The missing JFK brain is certainly suspicious,but the evidentiary value is up for debate.Dr. Humes examined the brain,noted that the left lobe was virtually intact,took at least seven photos of the brain,and included all of the above in his notes.Before placing the brain in a jar of Formalin,all of the estimated 30 persons present had the opportunity to witness the entire procedure. Out of this number ONE MAN says none of this occurred. The photographs have never been disputed,are not missing,and the report is still able to be accessed.The conclusion of a shot from the rear that killed JFK would not be changed if the brain were found today.Read the actual reports by the attending personnel,and their subsequent statements on the topic,and see if you can find anyone present who believes that anyone in the autopsy room saw any evidence of a third wound to Kennedy.

Secondly,the Grassy Knoll myth lacks substantiation in two very critical respects. One,any witness who says that they saw a puff of smoke from a rifle on the knoll is pretty much delusional,mistaken,or outright full of sh*t. When Stone recreated the puff of smoke scene in his comedy "JFK",he had to use a concealed bellows to get the effect,since they could not find a rifle that emitted smoke.
Second,with the stiff north wind blowing on that day,even if a puff of smoke did exist,it surely would not linger long enough to be noticed,rather it would blow away from the barrel immediately.
On the topic of the supposed 51 witnesses to a grassy knoll shooter,here is a long but worthwhile link that explains a lot.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

In the PBS documentary Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?, one of the Warren Commission's attorney's states that the CIA let him listen to parts of the surveillance tape of Oswald at the Russian/Cuban embassy in Mexico. So that means that they did inform the Warren Commission of their operation in Mexico City and they also confirmed Oswald's visit even though they showed pictures of another man who they claimed was Oswald...

Again (this has happened before) you are taking a quote out of context. And you are doing this on purpose it seems, you fucking sneaker. I was talking about Oswald´s KGB files. This is what I said: "Just like Lou Para says, there´s absolutely no prove of Oswald being a KGB agent. Neither are there any prove of Oswald being a communist/marxist/stalinist (whatever) in his KGB files handed to Clinton by Yeltsin."

Him talking about being a marxist doesn´t mean a shit. Has it ever occurred to you that LHO may have worked for the CIA/or another right wing group with a task of trying to infiltrate pro Castro groups? LHO was a right winger, assaigned to that Banister/Ferrie gruop who trained Cuban exiles for military combat. Otherwise, why would he had been at that camp mentioned earlier in this thread?

LHO´s CIA files are classified and will never be open for public view. You need to ask yourself why? I doubt it´s because he was a self proclaimed marxist, a lone nutter, the lone assassin of JFK or whatever the CIA wants the public to believe he was.

Maybe it's a conspiracy. And I'm flattered you remembered that it happened before, because I haven't.

Huge Boston Globe article today on RFK and the JFK assassination. He suspected Marcello, Trafficante, Giancana, Hoffa, Rossellini combo.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-JFK...140413-711.html

There is two other pages to read after this first one good read.



The JFK Assassination: Why are They Still Lying to Us?

A few days after the 50th Anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, my wife and I chatted with a new acquaintance in an upscale bar in D.C., a spot frequented by Congressmen. Leaning toward us across the table, a dapperly-dressed man confirmed my suspicions about the CIA and a certain magazine. His wife, he confided, works for the internationally-prestigious magazine, and she had told him the CIA frequented her workplace to spy on a nearby embassy--with full cooperation by her employers. I found her story credible, in part because it is now well-established that the CIA infiltrated and influenced a long list of newspapers and magazines.1 Initially, I had been surprised that the magazine in question, an organization with great credibility in the academic community, risked their reputation to broadcast blatant lies about the JFK shooting. Why fib about something that happened half-a-century ago? The answer is astounding: the CIA --fifty years on--still believes it cannot afford the hit to its credibility... it refuses to admit that Lee Harvey Oswald was a company man. And it still has a vise-like grip on the mainstream media.

