Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cuba Ordered JFK Assassination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I resently saw a nice documentary focusing on the Magic Bullet, the largly debunked the magic and unheald the findings of the Waren Report.

    They did an excelent recreation of the Assasination, Balistic Torsos were created to replicate Kennedy and Connaly adsact anatamy and position at point they were shot. An identical Carcino Rifle and amunition from the same batch that Ozwald used was fired from a perch equivlilent to the School Book Depository.

    To make the Kennedy Torso they examining Kennedy's shirt for the Bullet hole, then posed a man of similar height as Kenedy had been siting when shot and X-rayed him. They found that kennedys entrace would would actualy have been at the base of his neck and the bullet followed a strait line through his body.

    It then continued in a straitline to the Govenor beggining to tumble and entered slanted to produce to the elongated entrace wound. The buttet continued on in a straitline to enter his wrist. In the wrist the bullet was deflected to enter the Thigh. In total the bullet is only deflected off its straitline course once at the Govenors wrist when it is already lost most of its energy.

    Their simulation almost perfectly replicated the wounding present in Kennedy and Connaly. The only major difference being that their bullet broke 2 ribs in Connaly and then left the wrist with so little energy that it bounced off their final block which represented the Thigh. Their bullet was also more deformed then the "magic" bullet likly because it hit additional bones. The fact that the bullet could be moving so slowly after leaving the wrist adds weight the the argument that the bullett might have come out of the Govenors thigh on its own to be found later on the streatcher.

    They conclude that only 1 shooter Oswald need be present to fully account for all the shots and wounds inflicedt that day. Given that a second shooter is not nessary and no evidence for one has ever been found, they conclude Oswald was the lone gunman. This dose not preclude a conspiracy behind Oswald (I personaly DO belive Oswald was a tool of some higher power), it mearly means their was only 1 shooter which is not unreasonable. A group or conspiring to assasinate Kennedy would have trouble finding and positioning skilled gunman and each additional gunman raises the chance the plot will be found out. A man firing from a very open and exposed position like the grassy knoll would not be very smart.

    I also belive their was a coverup, as in an intential and politicaly motivated effort to declare Oswald a lone wacko. The goverment most likly never knew if this asertion was true or not simply for the reason that they didn't investigate. They didn't want the public to know and its much easier to not leak information if you dont have the information to leak, hense no investigation. Ironicaly this means that theirs a slim chance he realy WAS a lone wacko and a proper investigation at the time would have reavealed that. But ofcorse their not going to risk that one of the conspiracy leads actualy pans out and finds a conspiracy, especialy one implicating the Russians and/or Cubans.

    As that fictional frontpage aludes too, it possible that multiple organizations conspired to do it. Cuba might have gotten assistence from Russian agents if not from the full Russian goverment, and possible mofia partispation as the "hired help" isn't out of the question either. So rather then "Who done it?" its more of a "Who Didnt do it?".
    Last edited by Impaler[WrG]; January 12, 2006, 10:20.
    Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks - those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. - Thus spoke Zarathustra, Fredrick Nietzsche

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by mrmitchell
      billybud or others who can help:
      I don't have time to search it on my own right now but at what dates (at least years) was Oswald sent to Russia, and came back to the US?

      I don't think they could have planned his assassination before he even won the election. That would be ridiculous.

      Also: Has anyone studied Russian records, if any exist, on Oswald or the assassination? I mean, an exile from your biggest enemy comes, used to be in the CIA etc, knows perfect Russian. They're going to want to keep an eye on him right?
      I believe Oswald was in Russia betwen late 1959 to 1961.

      From what I have read of the evidence Oswald was clearly in intelligence. In 1959 I doubt seriously any asassination had been planned. Nixon was supposed to have won that 1960 election.

      Also, people are recruited by intelligence agencies all the time.

      Oswald was given the royal treatment while he was in Russia - lots of money, big apartment, etc...

      Oswald used to work at the secret U2 spy plane base in Japan while he was in the Marines. It is interesting that the U2 Spy plane (with Gary Powers) was shot down in 1960 while Oswald was in Russia.

