Cuba paid Oswald to kill JFK?

I don't know much about this stuff, but found this interesting...

Cuba paid Oswald to kill Kennedy, new film says

By Mark Trevelyan

Cuba lay behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald and its agents provided the gunman with money and support, an award-winning German director says in a new documentary film.

Wilfried Huismann spent three years researching "Rendezvous with Death ["Rendezvous mit dem Tod"]," based on interviews with former Cuban secret agents, U.S. officials and a Russian intelligence source, and on research in Mexican security archives.

The film, shown to journalists in Berlin on Wednesday, says Oswald traveled to Mexico City by bus in September 1963, seven weeks before the Kennedy shooting, and met agents at the Cuban embassy there who paid him $6,500.

Oscar Marino, a former Cuban agent and a key source for the documentary, told Huismann that Oswald himself had volunteered for the assassination mission and Havana had exploited him.

"Oswald was a dissident. He hated his country...Oswald offered to kill Kennedy," Marino said in the film.

"He was so full of hate, he had the idea. We used him...He was a tool."

He said he knew with certainty that the assassination was an operation of the Cuban secret service G-2, but would not say if it was ordered by President Fidel Castro.

Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby two days after killing Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

The film argues Cuba wanted to eliminate Kennedy as the chief enemy of its Communist revolution, and portrays him and Castro as dueling opponents each trying to assassinate the other first.

Former CIA official Sam Halpern told Huismann: "He (Castro) beat us. He bested us. He came out on top, and we lost."

FBI PROBE ABORTED

Laurence Keenan, an officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who was sent to Mexico City immediately after Kennedy's death to investigate a possible Cuban connection, said he was recalled after just three days and the probe was aborted.

"This was perhaps the worst investigation the FBI was ever involved in," Keenan said. "I realized that I was used. I felt ashamed. We missed a moment in history."

Keenan, 81, said he was convinced Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, blocked further investigation because proof of a Cuban link would put him under irresistible pressure to invade the island, a year after the Cuban missile crisis had brought the United States and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.

"Most likely there would have been an invasion of Cuba which could have had unknown consequences for the whole world," he told journalists at the screening, saying that was why Johnson preferred to accept Oswald was "a crazed lone Marxist assassin."

Interviewed for the film, Alexander Haig, then a U.S. military adviser and later secretary of state, quoted Johnson as saying "we simply must not allow the American people to believe that Fidel Castro could have killed our president."

"And the reason was that there would be a right-wing uprising in America, which would keep the Democratic party out of power for two generations," Haig said.

He added that Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the assassinated president and attorney general in his administration, had personally ordered eight attempts on the life of Castro, who is still in power to this day.

Cuban and Russian sources interviewed in the film say the KGB alerted the Cubans to Oswald in mid-1962 after he left the Soviet Union, where he had lived for three years, and returned to the United States with his Soviet wife and their daughter.

Cuban intelligence first made contact with Oswald in November 1962, according to the film.

Huismann also unearthed a U.S. intelligence report shown to Johnson which said Cuban secret service chief Fabian Escalante flew via Mexico City to Dallas on the day of Kennedy's assassination, and back again the same day.

Tracked down by the film maker, Escalante denied he had been in Dallas and evaded questions about Cuba's alleged role. "What is truth, what are lies?" he said, smiling.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

--

(There's more about this on German site radiobremen which you can translate by plugging the URL into Babel Fish )

An interesting theory but some things just don't add up. Why would Lee Harvey use a post office box to get the gun when he could have walked into any store, given a fake name and got an untracable gun that way? Also if it was Cuba, why did the FBI f*ck the investigation up so much other than Johnson telling them not to? I believe our government helped kill Kennedy but I don't think it would have ever aligned itself with Cuba, espeically in those days

Thanks for posting that Geoff. Interesting. I've always believed that Oswald was hired or used by someone or some organization. Be it the Mob, Russia, Cuba or the CIA. IMO someone or some organization was behind his shooting Kennedy. I also believe that he did NOT act alone and was one amongst several shooters.

Somehow, and I don't know exactly how, Jack Ruby was put up to killing Oswald.

There is no doubt in my mind that the whole Kennedy / Oswald assasination was the result of a conspiracy, and not the act of a crazed lone gunman.


Don Cardi

Seems rather unlikely to me, especially since Cuba's middleman was meeting with U.S. officials in France at the time of the JFK assassination to work out details of a mutual agreement for peaceful coexistance.

Not only that, but Oswald was practically thrown out by Russia and denied by Cuba, if I recall, so it doesn't seem likely that the Cubans would make an organized effort to use him, especially if the United States had tied them to Oswald.

As someone who has researched the JFK assassination quite a bit (currently reading the latest book "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Hartman), there is no doubt that the Kennedys both hated Castro, and that they had used the mob to attempt assassinations against him. Whether or not the Cubans "struck back" (as books like Gus Russo's "Live By the Sword" claim) with enough power is one of many theories that still are open to discussion.

For starters, DC, regarding Oswald/Ruby, I'd read Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK," which delves into the history of Ruby quite profusely. Also, it explores James Angleton, CIA spyhunter who many believe played a role in the orchestration of Kennedy's murder.

As you know, JG, from having had the opportunity to personally examine my library, I'm a bit if a JFK assassination buff, and have read about 25 books or so on the subject.

As Don Cardi correctly points out, conspiracy theories abound.

In addition to the culprits he cited (CIA, Mafia, Castro, Russia), there are also theories - as legitimate as any of the others - which connect Lyndon Johnson and the Texas oil interests to JFK's death, another which blames conspirators who were members of a U.S. "shadow government" and part of the "military-industrial complex" which President Eisenhower warned the country about in one of his final addresses to the nation, and others which involve two of these groups working together, as in "the CIA hired some Mafia hitmen."