I am not a kook. Several parchments from prestigious institutions hang on my wall to assure me that I'm not crazy. I'm not a 911 "Truther" or a "Man didn't land on the moon" conspiracy nut. Yet, when I began promoting my book about the JFK assassination, I observed some curious things. Major news outlets circled their wagons around the "official" government story that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut, nixing any dissenting opinions. Pro-Warren Commission, pro-lone-gunman pundits (a dying breed) were trotted out on CBS, ABC and even PBS. Credible experts who offer proof of government complicity were disinvited. Others in the assassination-research community told me similar stories of how they had been scheduled for cable news/network appearances, but were cancelled at the last minute--without explanation. Even my local city newspaper, which has featured my writing on other topics, refused to print a rebuttal I had written to counter a "lone-gunman did it" fluff-piece they ran in November 2013.

I have been harassed. Nasty, over-the-top attacks were posted on the Amazon review page of my JFK book (despite four and five star reviews by 95% of readers). Correspondence between myself and Vince Palamara (a Secret Service expert who has been featured on C-SPAN, the History Channel, etc.) was sliced open and contents stolen, apparently with the blessing of the U.S. Postal Service.2 At the 50th anniversary event in Dealey Plaza November 22nd, an ABC-TV cameraman pulled out his iPhone and snapped a picture of my book's cover, saying he was personally interested in it... but made it clear his network was not. A CBS reporter and his cameraman interviewed me, but the footage never aired. At the end of the day, outside the Dallas JFK museum in the Texas School Book Depository, I was assaulted--choked without any provocation--by the bodyguard of former Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, as I tried to shake hands with Hill after his book-signing.3 These are things happening now, not 50 years ago.

But let's back up and look at the long media history. The few times the networks dared examine the topic, the reporting was one-sided. CBS, for example, gave extended screen-time to so-called "conspiracy debunker" Gerald Posner, but allowed only short, benign snippets from lone-gunman critics like Dr. Cyril Wecht (and Dr. Wecht is a top-notch forensic scientist; Posner is not). I challenge doubters to put a stopwatch on any major network's coverage of the JFK assassination and see how much time is afforded the debunkers vs. the conspiracy "nuts." (one man's "nut" is another's "credentialed expert.") Though I am personally convinced that the CIA helped kill Kennedy, I concede there are two sides to this debate. So, mainstream media, give us both sides! The one-sided press coverage should scare the hell out of us.


For those who have only heard the propaganda, allow me this brief rebuttal. One of the few intelligent debunkers is attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi. But he squanders his credibility by repeatedly insisting: "There is not a shred of credible evidence of conspiracy." If he had argued his side calmly and honestly, he might deserve our ears. He is, in the end, no different than most debunkers: shrill, uninterested in truth, stretching logic just for the sake of winning--as if this were a High School debating club. He stands in front of a mountain of credible evidence, countering each challenge with clever but speculative workarounds, a hundred times repeating the mantra "there is not a shred of evidence...."An ironic choice of words: a shred. We have a mountain of stench and garbage that stands as a sick monument to the conspiracy, and a lot of that evidence was, literally, shredded! Despite the concerted cover-up, facts have trickled out. Below are five huge indications of government complicity in the murder of our President, all based on established facts, many from the government's own documents:

1. The Impersonation of Oswald: The strongest proof of a conspiracy is also the least reported: someone was impersonating Oswald six weeks before cameras in Dallas made him infamous. This is not rumor or speculation. White House tapes, FBI memos, and CIA photos offer irrefutable, solid proof that someone was trying to forge the appearance that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in Mexico chatting with communists. In a still-available White House tape of a phone call between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover the day after JFK's death, the FBI Director revealed that "we know for a fact" that while "a man... was using Oswald's name" in Mexico, the real Oswald was in New Orleans. This "Mexico thing," as Hoover called it, was "puzzling" because his agents and Dallas police had reviewed the recording and all said the voice on the CIA tape was not Oswald's.4 If Oswald was a loner and a "nobody," as the government portrayed him, why would anyone be pretending to be him at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico? The obvious answer is that the initial frame-up plan had included painting Oswald as a traitor in league with Soviets or Cubans. That constitutes a conspiracy. Moreover, President Johnson showed no surprise at this blockbuster news, and no interest in pursuing it. Perhaps at first Johnson wanted to blame the killing on the Soviets, but upon reflection, realized this would be flirting with nuclear war. So he changed tactics: LBJ began using that threat--a thermonuclear battle with Russia--as a rationale for persuading innocent folks (Chief Justice Earl Warren, for example) to assist him in a whitewash, making Oswald a lone scapegoat. Posner, Bugliosi and the other debunkers have no explanation for this "Mexico thing."