      Some researchers have theorized that Oswald gave up U2 spy plane info in return for the good treatment while he was in Russia.

      At this time President Ike was seeking detente and peaceful test ban treaties with Russia. He had planned to meet with Khruschev in 1960. But hard-liners in the US did not want this to happen. When that U2 Spy plane was shot down, the meeting between Ike and Khruschev was called off....
      Last edited by BillyBud; January 12, 2006, 11:01.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
        I resently saw a nice documentary focusing on the Magic Bullet, the largly debunked the magic and unheald the findings of the Waren Report.

        [EDITED FOR LENGTH]

        As that fictional frontpage aludes too, it possible that multiple organizations conspired to do it. Cuba might have gotten assistence from Russian agents if not from the full Russian goverment, and possible mofia partispation as the "hired help" isn't out of the question either. So rather then "Who done it?" its more of a "Who Didnt do it?".
        Hi friend.

        Years ago I used to watch TV specials all the time. All my info about the Kennedy assassination usually came from TV specials.

        They usually presented the same stuff that you saw, and yes I saw that special too.

        And you know what? I believed it too, or at least, it left me confused. I thought, if all these people have proven this stuff, then maybe Oswald was the lone gun man...

        At that time I actually trusted and believed in those in authority. I also thought TV specials were telling me the truth (or close to it).

        After hearing a great deal of conflicting info (mostly from the TV), I decided to do my own reading on the subject. Well, it didn't take me long to realize that most of the stuff on these TV specials was complete nonsense....

        That TV station that aired that special was probably one of the TV stations that tried to destroy New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrion's reputation when he tried to bring Clay Shaw to trial for the murder of President John F. Kennedy back in 1967.

        Those in authority who present the garbage that was on that TV special count on the fact that most people will not look into the matter on their own. It is well known that many people simply don't have the time to read up on this subject; they count on people to rely on the TV for their information...

        Those in authority will turn logic on its head in order to prove the un-provable.

        The so-called single bullet theory has been so completely disproven by the evidence that I am shocked to hear that today some people still believe in it.

        That TV special simply is a work of complete fantasy and ignores almost all the evidence in order to have a single bullet do all the damage.

        First, the Carcano rifle was the absolute worst rifle that could have been used. Supposedly Oswald used this rifle. Yet, the Zapruder film proved that this bolt action rifle could not have fired all three bullets in the time framed allowed for it.

        Second, Oswald's Marine records show that he was a terrible shot. Yet, sharpshooters for the Warren Commission COULD NOT duplicate the shooting attributed to Oswald.

        Third, on the day of the shooting, tests taken of Oswald PROVE that he had NOT fired a weapon at all.

        Fourth, ALL the medical evidence, doctor's testimony, and the eye witness testimony of DOZENS of persons in Dealey Plaza completely debunk this single bullet theory.

        Fifth, as for Russia/Cuba being involved in Kennedy's shooting, that is complete nonsense. There is absolutely NO evidence to support such a claim.

        Kennedy had promised Castro that he would not invade Cuba. And kennedy was moving toward detente with Russia.

        Both countries would have been slitting their own throats to kill Kennedy and have a hard-liner become president and heat up the Cold War.

        My apologies but I present the following lengthy information dealing with the single bullet theory.


        The Single-Bullet Theory

        What is the single-bullet theory? It is that the same 6.5 mm metal-jacketed Carcano bullet which supposedly hit Kennedy in the back of the neck exited his throat, struck Governor John Connally in the back, tore through his chest, transited his wrist, and ended up in his thigh, causing all of Connally's extensive wounds, to include the smashing of a rib bone and the shattering of the radius bone in the governor's right wrist, and yet emerged in nearly pristine condition to be found at Parkland Hospital shortly after the President was pronounced dead. This bullet, known to many as the "magic bullet," is officially listed as Commission Exhibit (CE) 399. Even two of the autopsy doctors told the WC [Warren Commission] they regarded the theory as doubtful, and we now know that WC member Senator Russell strongly rejected the theory. If the single-bullet theory is wrong, then there must have been more than one gunman firing at Kennedy.