Despite all of the study I have devoted to the subject, though, I have never been able to definitely reach a conclusion in my own mind as to who exactly was responsible.

Every theory I've read makes sense, and yet every one of them has a hole or two in it here and there.

The only two things that I personally am certain of is that Lee Harvey Oswald, if he was, in fact, one of the shooters (and I'm not even sure of that), absolutely did not act alone, and that Jack Ruby, in killing Oswald, was in some way involved in the plot himself.

"The Cubans did it" is low on my list of probable scenarios, though.

I believe that the cover-up began almost immediately, particulary in the way that the autoposy was mishandled, and the only way that an immediate coverup could have begun would be if some branch (read: CIA) of the government had been involved.

There is no way Fidel Castro could have gotten the coverup rolling immediately, if at all.

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination itself, no one seemingly had any way of knowing who was responsible, and even though Oswald was caught a mere few hours later, no one seemingly had any idea as to the extent of his involvement or who he was working for or with.

But if you agree that the coverup started almost immediately and continued two days later with Ruby killing Oswald, then you have to agree that there was government participation.

And since the factions in our government who had the motives for seeking JFK's removal were vehemently anti-Communist, it's impossible to picture them working with Castro.

Note to JJ:

If you are still studying the case, what you should realize, if you don't already, is that there is a strong possibility that the coverup is still going on.

You have to be very careful what you believe, particularly in light of the fact that all of the arguments for the various conspiracy theories are presented so plausibly, and be aware of the fact that there are those who suggest that even today, some authors are deliberately throwing false conspiracy theories and misinformation out there to help continue to hide the truth.

You should also know that my being alive at the time of JFK's assassination and watching the events unfold and being old enough to understand them,and believing in a conspiracy and coverup, was probably the biggest single factor which contributed to my present distrust of our government.

One that seems irrational to me despite the claims of Oliver Stone, Fletcher Prouhy, et al. JFK was responsible for the largest boost in military financing in history up to 1963, which makes no sense if one tries to say that the MIC killed Kennedy because he was going to pull out of Vietnam. Citing NSC 263 and 273, they claim that Kennedy was going to completely withdraw from Vietnam outright. Yet, the withdrawal of advisors had already been going on before NSC 263 had been enacted by Kennedy.

To me, the military-industrial complex theory never held much ground, in my personal opinion. If I had to make any guesses (and since I'm writing a thesis surrounding the Kennedys and crime, with overlaps into the JFK assassination, I think I'm allowed to speculate), I'd have to say that the mob was certainly involved in the assassination, no question. Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, Jr., both had motive, and Frank Ragano has come forth with quotes and stories of both regarding the assassination and how the mob were the culprits (take these for what you will, the believebility of Ragano is highly speculative). How else did Ruby get into the Dallas police department, evading guards, and killing Oswald? And Ruby was also at the press conference where they annouced they had apprehended Oswald. In fact, if you listen, he is the one who corrects the speaker regarding Oswald and the "Fair Play for Cuba" committee.

I don't think the mob acted alone however. Plaw has brought up the unusual circumstances surrounding the autopsy. Again, this is where I think that some government entity, be it James Jesus Angleton, or someone else, played at the very least a supporting role in what happened on November 22nd, 1963.

you know i read this interesting book called AMERICAN TABLOID its by the author of l.a. confidential. it deals with the whole conspirecy..and how everyone from the fbi to the cia and even tabloid journalists were in on it. obviously the book is fiction, but interesting nonetheless. check it out everyone.

Have you read either ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS by Jim Garrison or CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY by Jim Marrs? These 2 books were what the movie was based off of

plawerence is right there probably is still a coverup in the JFK assasination. Some think it might have been set up because of the LBJ regime. There are many theories behind this. People hated JFK because he was different than everyone before him. It was tragic that he died he wouldve been a key figure in the anti-communism time.

We all know why Johnson would want Kennedy dead but what were the texas oil interests and why would they want JFK dead? Just so if Lyndon got into office he'd make them more rich than they already were?

Undoubtedly, I wholeheartedly agree. While we may never find out the true causation for the Kennedy assassination, it is safe to assume that at the very least, we won't find out until those who could be implicated or damaged by that information are all dead. However, I believe there are documents scheduled to be released 2017 that could (and should) shed new light on areas we previously haven't been able to see.

No doubt. I would place the assassination of JFK as a landmark event in our history, perhaps rivaled only by Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves, the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and the adoption of the Constitution. Certainly, JFK has been the single most pivotal event in the last 50 years.

I obviously wasn't alive when JFK was murdered but the movie, and theories have had a profound impact on me and have in part contributed to my distrust of the government as well. If they can murder the President of the United States in front of our eyes and get away with it by selling the American public the lemon of "the magic bullet theory" ( ) then what exactly else have they done and what are they capable of doing?

I'm fairly confident we'll never know the full truth. I wouldn't be surprised if we never saw the documents that are scheduled to be released in 2017

People hated the Kennedys in general long before JFK was even born. Joseph P. Kennedy ruined livelihoods by underhanded dealings in the stock market and was a bootlegger in competition with people like Frank Costello. I recommend "The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster" by John H. Davis.

Not in their entirety, but I have looked at both books and cited them. No doubt Garrison has a compelling theory, but there are also many people who disagree with him. Gerald Posner, whose book I take with a grain of salt ("Case Closed" was the controversial book that the media lapped up because he claimed to have proven that Oswald was the lone gunman).

