lot of investigative doors were closed when Ruby shot Oswald.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 2144659)

I plan to visit Dallas here soon, will check out the Plaza etc and see for myself where oswald allegedly shot from etc.Anyone here been there before?

I visited Dealey Plaza while passing through the Dallas-Fort Worth area in back in 1987. I was actually surprised by how small and close-up the whole spread was. 50 meters seems an easy shot with iron sites, much less a scope. The motorcade was not moving fast, and took the corner right in front of Oswald's position. For any trained marksman, it doesn't seem it would be very difficult. Of course that's given rise to a bizarre conspiracy theory that everything has been "moved around" since 1963.

There were some decent BBQ joints nearby at the time as well. :up:

What if

Oswald had some debts to the mob and wanted to go in jail to save his life so he shot Kennedy, to make himself a public figure in jail.
And the mob sent Ruby to whack him before they put him away.

What if Oswald had a thing for Jackie and wanted the husband out of the way, and Ruby had a thing with John and was heartbroken?

Now that would be a good plotline for a more female oriented JFK movie.
A presidential soap opera. A love hexagon turned conspiracy

[QUOTE=TarJak;2144708]Based on what evidence?
The Zapruder film clearly shows the shot came from behind.

Anyone who sees multiple shooters other than Oswald and Hickey is seeing things that are not supported by any real evidence.

Based on the film, watch him snap back and down from the frontal impact.Even if he was shot from the back, he was clearly shot from the front as well, which makes the simultaneous shot theory possible, although I don't believe it, think he was just hit from the front.Going in with the reports of multiple shots by witnesses who heard them, the grassy knoll witnesses etc.Even the house committee found a conspiracy was likely.

It has been explained several times that bodies react in various ways to a sudden impact. Yet again you refuse to discuss or even address that, but jump right back into the same song.

Also, the Warren Commission is all lies and cover-up, but the House Committe is now valid evidence? This is called only seeing the evidence you want to, AKA picking and choosing.

I don't trust the Zapruder film at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 2145093)

Even the house committee found a conspiracy was likely.

Are you trying to say that you're trusting the government on this one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 2145093)

Based on the film, watch him snap back and down from the frontal impact.Even if he was shot from the back, he was clearly shot from the front as well, which makes the simultaneous shot theory possible, although I don't believe it, think he was just hit from the front.Going in with the reports of multiple shots by witnesses who heard them, the grassy knoll witnesses etc.Even the house committee found a conspiracy was likely.

So other than a head movement which could have multiple other explanations you don't have any hard evidence.