2. The Head Wounds: An exiting bullet caused a massive rear head wound, so the fatal shot came from the front. This required a second gunman, a conspiracy, and a cover-up. The government released autopsy sketches, and later a fake photo, showing the back of JFK's head nearly-undamaged, with short hairs all neatly in place. This is in stark contrast to the other photos showing a tangle of very long hair at the back of his crown, and in conflict with the best and earliest witnesses, all who reported a "gaping" occipital (rear) wound over 4" across and frontal entrance wounds. The proof is found right in the pages of the Warren Commission Report itself, in the testimony of doctors and of two Secret Service agents. Special Agent Clint Hill was spread-eagled on top of the Kennedys as they sped to the hospital. Other than doctors, Hill was the closest observer of JFK's rear head wound as he hovered over the President as they sped to Parkland--the closest in proximity and in time (before any medical person or mortician altered the look of the wounds). And Hill's sworn testimony is unequivocal: he saw a gaping rear head wound of exit. Counsel Arlen Specter led the WC interview:

Mr. Specter: "What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?"

Mr. Hill, under oath: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car.... There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."5

What Hill saw--"a gaping wound... in the right rear" --is consistent with the location of the large wound described by over a dozen of the Parkland medical staff. Doctors described specifically the occipital, or lower rear of the skull. This should not be confused with the parietal or temporal, terms which could apply to another wound on the side of JFK's skull. The parietal can also refer, in part, to the rear, but it extends forward toward the side/ temporal region, where the WC wants you to think the bullet "exited" --on the right side. Thus the WC favored the word "parietal" rather than "occipital" whenever possible, since it was less specific. The separate right-side wound is visible in the Zapruder film, and was also a gruesome wound. But five Secret Service Agents and a flock of doctors described a larger wound at the back of the head, fully in the rear. Here's a partial list of Parkland medical personnel who described a wound irreconcilable with the autopsy photo: Nurse Diana Bowron, Nurse Doris Nelson, Dr. Charles Baxter, Dr. James Carrico, Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, Dr. Gene Akin, Dr. Kemp Clark, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Dr. Malcolm Perry. A dozen doctors wrote immediate reports and/or gave sworn testimony. They had no reason to lie, and they certainly qualify as expert witnesses trained to be careful observers. (The Bethesda autopsy, by contrast, was done by three inexperienced military autopsists under pressure to do and say as little as possible.) No reasonable explanation has ever been offered for this irreconcilable difference, other than conspiracy. The WC simply ignored the clash between the Washington version vs. the Dallas version of JFK's skull, hoping that the few Americans who actually read the Warren Report would not realize that "occipital" means "rear." Dr. Crenshaw summed it up best by stating that the WC Report is "a fable," an "insult to the intelligence of the American people."

To pour salt on the wound, so to speak, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that it re-interviewed most of the medical personnel, who clarified earlier statements so that now, the HSCA claims, there is a consensus: no large exit wound on the rear of JFK's skull. A lie. Their own records prove otherwise. There was no consensus or consistency. One quick example: look at the testimony of Dr. John Ebersole from Bethesda. Dr. Ebersole plainly told the HSCA that he had seen a gaping occipital wound. The HSCA ignored him and several other dissenters to falsely claim that everyone at Bethesda verified the autopsy photos. The HSCA continued the cover-up begun by the Warren Commission. Over 25 medical personnel (most at Parkland but several at Bethesda) and 5 Secret Service Agents are on record stating there was a large wound at the rear (mostly occipital).6 The alteration of autopsy photos to hide that fact required government complicity.