There was a documentary not that long ago (I believe it was on the Discovery Channel) that actually proved the magic bullet theory was true. They re-enacted the entire sequence using realistic body models and gel casts in order to replicate the JFK assassination, and their results were eerily similar. What has previously been stated regarding the magic bullet is often biased or speculative, because most ignore the height differences between the seats of Kennedy and Connally. I cite this program as definitive evidence that whomever fired the particular magic bullet shot (#2 of Oswalds, I believe, if we go by the sequence of the Warren Commission) could very well have happened in that instance regardless of any conspiracy. I know that it sounds hard to believe, and I didn't the first time I heard about the documentary, but after watching it, I'm at least 90% sure that the magic bullet sequence isn't just theory or speculation, and that there was nothing magic about the bullet or its trajectory.

You can find the documentary here.

Well, the whole point of them being withheld by President Johnson until 2039 was for "national security reasons." But I think that they bound by the 1992 JFK Records Collection Act to release them, and, if by nothing else, the Freedom of Information Act. But again, what these documents could hold is highly speculative.

I've actually been intrigued recently by the re-internment of JFK's body, and the whereabouts of his brain (which, according to some photos, might have been in a box that was seen nearby RFK and the Cardinal, re-interred along with JFK).

I find Ruby's "Fair Play" comment and very presence at the Friday evening press conference, along with his obvious ties to local Dallas mobsters and his Chicago origins, to be the single most persuasive piece of evidence that the mob was in some way involved.

BTW, JJ, what have you read besides those which you mentioned?

I read a spate of early books back in the mid-sixties which raised many questions, but provided few answers.

Then I read another round when the Stone film came out, some of it reissued and updated versions of earlier stuff, and some of it new.

But the most recent book I read, I think, was Posner's aplogia for the Warren Report, Case Closed (1993), and Harold Weisberg's response, Case Open (1994).

Oh, and Mrs. Paine's Garage (Thomas Mallon, 2002).

I haven't read as many books on the assassination as Plaw, but I went on a JFK binge after seeing the movie and read approximately 15 different books. No one theory is without its flaws. I personally don't think Cuba was involved with Oswald. If they were, the US and the American people would have definitely supported attacking Cuba, where just one year before JFK's murder Cuba was holding nuclear weapons for the Soviets.

If it was the Mob, they farmed their work out by hiring non-mafia gunmen. Not out of the realm, to be sure, but not all that likely. There were lots of mob connections to JFK, Ruby, and Oswald, but I think they were not involved in the killing.

Again, this has just as many flaws as the other versions. But I think the CIA/FBI was in on it. Not to the level Oliver Stone portrays in his film, but a few key people. Why? JFK was working to dissolve the CIA and some very prominent people lost their jobs under JFK (Allen Dulles, Helms, etc.) Other reasons: JFK and the CIA were at odds the entire tenure of his administration. He blamed them for the faulty info with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. They pressured to get Kennedy to invade Cuba and then commit more troops to Vietnam. And Kennedy opposed both and was always skeptical of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs. And Hoover from the FBI hated the Kennedys and most certainly wasn't in on the killing, but was also not sorry to see him go.

Throw in the fact that Oswald was in the CIA, along with some of his buddies like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and
Guy Bannister. Oswald was obviously on some kind of covert mission for our government in order to be able to travel so freely to Cuba and Russia after renouncing his US citizenship.

IMO, it's a mystery that no one will ever have the complete answer to, not even 100 years from now.

The Texas Conspiracy by Craig I. Zirbel

Google the author. There's some interesting stuff there.

JFK had threatened to eliminate the U.S. Tax Code's oil depletion allowance, which would have cost Texas oilmen a fortune, so that was supposedly the motive.

LBJ was allegedly their stooge. It had very little to do with Johnson's desire for the presidency.

Too numerous to mention all of them, but some of those that I rely on for my research are both Kennedy biographies and assassination books. I like both the aforementioned Davis Dynasty and Disaster as well as Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life. I don't care for Hersh's Dark Side of Camelot or Thomas Reeves Question of Character because they take a particularly negative look at Kennedy, and I much prefer objective biographies.

With regards to the assassination, the ones I can think of off the top of my head are the aforementioned Russo's Live By The Sword, David Scheim's Contract on America, Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Gerald Posner's Case Closed, Morrow's First Hand Knowledge, and the current Hartman release, Ultimate Sacrifice. I've cited many more, but have not actually read their entireties, and have documented many other sources including the Warren Report, the HSCA (what I can find, at least, with thanks to Turnbull ), Fletcher Prouty (in both his book and his claims on the bonus disc of the JFK special edition).

I'm in the process of obtaining other notable works, especially Davis' book on Carlos Marcello and the Kennedy assassination, as well as the books by the grassy knoll witnesses.

That was the rationale for not bringing the Cuban involvement (if any) to light.

The very same Allen Dulles who served on the Warren Commission. :rolleyes:

Hmmm........I wonder

I wouldn't say working to dissolve the CIA, but certainly he distrusted them after the Bay of Pigs, no doubt.

Hoover is an interesting figure, especially because his files magically disappeared after his death (James Jesus Angleton again?). JEH had the dirt on both of the Kennedys, and was not stupid. As long as he could manipulate the current President, he had no need to whack JFK. The Kennedys might have hated Hoover, but they couldn't risk the destruction of their public image in exchange for Hoover's removal. This is why I believe Hoover wasn't directly involved, but, most likely, did turn the other way when it happened.

There have been many contradicting stories regarding Oswald going back and forth from Mexico, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the United States. Some claim that he was expedited back into the country, while others say it was normal procedure. And the Oswald who had been allegedly spotted in Mexico didn't look much like the *real* Oswald.

I've read a few of those, JJ.

I could recommend several more, but no reasearch into the case can be complete without reading Mark Lane's seminal work, Rush To Judgement (1966).

That was the first one to ask many of the questions that remain unanswered to this day.

Also his 1991 follow-up, Plausible Denial, about possible CIA involvement.

