It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

J.F.K. Assassination - What evidence raises your suspicions most?

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
I would say accumulation of circumstances which rarely get discussed.

I think it is HIGHLY fortuitous LHO got a job at the book depository which just happened to be on JFK's future route and in a great place for a shot. Many will argue he would have just shot from someplace else but that is ignoring the point. He did not have to. It was lined up prior to.

At the height of the Cold War, how many Marines defected to the USSR, denounced their citizenship, married an apparatchiks daughter, and later welcomed back to the US in time to visit Cuba? Just curious why this is never mentioned?

LHO was a dud. Marginally incapable of making it in the world day to day. Yet, many parts of the world he did see. Miraculously he always seemed to find the means (supposedly on his own) to make it to the next ridiculous chapter in his saga. Could it happen? Sure. How often?

Any time the assassination is discussed, the only subject is the shot in Dallas. It's almost like that is the shiny object and never mind any other aspect of context.

Oh, and how many night club owners have played such a pivotal role in tragic world events?

Yeah, I could be way off base but none of this sits well with me.


Right. How did looser Oswald manage to do so many things including make appearances at both left wing and right wing events, defect to the Soviet union and return on a U.S. military plane, etc.?




posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aazadan
A lot of people wanted Kennedy dead, they probably worked together. Oswald was no doubt involved, and I'm sure he shot at Kennedy but there were more shooters. It's very likely that a fourth shot was fired. Oswald fired one, and maybe two. Another from the grassy knoll, and one more after that.

Basically a group set up a kill zone and planned to get him in the crossfire. It worked. Oswald hit him in the throat.


If Oswald shot at Kennedy (whether he hit him or not), why didn't he have an escape plan?


I don't think he needed one. I'm positive he was involved in the conspiracy but I think that in my mind he was trying to stop it. I want to say that he intentionally shot at the president to warn them and make them get out of the kill zone, but the angle of one of the bullets that hit Kennedy came from the book depository or so we were told. I don't think he needed an escape plan because he had connections, he was counting on them to get him out of it... those connections sure did seem to help him out in the past.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


I don't think he needed an escape plan because he had connections, he was counting on them to get him out of it... those connections sure did seem to help him out in the past.


That`s what I believe too, no escape plan equals one of two things:
1)he didn`t intend to try to escape he was just going to sit there and wait to get arrested,( obviously that`s not what happened) or
2) someone else was suppose to take care of that part of the plan.

Someone else taking care of the escape plan, spells Conspiracy.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus

originally posted by: Aazadan


I don't think he needed an escape plan because he had connections, he was counting on them to get him out of it... those connections sure did seem to help him out in the past.


That`s what I believe too, no escape plan equals one of two things:
1)he didn`t intend to try to escape he was just going to sit there and wait to get arrested,( obviously that`s not what happened) or
2) someone else was suppose to take care of that part of the plan.

Someone else taking care of the escape plan, spells Conspiracy.


Or 3) he had no part in the assassination (other than being the unwitting patsy). I think #3 is the most likely because he didn't flee immediately when he wasn't whisked away by others and, when he did finally leave, he took a bus home and then left home and went to a movie theater after supposidly shooting a cop. If there was a plan to whisk him away, he would have panicked when it didn't happen. He would have gotten out of there and either left town or gone into hiding. He did neither.

I did read that the theater was between his house and Jack Ruby's house. Perhaps they were supposed to meet there.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Apologies if someone has already made reference to this - since the couple of hours following my opening of the thread I've been offline.

However, one fundamental issue with a single shooter in the alleged sixth floor window of the book depository, regardless of whether it was Oswald or anyone else, is this...

Why would you wait for the motorcade to turn before taking your first shot?

If only one person was involved, presumably they would want to maximise their potential kill window, and would try to hit their target whilst he is slowing down, coming towards them in a straight line, rather than proceeding down a slope (with a camber) away from them (with foliage covering part of this street)?

It makes no sense - unless, of course, there is more than one shooter and you wish your target to enter a killing zone of triangulated fire.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: questionyourtruth
Apologies if someone has already made reference to this - since the couple of hours following my opening of the thread I've been offline.