3. Every single piece of evidence used to indict Oswald is problematic. I'm not exaggerating. Every major and minor bit of evidence has a puzzle or flaw in it. We expect all criminal cases to have some evidentiary blemish, some i not dotted or t not crossed, and certainly eye-witnesses get details wrong. But cut into the Swiss-cheese case against Oswald (which includes the murder of Police Officer J.D. Tippit), and every slice is riddled with holes:

Witnesses described men on the sixth floor who did not match Oswald's description, as well as different men at Tippit's shooting--balding, dark-complected, stocky suspects wearing different colored clothes than Oswald. Oswald was near the scenes of both crimes (necessary for framing a patsy), yet the timing doesn't work right for Oswald to be at either location at the exact time. Within two minutes of each crime, he was seen by credible witnesses, standing calmly: a) five floors down in the Book Depository, near the Coke machine, and later, b) at a bus stop a mile away from the Tippit shooting.

For every witness saying shots were fired from the sixth floor, we have an equal or greater number saying shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll. Not a single line-up "I.D." of Oswald would have stood up in court. Witnesses heard Oswald loudly complaining, while being herded into the police line-up, that of course the witnesses would point to him, dressed in a shabby T-shirt with a black-eye and unkempt appearance. He stood out like a sore thumb. Howard Brennan, the only witness to claim he could identify Oswald as the sniper, claims he saw Oswald in the shadows, through a window pane, six floors up, and from across the street. Brennan wrongly described the sniper as standing at the window (when the shooter had to be kneeling to clear the closed window). So not surprisingly, Brennan failed to I.D. him in the first line-up--despite seeing the efforts by law enforcement to "sore thumb" Oswald.

There are so many misconceptions about the so-called Second Gunman theory that I could spend hours debunking them,but for purposes of brevity,I would like to address only one.

If the wound on the back of JFK's head is really an exit wound,and thus proves that a shot was fired from the front of the motorcade,where is the evidence of a bullet hole in JFK's forehead,face,or other portion of his head?

What witness,autopsy attendee, physician,Secret Service agent,Warren critic,or any other source has stated "yes,I saw the President after the shooting,and there was a hole right between his eyes",or "JFK had a bullet wound in the middle of his forehead".

If you want to change the exit wound in his throat to an entry wound,then you're looking at a bullet fired from inside the limo,since the so called(and nonexistent) Grassy Knoll shot couldn't have come in at the angle necessary to go into the throat and come out in the middle of the back of JFK's skull.

If you watch the video of Jack Ruby shooting LHO as he walks past, you will notice that LHO is flanked by two cops. One of the cops is wearing a pale suit and pale cowboy hat. As he walks towards Ruby, the cop is flinching and looks ultra-nervous, like he is expecting Ruby will fire a gun. Dead giveaway.

Giancana on the surface had reason to want JFK dead, but I doubt he did it.

The Mafia might have been involved, or were maybe brought on-board by the government to help whack the President if the government didn't want the risk of using their own military/cop sharp-shooters. (Mafia acting alone probably wouldn't have gotten away with it without government backing. The government wouldn't cover up a mafia hit, unless the mafia were working in tandem with a government pissed at JFK.)

If Lee Oswald was a lone nut, who was up to all this shit ?

http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-city

Oswald in Mexico City: the FBI’s Discovery
The FBI learned on the afternoon of the assassination that it had not been kept fully informed by the CIA of Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. To remedy this, two sets of evidence were sent by the CIA station in Mexico City to the FBI in Dallas, arriving early on the morning of 23 November:
At least one tape recording of a phone call by a man claiming to be Oswald.
Several photographs of the only non–Hispanic man to enter the Soviet compound on the date of Oswald’s meeting there with Kostikov.6
FBI agents in Dallas made an unexpected and ominous discovery: neither the voice on the recording nor the man in the photographs matched the man who was in custody. Someone had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City.7
Oswald’s Assistant or Impostor
Although there was good evidence that Oswald had in fact made at least one visit to the Cuban Consulate and one to the Soviet Embassy,8 several other encounters provided strong evidence that he had also been impersonated:
In two telephone calls to the Soviet Embassy, a man claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald spoke “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian”, according to the CIA’s translator. Oswald himself spoke Russian very well.9
The man who made the incriminating phone call to Kostikov had also phoned from the Cuban Consulate three days earlier, on Saturday 28 September. In this instance, not only was Oswald impersonated but the phone call or the transcript appear to have been fabricated. The Cuban Consulate and the switchboard at the Soviet Embassy were closed on Saturdays. Silvia Durán, an employee at the Cuban Consulate, who was mentioned by name on the transcript, denied that she had taken part in the call on the 28th.10
Silvia Durán and the Cuban Consul General, who had had three encounters with a man who claimed to be Oswald, both recalled that the man they met looked nothing like either the real Oswald or the man in the photographs.