I'll have to take a look at my University's libraries and archives, since it appears the Lane book is now out of print. Actually, both of his books are out of print (btw, are you "Acute Observer," the reviewer at Amazon.com?)

"Rush to Judgment" was one that I read. If I recall, that came out in approx 1966, not long after the Warren Report was released.

Another good one was "Best Evidence," with the contention that the Parkland surgeons and coroners altered JFK's body surgically in order to conceal that there was a frontal headshot.

Did anyone read "JFK" by Fletcher Prouty? He contends to be the basis for the "X" character in JFK (portrayed by Donald Sutherland). That was interesting, if nothing else. He makes a lot of claims, but there are not too many who can dispute or support those claims based on his classified work within the intelligence community.

I totally agree. Ruby had too many different ties to various mobsters and it would be too much of a coincidence that he shot Oswald because he felt that it was his patriotic duty.

I also agree with you that there was, and still is, a cover-up going on by our government. Stories like this one, that Geoff posted are interesting, but when stories like this come out it makes me believe that our government is putting these kinds of stories out to cast doubt on the possibility that they themselves were originally part of the conspiracy.

As for that magic bullet not being a magic bullet, well JJ, with all die respect I do not buy it one bit. No one will ever convince me that Oswald was the lone shooter, fired those shots in such a short time, and that one bullet traveled the way that it did, up, down, sideways and did all that damage. I believe that the shooters, including Oswald, shot from different angles.

Personally I think that the government and the mob were in cohoots with the killing of JFK.


Don Cardi

No, JJ, the only places I've ever reviewed anything are here and IMDb.

The copy of "Rush" that I have is a paperback version, re-issued in 1992 by Thunder's Mouth Press (New York).

I'm sure you can find a copy on e-bay. It's a must-read.

Plausible Denial is from the same publisher (1992).

Have you read either ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS by Jim Garrison or CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY by Jim Marrs? These 2 books were what the movie was based off of [/b][/quote]I have read both. The movie borrows quite a bit from both. That's why Oliver Stone was attacked so much for basing the movie on Garrison's account.

He was the basis for Mr. X. In fact, he was one of the technical advisors for the film. And, he appears in a documentary on the JFK: Director's Cut Special Edition disc 2.

I never tried to convince anyone that Oswald was the lone shooter, especially since I don't believe it myself. I fully believe in the triangulation theories proposed by many researchers (i.e. Texas School Book Depository, grassy knoll/railroad fence, sewers/umbrella man/etc.). However, this documentary conclusively proves that there was nothing magic about the magic bullet and that information regarding its trajectory and condition has often been intentionally misrepresented.

Read all three.

Best Evidence was credibly written, yet really hard to believe, I think. Not that I didn't believe it, but what a wild story, huh?

The Prouty book was a bit convoluted and hard to follow at times if I remember correctly, and, as you say, it's impossible to judge its objectivity or truth.

See, here we go again....

Is there anything in this case that can be conclusively proved?

Who knows if this evidence which disproves the magic of the magic bullet is not of the manufactured variety.

That, to me, is the big problem here.

Evidence, autopsy photos, ballistic tests, "expert" recreations......

Who the hell knows what was tampered with or manufactured and what wasn't, and who the tamperers or manufacturers were.

Same for the documents that may or may not be released in 2017.

I'm thoroughly convinced at this point that the truth is totally muddled, the evidence completely tainted, and that we'll never know what really happened.

Oh yeah, I read that one too. Maybe I read more than I initially remembered. I also read Posner's "Case Closed" and found his attitude to be very condescending and pompous. He didn't change my mind to believe his premise that Oswald was the lone gunman.

I remember the first time I watched the movie JFK. I had never seen the footage of Kennedy being shot. I watched the 3 hours and was mesmerized. As soon as it was over, I rewound the tapes and watched it again until 2 a.m. From that point, for about the next year & a half, was when I did all my reading on the assassination.

On the 30th anniversary of 11/22/63, NBC re-ran its original coverage of the news of the killing, Oswald's arrest, etc. It was fascinating to watch b/c it was so different than coverage of modern catastrophe's, like 9/11 for instance. There was so much less information back then and so much more speculation. It was also amazing to see these television guys just talk on-air, smoke incessantly, and offer anything that came to mind.

Well, I certainly don't think that the Discovery documentary is disinformation from some government source. I'd recommend the documentary to anyone interested in the JFK assassination. As someone who was skeptical about the magic bullet, it has pretty much convinced me that it could have happened. The point of the film, as aforementioned, isn't to prove whether Oswald was the lone gunman or not, but that the shot fired known as the "magic bullet" could have occurred and was successfully recreated.

I also highly recommend the History Channel/A&E's documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

Walter Cronkite's famous broadcast, which is seen in JFK, is an image that stays in your mind forever.

As I say, "So they say".

Hey JJ, what happened to you in the Fantasy Hockey Game?

Just kidding. I absolutely DO NOT want to know.

It was a government conspira....



:p

I agree with you 100% on this

Have you read either ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS by Jim Garrison or CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY by Jim Marrs? These 2 books were what the movie was based off of [/b][/quote]I have read both. The movie borrows quite a bit from both. That's why Oliver Stone was attacked so much for basing the movie on Garrison's account. [/b][/quote]Really? I didn't know much about his bashing. I received both books for Christmas but it'll be awhile before I read them (got too much to read first) but I am very much excited to read both of them

Well didn't some military branch conduct a reenactment shortly after Kennedy's murder? And their 2 best sharpeshooters couldn't match Oswald's performance, who was a medium shot at best. Not to mention the defective scope that was on the gun and the piece of sh*t gun that it was in the first place.

I beg to differ, JJ.

I was working in Jersey City on 9/11, with a great view of lower Manhattan. Everyone in my building who didn't have a clear look from their windows at the World Trade Center was standing in the street, watching the towers burn.