However, one fundamental issue with a single shooter in the alleged sixth floor window of the book depository, regardless of whether it was Oswald or anyone else, is this...

Why would you wait for the motorcade to turn before taking your first shot?

If only one person was involved, presumably they would want to maximise their potential kill window, and would try to hit their target whilst he is slowing down, coming towards them in a straight line, rather than proceeding down a slope (with a camber) away from them (with foliage covering part of this street)?

It makes no sense - unless, of course, there is more than one shooter and you wish your target to enter a killing zone of triangulated fire.


You're right. But it was a good place to plant a patsy who would be caught. When Oswald managed to get away and go home, I wonder if he got a phone call at home telling him to meet someone at the theater. The cop was probably shot to ensure that a sweep would be conducted and Oswald found because the cops didn't get him at the book depository as originally planned.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Just starting to read, and this is a great thread so far.

For me the one detail that stands out above all others is video footage of people running towards the grassy knoll after the shots were fired. There's no doubt in my mind that they are running towards a shooter they just saw and/or heard.

A close second would be evidence of the limo slowing down after the first shot (and the apparent tampering of video footage to hide that evidence).



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: questionyourtruth

You might find this interesting: harveyandlee.net...

Drag your mouse over the photos (don't click) to bring up information. The 1958 photo is especially interesting. Then scroll down to the book cover where the differences in the photos of the two Oswalds is most noticeable. Make of it all what you will.

Originally, I thought the two Oswalds theory was ridiculous. Now I think it's probably true and a key to unlocking many facts. As I've said before, any number of people and groups could have killed Oswald. The real question is who could have successfully covered it up. If you're wondering why the CIA might have created two Oswalds years before JFK was even in office, think about the likelihood that they could have been used for a variety of operations and not just this one.
edit on 22-11-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I wonder about Tippit, why did Oswald kill him? Ruby taking out Oswald is a clear indication of mafia involvment given Rubys past and the fact that killing a captured assassin is mob tactics 101.

Did Oswald even kill Tippit? Realistically it could have been anyone, if Oswald needed to go down it seems like committing a crime that could be blamed on him, and getting a search going for a specific subject is precisely what you would need to do. Once captured it would be business as usual to take him out.

As far as the two Oswald theory goes, I have to admit that it sounds ridiculous. Would the CIA really have a domestic assassin on standby at all times? That seems like just the sort of thing J Edgar Hoover would use against you.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The Warren Commission in and of itself raises my suspicions the most. A non-investigation masquerading as an official investigation.

The two contradicting autopsies is a close second.

And coming in third, the fact that Oswald reportedly failed in his attempt to assassinate General Walker at close range months prior to his alleged assassination of Kennedy.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
It was the driver who finished the job, either way.

Watch the video over and over, you'll see.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sholafar
It was the driver who finished the job, either way.

Watch the video over and over, you'll see.

www.youtube.com...


This has been debunked several times, but what you're looking at is a video artifact after the driver looks back to see what's going on. Or if you need another explanation, Kennedy was hit from the front right. The driver was to his front left, he was in no position to shoot Kennedy at that angle.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Then what's that shiny thing that looks like a pistol Greer pulls out before turning back around? If it's been debunked, of course.. just wondering?



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The Oswald assassination is an enigma. At first blush, one could presume that Ruby was good friends with the many DPD who frequented his club, and when he heard that Tippit was murdered he took vengeance on Oswald. But then his statements after being arrested were something to the effect of protecting Jacqueline Kennedy from the misery of a trial. That was lame. The videos of him at the DPD when Oswald was paraded in front of the camera are really strange, and the final nail in the coffin of conspiracy is when a reporter or cop said that Oswald was a member of the "Free Cuba Committee" and Ruby corrected him, right there on camera with audio, by stating that it was the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee". Were Ruby just a nightclub owner, he never would have known that. He had to know intimate details about Oswald. Finally, his appeal to Chief Justice Warren to be taken to DC for testimony along with other statements that very high level people were involved are uncanny. Ruby by his own behavior after the JFK assassination was damning for being involved in the coverup portion, namely getting rid of Oswald before he spilled the beans on the whole thing. All those things are right there on camera and Vincent Bugliosi could never on his best day make any argument against their being integral to the JFK assassination.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
JFK did have association with the mafia at that time.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sholafar
JFK did have association with the mafia at that time.


