Humor???What humor??? If thats humor than you r the most unfunny clown in the world.

Now you are again getting out of line by calling me a dope head.Thats personal.Shame on you man and you proved again that you r a very disrespectful person and a egoistic maniac.So ill act calmly and you can check your private messages in few min. so the other posters wont see what im about to say to you and ill wait untill you apologise publicly like a normal adult person.

Calling you a dope head? Then why do you call yourself "Toodoped" as in "Too doped"? Sounds like it means that you are saying you are too doped up. If I got the wrong impression from the nickname you gave yourself, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Didn't realize you were so thin-skinned. In the meantime please explain the meaning of your nickname so I don't make the same mistake in the future.

Im not thin-skinned but you r too much of a hotheaded person.Ok ill take that almost as your apology.But i dont think that i have to explain to you anything.ciao

As I made clear with your verbally abusive pms, I'm done with you. I won't comment on your posts and you don't comment on mine. Do not send me anymore pms. I'm writing this here so it is clear that you are not to communicate to me. End of discussion.

Im cool with that.THE END

well, let me get my two cents in here,this is going to be simple I believe in o.c. involvement for two very good reasons.the book written by trafficantes attorney frank ragano,and the book "contract on America about carlos Marcello.written by david scheim.also, the man who wrote the rico laws believes there was o.c. involvement.his name is William blakely,and he is a law professer at notre dame.

This is a cite from Wikipedia that explains how Ragano is not credible:

On January 14, 1992, Ragano told Jack Newfield of the New York Post that he relayed a request from Hoffa to Trafficante and Marcello asking that the two Mafia bosses kill Kennedy.[33] He repeated the claim two days later on ABC's Good Morning America,[34] in Newfield's Frontline report entitled JFK, Hoffa and Mob broadcast in November 1992,[35] and again in his 1994 autobiography Mob Lawyer.[28]

According to Ragano, he met Hoffa at the Teamsters' headquarters in Washington D.C. then delivered the message to Trafficante and Marcello a few days later in a meeting at the Royal Orleans Hotel in New Orleans.[33][34] He stated he was chosen by Hoffa because, as both Hoffa and Trafficante's lawyer, he could be assured of attorney–client privilege.[33] Ragano said that Jim Garrison served as a patsy for the New Orleans mob by disseminating theories that served to distract attention from mafia figures who were involved in the plot.[36]

Although Ragano believed he had received a few hints from both Trafficante and Marcello that they had somehow been involved in the Kennedy assassination, it was not until just before he died in 1987 that Trafficante, according to Ragano, made a direct confession to him. Ragano wrote that on March 13, 1987, a dying Trafficante (he died four days later) asked to meet him in Tampa for a hurried meeting. While riding in Ragano's car, Trafficante allegedly told Ragano in Sicilian: "Carlos e' futtutu. Non duvevamu ammazzari a Giovanni. Duvevamu ammazzari a Bobby," which Ragano translated as: "Carlos screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should have killed Bobby."[37]

This was later found to be a complete fabrication by Ragano, because hospital records proved that Trafficante was in Miami receiving dialysis several times that week. The day that Ragano claimed to have talked to him was one of the days he was actually receiving dialysis. Hospital personnel, neighbors, and friends who all visited the afternoon before he left for Houston from Miami could also confirm this. The evening before leaving for Houston, because of his weakened condition, Mr. Trafficante was driven to the Miami airport by his goddaughter, so that she could help Mrs. Trafficante with securing a wheelchair and other boarding procedures.