If you want to see the other side of the "fake Oswald in Mexico City" theory,check out this link.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/

Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City.

At 10:00 am on Saturday, November 23, President Johnson asked FBI Director Hoover if there was anything new concerning Oswald’s visit in Mexico City (it’s unclear when Johnson first had learned of the Mexico City visit). It was at this point – just 22 hours after the assassination– that Hoover told Johnson about the Kostikov link and that it was not Oswald’s voice on the tape; he had been impersonated.

The CIA people told lies to House Select Committee on Assassinations, mcadams is a joke.

The HSCA was told a pack of lies by the CIA on Mexico City not only on Mexico City but a CIA man stonewalled Congress.

George Joannides, chief of CIA covert operations in Miami in 1963 WAS THE CIA liaison with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassination...esident-kennedy


In 1978, Joannides served as CIA liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which re-investigated the JFK assassination, but he did not disclose the obvious conflict of interest to the HSCA in regard to his role in the events of 1963.

House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey said that had he known who Joannides was at that time, Joannides would not have continued as CIA liaison. Instead, he would have become a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the HSCA staff or by the committee. In addition, Joannides’ failure to disclose his role occurred despite Blakey and the CIA’s pre-investigation agreement between the HSCA and the CIA, which allowed CIA personnel who were operational after 1963 to avoid being involved in the committee’s investigation.

Many would consider the acts of deception by the CIA listed above as audacious, to put it diplomatically.

“If I’d known his [Joannides’] role in 1963, I would have put Joannides under oath -- he would have been a witness, not a facilitator,” Blakey, now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told the New York Times. “How do we know what he didn’t give us?”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm

Robert Blakey is currently professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. He also helped draft the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. In 1993 Gaeton Fonzi published The Last Investigation, a book detailing his research into the assassination. It is considered by many critics as among the best books on the JFK assassination and is currently recognized as an authority on those aspects of the assassination involving anti-Castro Cubans and the intelligence agencies. As Paul Vitello pointed out in the The New York Times: "He (Fonzi) chronicled the near-blanket refusal of government intelligence agencies, especially the C.I.A., to provide the committee with documents it requested. And he accused committee leaders of folding under pressure - from Congressional budget hawks, political advisers and the intelligence agencies themselves - just as promising new leads were emerging."

In the book Fonzi criticized Blakey for being overly deferential to the CIA. Blakey now accepts that Fonzi was probably right about this. Blakey was shocked in 2003 when declassified CIA documents revealed the full identity of the retired agent who had acted as the committee’s liaison to the agency, George Joannides, who had also overseen a group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Dallas in the months before the assassination, when Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with them.

Blakey was furious when he discovered this information. He issued a statement where he said: "I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee.... I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE. That the Agency would put a 'material witness' in as a 'filter' between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation."

In August, 2013, Blakey told the Las Vegas Sun: "They (the CIA) held stuff back from the Warren Commission, they held stuff back from us, they held stuff back from the ARRB. That's three agencies that they were supposed to be fully candid with. And now they're taking the position that some of these documents can't be released even today. Why are they continuing to fight tooth and nail to avoid doing something they'd promised to do?"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/#addendum


House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey said,

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu4Rv3BfAb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFxV8wsXwM

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



James DiEugenio and Richard Syrett: JFK Assassination, Connecting the Dots.

I seriously recommend this 8 part series of interviews with James DiEugenio,

The interviews were done over a few mts, it can get a little bit
repetitive at times because interview is over 8 segments.