I was standing next to a woman who was somewhat older than I am, who was standing next to a young man in this twenties who was obviously a co-worker of hers.

I remember remarking to the woman, as I gestured to the young man next to her, "Just as the Kennedy assassination was the defining moment in our lives, this will be the defining moment in his."
I'll say it again, IM:

Who knows?

If you believe, as I do, that the coverup is on-going to this day, then any piece of evidence, photograph, statement, test, re-enactment, or what have you, is suspect.

We just don't know whether or not it's tainted, and we don't know the true motives of those who are presenting it.

You want to talk about the gun? Well, how's this:

If Oswald wasn't one of the shooters, then the gun found in the Texas School Book Depository may not have been one that was used in the first place.

Or maybe Oswald was a shooter, using a different gun.

I don't want to get into a lot of detail here, but the first cop on the scene (supposedly a firearms expert) who found the gun described it as a german mauser. It wound up becoming an italian Mannlicher Carbine (sp?).

Maybe someone else was there as a shooter using a different gun.

Maybe there are interests who at first wanted us to think that Oswald was a shooter, and then to cover up who the real shooters were threw up a smokescreen about Oswald being one of them.

Or not being one of them.

We just don't know

Although both books have many similarities in their theorizing, both have somewhat different POVs.

The Stone film is based primarily on the Garrison book. But because of his interweaving of some of the theories presented in Crossfire, Stone was roundly criticized.

One good thing the film did, though, was to bring the JFK assassination back into the limelight and renew public interest, not to mention creating interest among a new and younger generation, people like you and JJ.

Long after I'm gone, it will hopefully be the curiosity of people like you guys who will keep the questions alive and keep pressing for answers.

I've not read as many books a you guys, but have seen probably most documentaries on JFK's assassination. I have gone over the several main scenarios in my mind every now and then throughout the years, and can't say I know any answers either. The "Cuba" connection, to me anyway, seems the least likely. The mob and/or our government (CIA, FBI????)I don't rule out. There "had" to be insiders involved in order to pull it off.

Posted by PLaw:

You should also know that my being alive at the time of JFK's assassination and watching the events unfold and being old enough to understand them,and believing in a conspiracy and coverup, was probably the biggest single factor which contributed to my present distrust of our government.

You're not alone there PLaw. I dare say most babyboomers would concur. We never want to be so naive again. I know I followed the events, watched them unfold" throughout the weekend. Bought everything the media fed us. I can't remember however, a single "event" or "clue" that made all of us doubt this story. Do you?? Even that Sunday afternoon watching Ruby shoot Oswald, shocking as it was on live tv, I don't think I thought "consipracy" at that time. it seemed only a couple years later the doubts set in.

PLAW

If you are still studying the case, what you should realize, if you don't already, is that there is a strong possibility that the coverup is still going on.

My fear is we will never know. And it is truly a shame. The more time that passes, the more people involved in any way, shape or form, are dying off.

Plaw, my kids never can understand my passion/interest in the JFK story. When 911 happened, and we were all glued to the shocking events. I told them "This is your JFK." I think they grasped the connection, cause they were living this one, even though miles away.

Btw, I have "heard" that Jackie Kennedy has either a book/memoirs/paper/diary....something in writing, that she left to be opened only after her grandchildren are gone. Don't know if it involves the assassination so not saying there's any connection, cause that's all I know. But I wonder if perhaps even she had her suspicions???

Btw, I'mm gonna buy "Rush To Judgement".


TIS

I did.

As soon as I saw Oswald get shot, I was thinking "conspiracy."

I personally find it very hard to believe that Ruby was able to "sneak" a gun into the transport area.

There was nothing "sneaky" about it.

He was supposedly friendly with half of the Dallas police force, who he treated to free drinks at his strip joint.

He just walked in as pretty as you please, to watch the fun.

No one searched him, no one questioned him, no one gave it second thought.

But if I remember my facts correctly, no one posted at any of the entrances to the building "remembers" him entering.

So either someone on the Dallas PD just doesn't remember, was afraid to remember, or was in on the plot.

There is precious little about anything in the entire case that we can be totally sure of.

Looking at the picture on the left, it "appears" that no one even notices Ruby. I remember, even at the time, it seemed he did breeze right through. But by this picture it appears he simply walked up to him with a gun aimed. I wish I had a larger picture because I can't tell if Oswald is the only one looking at Ruby????

TIS

There is speculation by some theorists that the two knew each other.

BTW, I love the days when almost all men wore fedoras, but a couple of these Dallas guys are wearing kinda modified cowboy hats.

Plaw,
Can you refresh my memory- What was Ruby's motive for shooting Oswald?

Ha ha, speaking of hats, andnot to change the subject, but did you see the footage of Jack Ambranoff today (you know the Republican Lobbyist who is being indicted). He was dressed like a gangster all right, with hat, dark coat. He looked like he was trying for the "mafiosa" look.

The funny part was, several times while they're discussing his indictment, they play the GFII scene with Michael Corleone saying to Senator Geary; "Senator, I'll give you my answer now if you like..." Ha ha

TIS

Mig, supposedly Ruby was a big Kennedy fan and was so distraught. I have also read that Ruby wanted to spare Jackie the agony of going thru/testifying at Oswald's trial. Both pretty lame excuses if you ask me. PLaw can elaborate I'm sure.

Keep in mind that Ruby had found out he was dying of cancer...he had nothing to lose. Another speculation of consipracy theorists is that he was offered a deal to take care of his family financially after his demise.

TIS

TIS pretty much nailed it on Ruby's motive: sparing Jackie the agony of having to come back to Dallas for Oswald's trial, but I don't think Ruby knew he had cancer until after he was tried and convicted.