        McAdams argues that trajectory studies have proven a trajectory through Kennedy and Connally that establishes the plausibility of the single-bullet theory:

        Thomas Canning was a NASA scientist who studied the Single Bullet trajectory for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He used the Betzner photograph to establish a line to the right of which Connally could not have been. He also estimated the rotation of Connally's torso from the Zapruder film. The result was an alignment that showed the bullet leaving Kennedy's throat to strike Connally in the back of the shoulder--which is where Connally was actually struck. Of course, you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

        But Canning's analysis has come under heavy attack, and for good reason. Dr. Michael Kurtz says the following about Canning's trajectory study:

        Further divorcing the committee's investigation from reliability was its dependence upon the analysis of NASA expert Thomas Canning for determining the trajectory of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally. . . .

        In permitting Canning to perform his trajectory analysis, the committee ignored the advice of the Pathology Panel. The panel cautioned that there is no reliable method of "determining the missile trajectory . . . particularly if precision within the range of a few degrees is required." This was illustrated by Canning's rejection of the objective medical evidence. Instead of using the true location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's back (approximately four inches below the shoulder), Canning arbitrarily raised it three inches in order to arrive at a trajectory consistent with the sixth-floor window [i.e., the window from which Oswald supposedly fired]. He also computed the angle of the wound as twenty-one degrees downward. This was nothing less than a blatant distortion of the medical evidence, which proved that the bullet entered the president's back at a "slightly upward" angle. Despite similar distortions of other parts of the objective medical data, Canning's trajectory analysis resulted in margins of error, by his own admission, that would have permitted the assassins to have fired from such diverse locations as the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors, and the roof of the Depository, as well as from the two upper floors of the neighboring Dal-Tex building. (CRIME OF THE CENTURY: THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION FROM A HISTORIAN'S PERSPECTIVE, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 179-180)

        McAdams cites Canning's study, even though Canning assumed Kennedy was first hit at about Zapruder frame 190 (or Z190). Yet, McAdams doesn't believe Kennedy was first hit until Z223:

        Canning used the House Select Committee scenario that had Kennedy and Connally being struck by the Single Bullet at Zapruder frame 190. More recent work has pinpointed the time of the hit to Zapruder frame 223. Various researchers have modeled the Single Bullet Theory at that frame. Failure Analysis Associates, in work done for a 1992 "mock trial" of Lee Harvey Oswald for the American Bar Association, used 3-D computer animation and modeling techniques to research the bullet trajectory, and concluded that the Single Bullet Trajectory works.

        McAdams cites the trajectory study done by Dale Myers:

        Dale Myers, a specialist in computer animation, built a 3-D model of Dealey Plaza, the limo, Kennedy and Connally, and also concluded that the trajectory works.

        But, for one thing, Myers leans his Kennedy figure far forward to make his trajectory work, so far, in fact, that the model's back is completely off the seat. And, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right, whereas fellow lone-gunman theorist Todd Wayne Vaughan measures the degree of rotation as being only 10 degrees. In the Zapruder film we see Connally's shoulders are facing nearly parallel to the roll bar in Z223-224. The roll bar is a fixed horizontal point inside the limousine, and thus provides us with an excellent measuring rod. One can look at Z223-224 and plainly see that Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the roll bar. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt noted to the WC that in Z222 Connally is turned only slightly to the right and that in the few frames thereafter he is "almost square, straight on with the car momentarily":

        Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as--in the motion picture as the car comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and there is a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there, at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn. (5 H 155)

        There are other problems with Myers' trajectory model. He assumes a location for the back wound that is clearly above the location of the wound as it appears in the autopsy photo of the back. In Myers' model, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it. But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it. Key frames from Myers' model can be found in Appendix A of Gus Russo's book LIVE BY THE SWORD (Baltimore: Bancroft Press, 1998).