This claim by Ragano, seemingly pointing to a successful mob plot to assassinate JFK, has come under much criticism. In his book Reclaiming History: the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi has pointed out many flaws in Ragano's claims, including the fact that Trafficante was most likely not in Tampa on the day in question, but was rather in North Miami Beach receiving dialysis treatments.[38]

Bugliosi based much of his conclusions on the research of author Anthony Summers. Summers reviewed medical records and talked to Trafficante's family, neighbors and friends, and discounted the idea that Trafficante could have been in Tampa on the day in question. When Summers talked to Ragano about these problems, Ragano told Summers that he could produce three witnesses who could prove his story, but never did so.[39]

Both Trafficante and Marcello were very private individuals. The House Select Committee on Assassinations in its 1978 Final Report noted specifically that Trafficante was a very "discreet" individual who was unlikely to have made such an admission.[40] Bugliosi argues that it is absurd to think that Marcello and Trafficante would get involved in plotting to assassinate a president, particularly as nothing more than a supposed favor to Jimmy Hoffa.[41] Bugliosi also points out that by allegedly conveying a message in 1963 to that effect, and by relating this confession from an alleged conspirator, Ragano would himself be admitting to having been a part of a murder conspiracy.[42]

Shortly after the intial allegations, Jeffrey Hart compared Ragano's account with that presented in Oliver Stone's recently released film JFK.[43] According to Hart, Ragano presented an "earthy motive, vastly more plausible than the movie theory."[43] Hart quoted G. Robert Blakey as stating that he believed Ragano and that his testimony "would have strengthened the conclusions" of the HSCA.[43] Hart also quoted Frank Mankiewicz, Robert Kennedy's press secretary, as finding Ragano's scenario as "the most plausible (assassination) theory".[43]

When Ragano was questioned by the Assassination Records Review Board, created in 1992 to reexamine JFK conspiracy theories after the release of Stone's film, he claimed to have contemporaneous notes of his conversations regarding the JFK plot, but when they were produced, "he could not definitively state whether the notes were taken during the meetings [with mob figures]... or later when he was working on his book." His notes were subjected to Secret Service tests to determine when they were actually prepared, but the results were inconclusive.[44]

great piece of research, very well put together, im sure your aware of a few books recently written claiming lbj,had involvement in the asassination. these make great reading, thought I might pass this info on to you.

I didn't write the Wiki article, but it explained the Ragano situation well. Was surprised that it was Anthony Summers who did the investigation on Ragano since Summers has a reputation of including in his books every piece of gossip and innuendo as if they are true. I myself believed Ragano until I learned how he lied. That's why it's so important to verify all claims and assertions as much as one can.

G. Robert Blakey is a very credible person. He's the law professor who created the RICO law. Blakey is also the one who wrote the law that allowed researchers to have access to the FBI files connected with the JFK assassination, most of which are now up in the Mary Ferrell site.

Here's a great interview of Blakey from 1993 with updates from 2003. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/

Here is an interview from 2012 where he said he believed the Mob set up Oswald to kill JFK. Again, he believes that JFK was the shooter and no one else, but that somehow the Mafia set him up. He does go into detail about this and at the time of the interview may still have believed in Ragano. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/22/49-years-have-passed-kennedy-assassination-still/

Here's an interview from ABC News which is very good and he gives details. He thinks that Oswald was somehow convinced by Marcello's people to kill Kennedy and links David Ferrie and his uncle. While Blakey believes the entire Mafia was not complicit with the JFK assassination, he believes Marcello was and that he was not bugged. Here's the link: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131462&page=1&singlePage=true

The Frontline interview was BEFORE Summers exposed Ragano as a fraud. Also, Blakey is clear that Oswald was the one who killed Kennedy, but he thinks there could have been some sort of conspiracy involving people around Oswald. These other people didn't kill JFK, but could have influenced Oswald. That's what Blakey allows for, but states that he didn't get access to all the evidence he should have had from the CIA. Other agencies (like the FBI) were cooperative.

What he says about Ruby killing Oswald for the Mob is problematic. Killing Oswald in a police station in front of everyone? By doing that he knew it was an automatic life sentence. What was in it for him? On the other hand, since we knew that the CIA has kept out info from Blakey and other investigators, MAYBE the CIA convinced Ruby that it would be a patriotic thing for him to do. Ruby was a patriot. He was also connected to the Outfit for a fact, but not to Al Capone like Blakey said elsewhere. He was connected to guys like Romeo Nappi, Ralph Pierce and Murray Humphreys. Blakey said that Ruby killed Oswald so that he'd get his "button" (I'm paraphrasing). Uh, Ruby wasn't Italian so never could get made and I'm surprised Blakey wasn't aware of that. I could imagine an offer for the Outfit to take care of Ruby's family if he killed Oswald, but there's no evidence for this. He may have known the Civellos of Dallas -- and they were connected to Marcello -- but again, it's all just speculation. If he did it for the Mafia then there had to be some benefit in it for Ruby as a counter for spending the rest of his life in prison. It's just as possible that Ruby killed Oswald because he liked JFK and hated Oswald for killing Kennedy.