THIS IS A MUST for anyone into JFK first part is 46 min, 2nd 45 min, 3rd 430,

The 8 segments run into 6 hours, covers everything in my view on JFK.

Good info . Anybody who thinks LHO acted alone just hasn't taken the time to read the declassified ARRB files .

The govt official conclusion is that it was a probable conspiracy and the DOJ should re open the investigation . The fact it was never re opened tells you all you need to know , some powerful people were behind this .

Shoot LBJ said on camera it was a conspiracy and cleverly said it was Cubans , never clarifying whether he meant the anti Castro Cubans funded by the CIA . This is a tactic used by several others as well. Listen to Castro speech right after the hit , he knew who was behind this as the same people were trying to whack him for years .

The government did it and the mob was happy about it.THE END

I cant fuckin belive it that after all this time many people still think that Oswald acted alone?! LOL ...and on top of that they belive that Ruby killed him because of patriotism?! LOL LOL LOL

Im startin to think that these are government people lurking around here and at the same time,spreadin lies and fake stories LOL

I watched a documentary on netflix about the assasination and it was a theory I've never heard before. Guy was a ballistics expert.. He claims a secret service agent in the car trailing kennedy grabbed an ar15 after he heard the first shot and "accidentally" let a round off that hit kennedy in the head. I don't know how much weight the theory holds but there is pictures of the agent in the trailing car with the ar15 in his hand... Like I said his thought the guy pulled the rifle after he heard lho's first shot and accidentaly let a round off striking the president.. Then the secret service obviously covered it up.. There's so many fucking theories and I'm in no way saying any is right or wrong.. This theory I mentioned could be full bullshit for all I know. I just thought it was interesting to watch because I've never heard anything about this before so I just thought I would mention it here. If anyones interested in watching the documentary ill look it up and post the name of it here if anyone wants to check it out on netflix.

I would not be surprised if people on those senate committees knew who did it. Like that senator from Penn. Arlen Spector and that former astronaut John Glenn they probably know. They are both still alive I think.

I was some place in the Bronx when we heard about it. Frankly people were surprised but no one really gave a shit. They just continued to do with they were doing like it was no big deal.

I heard all kinds of theories one was a shooter was on street level and shoot him from a sewer opening under the street.

We'll probably never find out for sure, but Im convinced the 'Officer Tippet' situation has more legs...Ive read reports Tippet had looked aggitated and stormed into a shop to use their payphone just before he was shot...just sounds strange. Also, the JFK shooting, I think we all need to start treating the lone shooter theory as absurd-the one shot from the rear allegedly came from a cia connected building right behind kennedy's motorcade at basically ground level

Yes there was 1 book I read that was only about Tippet and basically it said Tippet was supposed to kill LHO and that message was relayed to his wife . Getting to the Tippet story could open new details . Read the Wes wise allegations that tied LHO in a car registered to Tippet neighbor and good friend Carl Mather right after the assasination . Wise was a mayor of Dallas and radio broadcaster so he had some credibility , not too mention Mather worked for deep cover CIA company Collins radio that was knee deep in all the Castro assasination attempts .

Personally that's what I think happened , the anti castro Cubans and their CIA backers turned on JFK after he called off the dogs after the missle crisis but who pulled their strings is the real ? , some big players tho for sure .

Here is a link to NYPD Detective Ralph Salerno testimony on this matter....It has some good material to read....I have to say it's not very easy on the eyes.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/saler.htm

Well, J D Tippett was involved, as I suspected.....check out the book "into the nightmare" or YouTube....he was a player without a doubt

Now it's proved Tippet was involved, check the book"into the nightmare",or YouTube, I'm never wrong btw!

The CIA orchestrated the whole thing. The mob had tremendous clout and money back then but the CIA was funded with money 50x larger than what the entire American LCN earned.

Many benefited, though. That's for sure. There were probably hundreds who knew JFK was a dead man back then. Even JFK knew. A violent KKK member named Joseph Milteer was bragging on a FBI wiretap about how JFK would be executed by a high powered rifle. Of course, the feds never went into it. And why would they? The CIA were/are the real gangsters. They'll kill you in a second if you get in their way. Especially something as big as killing a president.