Ambranoff may be an Orthodox Jew - I'm not sure. But if he is, that would explain the hat.

AAMOF, it's the hat that makes me think that he is.

PLaw,

FYI...I didn't mean to put the "rolling eyes" in my earlier post saying "PLaw can elaborate". Slip of the finger I guess. :p Just wanted you to know.
I changed it.


TIS

I didn't even notice :rolleyes:

Plaw & TIS

I don't remember now, when Ruby found out he had cancer You're probably right PLaw.

I was browsing thru stories on Ruby tonight,I read that his prison guard said that Ruby maintained the same reasons we mentioned here for shooting Oswald, during his time in jail. He said he was glad he did it. However, didn't he want to go to Washington to testify and/or make a statement, saying he had some "vital" information, but the powers that be wouldn't let him go and/or didn't take him seriously??


TIS

Hi Mig

Yes.

Earl Warren himself went to Dallas to take testimony from Ruby, who supposedly told Warren that he had much more to tell but didn't feel safe doing so in Dallas.

He asked to be taken back to Washington to testify in front of the entire commission, but his request was refused.

Hmmm.... :rolleyes:

As far as the cancer goes, I'm positive that he didn't have it, or at least know he had it, at the time he shot Oswald.

PLaw, if you believe that Oswald did not act alone, what scenario do you favor for other shooters?

Perhaps it was the "three tramps" who were responsible for the shooting, in addition to their patsy Lee Harvey Oswald and the "art imitates life and if anything in this life is certain -- if history has taught us anything -- it's that you can kill anybody" precursor to Rocco "Difficult, Not Impossible" Lampone, Jack Ruby.

Jack Sturgis, E Howard Hunt, and Charles Harrelson...those were always the three names I often associated with the identification of the "three tramps" though it appears those names were never lumped together in a single group. However, they were the names I heard after they had achieved some prominence for some other act (Sturgis and Hunt for Watergate, Harrelson (yes...it's Woody's dad) for murder) and that makes it easier for me to create that association in my mind.

Does anyone remember Geraldo Rivera's first big network TV gig in the mid-'70's? A late night show called Good Night America on ABC-TV? I believe one of his first investigative reports was a review of the Warren Commission report and his show probably did as much to advance the conspiracy cause as anything at that time.

Also, compare the cinemetography of Rocco Lampone's shooting of Hyman Roth in GF II to the actual shooting of Oswald by Ruby. Was FFC making some sort of political reference when he staged that scene, especially when considered in the possible historical context of Michael Corelone's "if history..." statement moments earlier in the movie?

tony b.

p.s. At first glance, I initially thought the subject of this discussion was Cubs paid Oswald to kill JFK? and I couldn't imagine a conspiracy theory that has the Wrigley's involved in any way.

I really can't go any further than to say that I believe, as most do, that there was at least one shooter behind the fence (or was it a wall? I forget) atop the the infamous grassy knoll.

I wouldn't even begin to speculate about their identities, but that's not really the important thing anyway, IMO.

What I would like to know, of course, is who they were working for.

And that, alas, is what I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

Even if the day comes when the supposedly absolutely and unequivocally 100% truthful version comes out, I'll still be wondering if it's not something that the real conspirators somehow threw out there to throw us off the track even further.

I beg to differ, JJ.

I was working in Jersey City on 9/11, with a great view of lower Manhattan. Everyone in my building who didn't have a clear look from their windows at the World Trade Center was standing in the street, watching the towers burn.

I was standing next to a woman who was somewhat older than I am, who was standing next to a young man in this twenties who was obviously a co-worker of hers.

I remember remarking to the woman, as I gestured to the young man next to her, "Just as the Kennedy assassination was the defining moment in our lives, this will be the defining moment in his." [/b][/quote]True, but it isn't necessarily fair to measure 9/11 with the Kennedy Assassination yet because enough time hasn't passed to weigh the consequences of 9/11 on long term policy and the direction of the nation. Though perhaps I should have said that Kennedy's death was a defining moment of the 20th century, rather than the last 50 years in general.

If nothing else, JFK's speech at the American University showed that there was a new life being breathed into the United States. The New Frontier, as it were. In fact, the speech that Kennedy was set to deliver at the Trade Mart in Dallas likewise emphasizes the new direction of this nation. The course was forever altered, however, on November 22nd, 1963. Had Kennedy not died, we may not have entered into Vietnam, and the country may appear very different than it does now.

I couldn't agree more. Who the shooters were is, to a large degree, inconsequential in the bigger picture. But the focus of who they were distracts many from asking the deeper questions - who hired them and what was their specific motivation?

Was it the Mob acting in revenge for Bobby Kennedy's pursuit of Hoffa and Joseph Kennedy's mob connections? Was it radical pro-Cuba revolutionists? Were the shooters hired by the CIA to reverse certain policies of JFK? Was it someone within the military complex getting revenge for JFK's refusal to invade Cuba and his attempt to withdraw troops from Vietnam?

It just does not seem at all plausible that a single, "lone nut" could have done this all on his own as the Warren Commission contends. Laws of physics and common sense just fly in the face of so many of the Commission's claims.

You forgot LBJ and his Texas oil buddies.

I'm just wondering out loud here, maybe someone knows. Did Sirhan Sirhan (Robert Kennedy's killer) ever get mentioned as a conspiracy suspsect for JFK? And were there some mysterious things involving Sirhan that cast doubt upon his guilt? I really don't know much about the case, just wondering...

Sirhan is still alive, no?

I looked up some stuff on Sirhan. He is still alive, in prison for life, and has been repeatedly denied parole. There is little doubt that he is guilty, as there were multiple close range eye witnesses placing him as a shooter, but there is dobut on whether or not he was the only shooter. When the police searched his home, they found multiple notebooks in Sirhan's handwriting saying things like "RFK must die." He has never been mentioned in reference to a possible JFK assassination theory.