        The various trajectory analyses that have supposedly established a plausible single-bullet theory trajectory have several flaws in common. One, they all either ignore the HSCA's information about the upward trajectory of Kennedy's back wound or they try to account for this information by assuming Kennedy was leaning far forward when the bullet struck his back, even though we know from footage of the shooting that Kennedy was not leaning very far forward during the time frame when he was first hit. Two, they don't explain the fact that the nick on the knot of Kennedy's tie was NOT on either edge of the knot and that no hole was made through the tie. Three, they must assume Connally was rotated rather markedly to the right when he was struck in the back, when in fact the Zapruder film shows his shoulders were nearly square to the limousine's roll bar. Four, they usually position Connally 10-12 inches to Kennedy's left, while the photographic evidence seems to show he was no more than 8 inches to Kennedy's left. And, five, they ignore the fact that missile going from Kennedy's back wound to his throat wound would have had to smash through Kennedy's spine, causing massive damage.

        Document 45 in Stewart Galanor's book COVER-UP shows a CAT scan made by Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist. The scan was taken of a person with the same upper chest and neck dimensions as President Kennedy. Dr. Mantik took the scan at the level of the seventh cervical vertebra, which is where lone-gunman theorists argue the back wound was located. Dr. Mantik then drew a straight line from the location of the back wound to the location of the throat wound, proving that any bullet that traveled that path would smash into the spine.

        McAdams argues that the back wound was not as low as many researchers believe it was. This is a key issue, because if the back wound was as low as the wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, then the single-bullet theory is rendered impossible from the outset. McAdams argues that the evidence for a low location is erroneous, starting with the autopsy face sheet:

        What is the evidence for the "low" back wound location? The piece of evidence that conspiracy books will most often show you is the face sheet from the autopsy. It seems to place the wound too low to be consistent with the exit wound in the front of the neck.

        What will the conspiracy books not tell you about this? They won't tell you that the face sheet also has a measurement placing the wound. It places the wound 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process. That's not consistent with the lower dot location, but it is consistent with other statements in the autopsy.

        For some reason, McAdams doesn't mention the well-known fact that the 14-cm measurement appears to be in pen, whereas all the other markings on the face sheet seem to be in pencil--the measurement is clearly darker than all other markings on the sheet. This would suggest the measurement might have been added to the sheet after the autopsy.

        McAdams also says nothing about the other evidence that supports the low location indicated by the wound dot on the face sheet. What is that evidence? Here's a summary of it:

        * The holes in JFK's shirt and coat place the wound five to six inches below the collar line. The claim that his coat and shirt were hunched up on his back when the bullet struck in such a way as to make the proposed higher back wound line up with the clothing holes is not only far-fetched, but, in my opinion, refuted by the photographic evidence, as even lone-gunman theorist Jim Moore concedes. Even if Kennedy's coat was somewhat bunched, his tailor-made shirt certainly wasn't bunched to any significant degree.

        * Dr. J. Thornton Boswell's autopsy face sheet, which, as mentioned above, shows the wound five to six inches below the neck, was marked "verified."

        * The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. This document was also marked "verified."

        * Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra. This is even slightly lower than where the death certificate places the wound.

        * Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.

        * The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound BELOW the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade).


        * Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit.

        * Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck.

        * Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back."

        * Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated the back wound was two to three inches BELOW the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. (Some WC defenders argue that Bowron told the WC she didn't see any wound other than the large head wound. But if one reads her testimony carefully, it is clear she was speaking of the condition of Kennedy's body when she first saw it in the limousine. What she said in effect was that she didn't notice any wounds other than the head wound when she first saw his body lying in the limousine. See 6 H 136.)

        * In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade. Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade." (When I asked McAdams about this fact, he opined that Rankin was referring to the face sheet, which is a drawing. But nowhere else in the WC volumes do we ever see a drawing referred to as a picture. Furthermore, the face sheet doesn't even show features like the shoulder blades.)

        * Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who got a very good look at the President's body, said the wound was "in the shoulder."

        McAdams doesn't mention any of this evidence that the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory.


        Last edited by BillyBud; January 12, 2006, 11:56.