Finally, here's a previously secret CIA connection that only came to light in 2013: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/exp...till-sealed.ece

One important thing the article says is that almost all the records will be released in 2017. ON a side note, from memory, a few years ago Caroline Kennedy ordered that the archive on her grandfather Joseph P. Kennedy (which I think are in Harvard) be kept closed to the public until around 2050 (don't quote me on the year). I wonder, could that archive include evidence that he was a major bootlegger who worked with Frank Costello, Joe Bonanno and other mobsters? The family is denying that he was a bootlegger and a recent book by Daniel Okrent asserts that he wasn't either, so that's the party line. I think there's good evidence that he was. This archive may tie the bow in the reasons behind the Kennedy assassination, but many of us probably won't be around then.

By the way, this bio of Joseph P. Kennedy is from a writer who says he got complete access to all of his papers. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/books/...ed=all&_r=0

This is the finding aid at the JFK Library: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JPKPP.aspx?f=1

The author, like Okrent, claimed that J.P. Kennedy was no bootlegger, so maybe there wasn't anything incriminating in the material he had access to (assuming he really did have access to everything), but it's interesting that as soon as Prohibition ended in 1933, Kennedy went to England and obtained a contract to import alcohol from Somerset Importers. Funny that all of a sudden he had the necessary knowledge to do all this. Maybe we won't ever find Kennedy's signature on orders for booze during Prohibition as most bootleggers covered their tracks and we don't know about them until they were caught. If he was never caught, then no contemporary evidence. I think historian Stephen Fox in his book "Blood and Power" gathered some good evidence from what was available. Would really need an accountant to figure out if Kennedy amassed sudden unexplained wealth during Prohibition; after all, that's how they got Capone.

This review of the J.P. Kennedy book says it's a whitewash. He makes a lot of sense: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/155961

again excellent research. the article on the cia withholding evidence leads me to belive Oswald was a cia agent, and I think the Russians knew it.where did he learn Russian,in language school in marine intelligence. he was a radio operator in the marine corp tracking u2 flights over Russian., he was indeed set up, the dallas cop tippit was supposed to kill him, this was set up by ruby. on orders from Chicago.oswald killed him instead,now ruby had to kill Oswald himself. Oswald was indeed a pigeon. like he said to reporters: "im just a patsy"

I don't think theres any doubt about j.p. kennedy being a bootlegger, of course he was.costello is on record as saying such himself.he was in many ways worse than any mobster. he was a shameless rapist. 'sins of the father' is a no nonsence book aabout the old crook, written by Ronald Kessler.also franklin Roosevelt hated his guts. elonore Roosevelt spells that out in her book. he was a despicable human being.

I think in the article it cites David Ferrie as claiming that Oswald was more of a wanna-be agent rather than a real one. That doesn't mean that the CIA wouldn't use someone like that in certain circumstances, but he doesn't seem stable enough to have been a real agent. For now I'm going to remain open-minded on what happened. I can't say "It happened this way," but I can say, "It MAY have happened this way." As for Ruby, not everyone needs orders to do things. People can be influenced and convinced. Everything I've read is clear that Ruby was very patriotic. The people who wanted Oswald dead could have appealed to that patriotism for him to do what they wanted, but again, it seems like there has to be more to the story because he knew that he was going to prison. 2017 isn't that far away, so I suggest we just wait and see.

On J.P. Kennedy, there are many doubts that he was bootlegger, doubts brought up by Okrent and Nasaw. I think they're both wrong, but they are convinced that he wasn't one and their books have convinced many others to agree with them. I do like Kessler's books a lot. Here's his review of the Nasaw book:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Joseph-Kennedy-book-Nasaw/2012/12/04/id/466448/