How could the Mafia have covered up the assassination after the fact?



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: lynxpilot
The Oswald assassination is an enigma. At first blush, one could presume that Ruby was good friends with the many DPD who frequented his club, and when he heard that Tippit was murdered he took vengeance on Oswald. But then his statements after being arrested were something to the effect of protecting Jacqueline Kennedy from the misery of a trial. That was lame. The videos of him at the DPD when Oswald was paraded in front of the camera are really strange, and the final nail in the coffin of conspiracy is when a reporter or cop said that Oswald was a member of the "Free Cuba Committee" and Ruby corrected him, right there on camera with audio, by stating that it was the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee". Were Ruby just a nightclub owner, he never would have known that. He had to know intimate details about Oswald. Finally, his appeal to Chief Justice Warren to be taken to DC for testimony along with other statements that very high level people were involved are uncanny. Ruby by his own behavior after the JFK assassination was damning for being involved in the coverup portion, namely getting rid of Oswald before he spilled the beans on the whole thing. All those things are right there on camera and Vincent Bugliosi could never on his best day make any argument against their being integral to the JFK assassination.


Bugliosi is a very smart man but he doesn't think outside the box.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sholafar
Then what's that shiny thing that looks like a pistol Greer pulls out before turning back around? If it's been debunked, of course.. just wondering?


Like I said. It's a video artifact. The film itself is quite low resolution, particularly by todays standards (resolution isn't quite the right word here as the original film has no pixels, but I'm not sure what it would be called). That means that a larger section of the image becomes represented by individual pixels. Anyways what you're seeing is a section of the driver illuminated by sunlight, it comes across as a beam due to the reflection from the chrome surfaces, mirrors, and so on in relation to the angle of the person filming it.

On top of that, a gun would not shine like that, plus how would the driver shoot Kennedy? If you look at the film (frame 312 is a good one) you can clearly see the drivers arms are on the steering wheel and he is looking forward.

The driver wasn't looking at Kennedy, had neither arm available, and wasn't in the correct position to shoot Kennedy from the required angle. It wasn't him. He could of course have been involved by slowing down in the kill zone and helping the assassins, but he didn't pull the trigger.
edit on 22-11-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
I wonder about Tippit, why did Oswald kill him? Ruby taking out Oswald is a clear indication of mafia involvment given Rubys past and the fact that killing a captured assassin is mob tactics 101.

Did Oswald even kill Tippit? Realistically it could have been anyone, if Oswald needed to go down it seems like committing a crime that could be blamed on him, and getting a search going for a specific subject is precisely what you would need to do. Once captured it would be business as usual to take him out.

As far as the two Oswald theory goes, I have to admit that it sounds ridiculous. Would the CIA really have a domestic assassin on standby at all times? That seems like just the sort of thing J Edgar Hoover would use against you.


The question is which Oswald killed Tippit if any? It makes absolutely no sense that the assassin of JFK (whomever that might be) would escape from the scene and then, when he was in the clear, do something stupid like that to ensure that he would be caught. It could be that Tippit saw something he wasn't supposed to see and was taken out for that reason. Or he could have been shot by someone wanting to ensure a manhunt in that location and the discovery of Oswald.

The CIA probably has a number of people with various skills on standby all the time and uses them when an occasion arises in which they'll be useful. Why not? We don't know that Oswald (either of them if there were two) was an assassin. Having patsys and decoys on hand is probably quite useful. One or both Oswalds (if there were two) might have been working for the CIA and never knew it.

Ruby taking out Oswald is not a clear indication of Mafia involvement. You're assuming that Ruby was only linked to one group/organization. Or, it could be that the Mafia was working for another group/organization because of mutual interests. Killing a hired assassin is probably something done by a number of organizations. Why would it specific to onlyl the Mob?



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Because when the Mafia and the Government work together they can do amazing things... even, though I was just adding on to the previous post.

a reply to: Tangerine



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join