        Comment


        • #79
          For those interested to read more on the single bullet theory, the following is a link to another excellent article:


          TEN REASONS I REJECT THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY

          Michael T. Griffith

          2000

          @All Rights Reserved

          Comment


          • #80
            It might be worthwhile at this point to mention some of the experts and public figures who have said they believe a conspiracy killed President Kennedy or who have said they reject the single-bullet theory, which is the foundation of the lone-gunman theory:

            * Dr. Joseph Dolce, an Army wound ballistics expert who played a leading role in the WC's (Warren Commission) wound ballistics tests.

            * G. Robert Blakey, a professor of law at Notre Dame University and the former chief counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

            * The late Senator Richard Schweiker.

            * Senator Christopher Dodd, who served on the HSCA when he was a member of the House of Representatives.

            * The late Senator Richard Russell, who served on the WC (Warren Commission) .

            * Dr. Roger McCarthy, a ballistics expert with Failure Analysis, which assisted with the American Bar Association's mock Oswald trials in the 1990s.

            * Robert MacNeil, formerly of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS.

            * Ambassador William Atwood, former Special Assistant to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations.

            * Vice President Al Gore.

            * President Lyndon Johnson. (We now know from the Johnson White House tapes that Johnson rejected the single-bullet theory. We also know from former Johnson aides and associates that privately Johnson said he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.)

            * The late Dr. Milton Helpern, a renowned forensic pathologist and formerly the medical examiner for New York City.

            * The late Dr. John Nichols, a forensic pathologist and formerly a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas.

            * The late Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper who was widely regarded as the greatest sniper of the 20th century.

            * The late Evelyn Lincoln, who was Kennedy's White House secretary.

            * The late Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician.

            Literally, this list could continue for several pages. We also know that many members of the Kennedy family, along with Jackie Kennedy's own mother, came to believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy. I quote from Chris Anderson's discussion on this point in his book JACKIE AFTER JACK:

            Even those not privy to the facts found it hard to believe that Oswald acted alone. Jackie's own mother believed it was no coincidence that the assassination took place in Dallas. "Mother always felt Johnson was behind Jack's assassination," Jamie Auchinloss said. "She never stopped believing it."

            By the late 1970s, Ted Kennedy would privately lean toward the conspiracy view, as would Bobby's oldest son, Joe, and several other Kennedy cousins. (JACKIE AFTER JACK, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1998, p. 80)


            Last edited by BillyBud; January 12, 2006, 13:31.

            Comment


            • #81
              For those of you who know little or nothing about Kennedy's Assassination, probably the best and easiest way to become acquainted with it is to watch two films.

              The first film I highly recommend watching is Thirteen Days (Infinifilm Edition) (2001).

              Find out for yourself why many of the top political/military leaders hated Kennedy.

              Plot Outline: The film is set during the two-week Cuban missile crisis in October of 1962, and it centers on how President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and others handled the explosive situation.

              Plot Synopsis: In October, 1962, U-2 surveillance photos reveal that the Soviet Union is in the process of placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. These weapons have the capability of wiping out most of the Eastern and Southern United States in minutes if they become operational. President John F. Kennedy and his advisors must come up with a plan of action against the Soviets. Kennedy is determined to show that he is strong enough to stand up to the threat, and the Pentagon advises U.S. military strikes against Cuba--which could lead the way to another U.S. invasion of the island. However, Kennedy is reluctant to follow through, because a U.S. invasion could cause the Soviets to retaliate in Europe. A nuclear showdown appears to be almost inevitable. Can it be prevented?


              The second film I highly recommend is The Director's Cut [2 disc version] of Oliver Stone's JFK. It won two Academy Awards and was nominated for several more.

              In a little over three hours Stone uses Jim Garrison's real life prosecution of Clay Shaw to reveal to us a great of the evidence surrounding Kennedy's death. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

              However, it is a film about much more than just the murder of a president. It goes to the very heart of the nature of the powerful political, ideological and military forces that were prevalent at the time of Kennedy's death.

              Find out for yourself what is in this film. Why was Stone so viciously attacked even before this film was released? Why was Jim Garrison so viciously attacked? What is in this film that the authorities don't want you to see?

              Why did major TV stations and media outlets go out of their way to try to discredit, ridicule, and defame this film, the director and many of the actors who appear in this film?

              Find out for yourself....

              Comment

              Working...
              X