Yes, I believe that Sirhan is still alive and imprisoned. I recall that he was recently denied again on an application for parole.

No, I am not aware of his ever having been mentioned as possibly having been involved in the JFK assassination, and I think it highly unlikely that he was since he was only nineteen years old at the time.

However, there has been some speculation about the RFK murder and Sirhan's role in it which, for some reason, has managed to stay under the radar for the more than 37 years since the event itself.

I would guess that there are very few people who are even aware of the fact that the case against Sirhan is anything but open and shut, and that theories abound involving misconduct by the FBI and/or the LAPD, and the suppression, outright disappearance, concealment, and/or tainting of evidence.

At least that's what I remember from the two books I read on the subject several years ago, both paperbacks:

The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On The Conspiracy and Cover-Up, by Philip H. Melanson (1991; S.P.I. Books, New York,); and

Shadow Play: The Untold Story Of The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, by William Klaber abd Philip H. Melanson (1997; St. Martin's Paperbacks, New York).

(I guess this Melanson must be one of the experts in the field).

I don't remember much more in the way of detail other than the above (and I needed to read the books back covers and stuff to recall even that much ), but I do recall that there was also some business about a missing door frame from the area in which RFK was shot, in which the number of bullet holes or something would have provided proof that there was more than one gunman, and some other proof that there were eleven shots fired in total and Sirhan's gun only held eight rounds.

I also just did a quick googling of "Sirhan Sirhan", and there's a ton of stuff out there, altho I didn't look at any of it.

Maybe you'd like to, Goombah, and report back.

Edit: My aologies for the redundancy with MMTH's post. I started writing mine, and then stopped in the middle to look for the two books, which I had trouble finding.

With regards to Sirhan Sirhan and the conspiracy against RFK, I highly recommend David Scheim's aforementioned Contract on America, which explores both the Kennedy murders, and Dr. Martin Luther King's as well, if I remember correctly (I don't own this book, but my local library has a copy which I'm wearing out).

Scheim, if I recall, does provide evidence that the shooter was one of the guards/officers behind RFK at the time. He has pictures to aid the theories, which help immensely. I highly recommend this book.

I have the Scheim book, but I haven't read it since I first bought it, when the Stone film came out.

I remember he made a good case for Mafia involvement in the JFK killing, but I don't remember anything in there about RFK.

I'll have to take another look at it.

(Couple of minutes later.....)

OK, I looked. I have a paperback version (1988; Zebra Books, NY), and there seems to be only 15 pages or so on RFK (pp 318-332).

Also, on two pages of RFK photos (but one cute pic of Jack Ruby with a couple of his strippers )

Maybe you have a later edition with more on RFK in it?

If you are interested in the RFK assassination, BTW, the two books I mentioned in my earlier post above were both pretty good.

Also, another decent one that I have on the Mafia involvement in the JFK assassination is The Kennedy Contract: The Mafia Plot To Assassinate The President, by John H. Davis (1993; Harper Paperbacks, NY).

This one (according to the back cover; again, it's been a while ) is based on the "allegations and revelations" of former Santo Trafficante (and Jimmy Hoffa) attorney Frank Rangano, who also was supposed to be a "friend" of Carlos Marcello.

As I said, I don't own the book, but perhaps it is a later edition. It was hardcover. After searching Amazon.com, it appears the edition I'm referencing is the 1992 hardcover. But I thought that there was much more than 15 pages about RFK (perhaps I'm muddling sources).

John H. Davis (I think that's who you mean) is a good Kennedy historian imho, as I've already mentioned, and is related to Jackie Kennedy.

And Frank Ragano, yes, that old chestnut. He's the one who comes up with the quotes from Marcello like "we should've killed Bobby, not Johnny" and "take the stone out of my shoe," both in Italian which I can't remember right now.

Yeah, Davis. I don't know why I typed Davies.

I'm just looking through that book.....Where it lists his other stuff it says he also wrote Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Never heard of that one, though. You?

No interrogation records were kept for those arrested at Dealey Plaza, or for Oswald.

JFK's corpse left Dallas wrapped in a sheet inside an ornamental bronze casket. It arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington in a body bag inside a plain casket.


While the President's autopsy was underway at Bethesda Naval Hospital, federal agents removed the X-rays of the body from custody of the examining doctors. Though the X-rays undoubtedly would have been valuable in determining trajectories of the bullets hitting the President, and thus the shooter's location, they are neither published nor alluded to in the Warren Report.


The pristine condition of "the magic bullet" suggests it was planted.

Phillip Willis took a series of 12 photos of Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy was shot, in the minutes before and after the assassination. Mr. Willis' photos and testimony before the Commission appear in the report. He was not questioned about the eighth photo, a shot of the Book Depository entrance shortly after the shooting. As Willis later pointed out, one of the men in the photo "looks so much like (Jack Ruby), it's pitiful". F.B.I. agents questioning Willis agreed with him that the man bore a powerful resemblance to Ruby. When Willis mentioned this to the Commission, no interest was shown. When the photo was published in the Warren Report, a considerable part of the Ruby lookalike's face had been cropped away.


Many more witnesses have died than would normally be expected, many in mysterious circumstances:


Gary Underhill, a CIA agent who claimed the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination, died of a gun shot to the head in May 1964. H is death was ruled a suicide.

Guy Banister, a former FBl agent and acquaintance of Oswald, died of an apparent heart attack in June 1964. Files containing information on his anti-Castro activities were missing by the time authorities reached his office.

Mary Meyer, a mistress of JFK's during the White House years and the estranged wife of CIA veteran Cord Meyer, was murdered in October 1964 in a park in Washington, DC. Cord Meyer was a fishing companion of CIA counter-intelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, who seized Meyer's diary after her death.

