The Coup D'etat of November 1963

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

So, I present a headline from The Onion to please all conspiracy theorists. Makes about as much sense as any of them do alone.

Right after the movie JFK came out I was discussing it with my friend Rocky. He quipped that there must have been 20 people blazing away from the grassy knoll. I said "No, nobody shot from there. There were twenty people all doing this..." I then pantomimed a guy reaching into his coat, freezing, looking around at all the other people doing the same, then pushing his gun back into the holster under his coat, putting his hands behind his back and trying to look nonchalant

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Right after the movie JFK came out I was discussing it with my friend Rocky. He quipped that there must have been 20 people blazing away from the grassy knoll. I said "No, nobody shot from there. There were twenty people all doing this..." I then pantomimed a guy reaching into his coat, freezing, looking around at all the other people doing the same, then pushing his gun back into the holster under his coat, putting his hands behind his back and trying to look nonchalant

Funny!

My favorite blooper from the film. Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) and Lou Ivon (played by Jay O. Sander) walk the floor of the Texas Book Depository after the assassination and look out the windows. Lou has a Mannlicher-Carcano in his hand with a sight and clip. We see Oswald's supposed view of the limousine as he pulls the trigger. Now, innocuous traffic goes by, but the iris of the camera tightens into a sniper's scope.

Ivon--
The Zapruder film establishes 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. Here. I'm Oswald. Time me.
Lou cocks the Mannlicher for the first shot. Jim looks at his watch. Lou assumes the Oswald pose, crouched at the window aiming out.

Garrison--
Go!
Lou pulls, quickly recharges the bolt, fires, recycles, fires.

Lou--
Time?

Garrison
Between six and seven seconds.

The problems here. Jay O. Sanders just did get off three shots in under six seconds -- 5.6 seconds, to be precise if you watch the footage.

More importantly, the Warren Commission never stated that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots in under six seconds.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you continue to accuse those who disagree with you of not having the ability to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion on their own? It's not about believing the government, it's about making up our own minds. When are you going to figure that out?

I think he looked at the govts evidence and with other evidence found it not credible and made up his own mind.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I think he looked at the govts evidence and with other evidence found it not credible and made up his own mind.

That's fine. Now if he would give the same credence to me, we could actually have a conversation.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact the Oswald had already botched one assassination attempt that would have been easier to pull off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_W...nation_attempt

Don't know why people forget his attempt on Edwin Walker's life.

What I find strange is this attack seemed much more thought out and he still missed at 100 ft and planned his escape. Seems there was also another person involved.

Still, I don't think the govt was involved, I think it possible info they didn't release may have exposed Kennedy in some way they thought would endanger NS or embarrass his family and the nation. I think if any theory is true, it's mob related. Course I don't doubt at all that many in govt were elated he was dead.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...mafia-history/

"The House assassination committee's chief counsel and staff director, 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."

[TarJak]

The problem with the mob theory is the complete lack of credible evidence.

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

The problem with the mob theory is the complete lack of credible evidence.

Well, except for Jack Ruby that is...

[Catfish]

Oh theer has always been good connections between 'the Mob' and the CIA. Anyone remember the drug deals in the pre-Castro era ..

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

Well, except for Jack Ruby that is...

Really? Except there is ample evidence from people who actually knew Ruby that says his mob involvement was very peripheral at best:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby.htm


http://www.jfk-online.com//rubydef.html

Originally Posted by Catfish

Oh theer has always been good connections between 'the Mob' and the CIA. Anyone remember the drug deals in the pre-Castro era ..

And your point is? What credible evidence is there of CIA involvemen?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by TarJak

The problem with the mob theory is the complete lack of credible evidence.

It's a better theory when you look at the history of the JFK family and it's mob issues, better than the govt. did it theory....Seems rather reasonable when you look at all the players and other issues.

If we had complete evidence, it wouldn't be a theory....

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Really? Except there is ample evidence from people who actually knew Ruby that says his mob involvement was very peripheral at best

The perfect choice wouldn't you say? He hardy could have been a "made man".

[TarJak]

But relying on hearsay and witnesses without any credibility makes it harder to believe than simpler explanations for which the forensic and ballistic evidence is substantial and credible.

There is credible evidence that there was a lone gunman and a likely accident with a secret service gun. There is no credible evidence of mob or CIA involvement in a conspiracy.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

The perfect choice wouldn't you say? He hardy could have been a "made man".

No I wouldn't. He was unreliable and unstable. Why if they wanted to get rid of the witness that could have exposed the conspiracy, would they hand the authorities another witness who could expose them even more?

The theory makes no sense and even less so when you consider the lack of any hard evidence to back it up.

[Bubblehead1980]

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.

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?

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

No I wouldn't. He was unreliable and unstable. Why if they wanted to get rid of the witness that could have exposed the conspiracy, would they hand the authorities another witness who could expose them even more?

The theory makes no sense and even less so when you consider the lack of any hard evidence to back it up.

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?