Btw Milteer was killed in some mysterious accident involving his oven. He suffered burns. He died at the hospital and the nurses didn't know why. They didn't give him an autopsy. Probably just another loose end that got whacked for knowing too much by the killing machine that was the CIA.

Too many people have. Died

a new book out, "LBJ, the mastermind behind the kennedy assassination" great read, he and J. edgar hoover created a great cover-up.

I believe you can find the book on amazon.

I don't think LBJ had anything to do with it. I really don't.

The assassination of JFK really seems very simple to me, especially after watching a cable documentary featuring several experts investigating the theory that the Secret Service were behind it.

The motive: JFK ran on a civil rights platform, but stalled in getting legislation passed. This created a motive (the desire to stop him from passing the anti discriminatory Civil Rights Act) and a window of opportunity (the time period between when JFK announced his intentions and when he would actually follow through). I believe had JFK signed this legislation earlier, there would have existed no motive to kill him. As a consequence of the delay he never got to sign civil rights legislation and LBJ ended up doing so...and then wisely did not run for office once his term was up.

The Patsy: Oswald [and Jack Ruby] probably acting on orders from the mafia. The mafia is one of the few organizations that can coerce someone into doing a hit they don't really want to do. I can't think of any other motivating factor for Oswald and Ruby to act other than Cosa Nostra. Oswald like Sirhan Sirhan strikes me as an independent soldier of fortune, or contract hitman. It is a credible scenario that Oswald learned to shoot in the military and then contracted his services out as a hitman after his military career ended.

Jack Ruby? A mobbed up associate of organized crime that the mob was able to recruit to eliminate Oswald in broad daylight because he (Ruby) had terminal cancer, and because of that he could not be fully prosecuted or held accountable.

The Killer: This documentary I saw analyzed the ballistic evidence down to matching the calibre of bullet to the hole in JFK's skull, and pointed out that his X Ray chart was doctored to omit the presence of frangible bullet fragments. They made an excellent case that JFK was in fact shot by an AR 15 rifle belonging to one of the members of JFK's Secret Service detail. IMHO, Oswald was just hired by the mafia [or someone acting on their behalf without Oswald's knowledge] to be at Dealey Plaza and fire on the President so that he would create a diversion. The President was probably shot first by Oswald. That first shot created noise and a diversion so that while the crowd's attention was elsewhere, the Secret Service could finish JFK off with an exploding tip bullet.

The trajectory of the kill shot line up with the security detail riding behind JFK, not the Texas Depository Building Oswald was hidden in.

The trajectory of the explosion from JFK's head match up with JFK's security detail location....not the location of Oswald.

The type of wound created by the kill shot to JFK's head matched up with the exploding tip bullets, not Oswald's rifle.

The Secret Service had the Ar 15 with exploding tip bullets and the calibre size also matched up with the hole in the back of JFK's skull...not Oswald's bullets which could not even fit through the hole that was made. This was demonstrated in the documentary.

Why do you use an exploding tip bullet? To make sure the target is killed which is supposedly safer for the shooters and conspirators.

Therefore in this scenario, the mafia was not used as assassins so much as used to provide patsy's to deflect blame from the real killer[s].

The motive here would successfully tie JFK's killing to that of MLK and other major civil rights leaders of the time who were targeted by J Edgar Hoover's so called Cointelpro.

Am I saying Hoover hit JFK? No. Just that he had to be a part of it in a sense because it was Hoover's duty to investigate the crime. The killers had to have Hoover in their back pocket before they could proceed. Therefore Hoover knew about the hit ahead of time.

RFK had to be hit because he as the full blooded brother of JFK and the US Attorney General would find and prosecute the killers to the limit of the law.

Now that Cuba and the US are friends again. I suggest our President go to Cuba and speak to his friend Fidel and ask him. When the blockade of Cuba was ordered by Kennedy did Fidel beg the Russians to nuke the US. But calmer minds like Nikta Khrushchev said no.

President Obama would tel Fidel he was right that the Russian should have nuked the US because It would have been easier to distribute all the wealth if he did.

Then Obama would blow Fidel and say goodbye.