Rose Cheramie, a prostitute and striptease dancer in Ruby's Dallas nightclub, died in a Texas hit-and-run accident in September 1965. Two days before the assassination, she told police in Louisiana she overheard two Latin men plotting to kill the president.

Dorothy Kilgallen, a prominent columnist and TV personality, was ruled a suicide by drug overdose in November 1965. She had just completed a lengthy interview of Ruby in prison and told friends privately that she was about to "break" the JFK case.

David Ferrie, a militant anti-Castroite and associate of Oswald and Banister, died of an apparent brain embolism in February 1967. He was just about to be arraigned for conspiracy in the JFK assassination by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, whose investigation convinced him that the CIA was involved.

Eladio Del Valle, a friend and political comrade of Ferrie's, was shot at close range the day after Ferrie's death. Garrison had been trying to find Del Valle for questioning.


Don Cardi

See, here's the problem, DC, and I'm not looking for an argument here because we're on the same side:

I have read or heard all of the following things that you mention.

And as I said in another post, we don't really know the truth of any of this stuff.

We don't know who started the coverup and when, whether or not it's still in effect, and, most importantly, of all of the conspiracy theories and points like you make below that are out there, we don't know which are true and which are false, deliberately planted by the conspirators to mislead us or throw us off the track.

For example:

No interrogation records were kept for those arrested at Dealey Plaza, or for Oswald.

Do we know that for a fact. Isn't it possible that records were kept, and then covered up or destroyed?

JFK's corpse left Dallas wrapped in a sheet inside an ornamental bronze casket. It arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington in a body bag inside a plain casket.

See David Lipton's book, Best Evidence. Eyewitness accounts differ wildly. Which do we believe and which are erroneous, and which are deliberately false?

While the President's autopsy was underway at Bethesda Naval Hospital, federal agents removed the X-rays of the body from custody of the examining doctors. Though the X-rays undoubtedly would have been valuable in determining trajectories of the bullets hitting the President, and thus the shooter's location, they are neither published nor alluded to in the Warren Report.

Except for the fact that the x-rays are not alluded to in the WC Report, how do we know if the rest of the above is fact?

I've read several differing accounts about what actually happened at the autopsy itself

And I've seen several different versions in different books of the autopsy photos, and the books say "This or that one is fake" and "this or that one is authentic."

How do we know the real photos from the fakes? Because some author says so? How do we know what his motives are?

Phillip Willis took a series of 12 photos of Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy was shot, in the minutes before and after the assassination. Mr. Willis' photos and testimony before the Commission appear in the report. He was not questioned about the eighth photo, a shot of the Book Depository entrance shortly after the shooting. As Willis later pointed out, one of the men in the photo "looks so much like (Jack Ruby), it's pitiful". F.B.I. agents questioning Willis agreed with him that the man bore a powerful resemblance to Ruby. When Willis mentioned this to the Commission, no interest was shown. When the photo was published in the Warren Report, a considerable part of the Ruby lookalike's face had been cropped away.

I never heard that one before, but do we know that whole story to be true?

And if it is, it wouldn't surprise me. The WC's lack of interest in anything that did not support their "lone nut" theory is legendary. There are scores of similar examples.

Many more witnesses have died than would normally be expected, many in mysterious circumstances:

(List of names & circumstances)

And there are literally dozens more.

I don't disagree with you at all here. Personally, I believe that all these conspiracy theories were purposely put out there, by those who may have been behind the plot to have Kennedy killed, to cause much confusion and in the hope that the truth gets buried under all these different ideas and stories.

I really don't think that we'll ever know the truth. At least in our lifetime.


Don Cardi

Let's see (off the top of my head and probably not as fluent as PLaw/DC, and, trying not to get repetitive of what's been posted):

JFK's Dallas route was changed at the last minute (Don't know the streets, but they were originally scheduled to take a different route)??? And what's the deal with the car slowing down as the shots rang out?

Oswald, who was reported to be an "average" shooter at best hits his moving target with a faulty gun. Lucky shot?

Oswald is interviewed and from I've read there were "tape recorded" interviews. It turns out that they are lost, misplaced, stolen. (remember Oswald's famous line, "I'm just a patsy?") I'm thinking he must have explained that during his interrogation. Did any official who may have been in the interrogation address what he meant by that? I assume there were written notes as well. Both the tape and notes disappear?

Ruby wanting to testify and denied the opportunity

Also, the car JFK was killed in was taken and/or cleaned out and repaired. Wouldn't even an amature know not to tamper with evidence? Although, let me add that just yesterday while researching this subject, I read that Connelly had his suit he was wearing cleaned the next day. Not to imply at all that he was involved, but it would seem he would at least ask authorities before doing so. It many have answered, I don't know, something about the "magic bullet" no?

Oswald amazingly, and seemingly so easily murdered two days later by Jack Ruby.

In the book, "Murder In Dealy Plaza" which deals much in the forensics and autopsy, one of the original "first" doctors in the emergency room claimed the photos in the WC report of the wound to the head was not the wound he saw before being kicked out of the emergency room. He claims the entire back of the Presidents head was blown off, and the autopsy pics in the WC showed only a small hole. Is he lying? His explanation does coincide with the reports (and we see it on film) that Jackie crawled to the back of limo to retrieve part of her husband's brain. Although I've heard that explained as, "she was trying to alert the Secret Service.

All the "coincidences" that PLaw & DC mentioned are unbelieveable. The many many witnesses who died suddenly in itself is questionable. I would love ot see this solved in my lifetime, but the more time that goes by the less I think it will happen. And, like I think PLaw said, even if we hear the "truth" at last, will we still doubt? It'd have to be pretty damn convincing I think.

TIS