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.

 

Did the SOVIETS (not the Russians..there's a difference) Kill Kennedy???

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
First off this has nothing to do with present day Russia.. This would have had nothing to do with Putin nor anyone still in office.

We are talking pre 1963..and a totally different government in the Soviet Union.

Just to avoid anybody trying to tie this to the present day political stuff.

What if, Oswald and/or a group of Soviet conspirators killed Kennedy, and all the things that look fishy were to cover it up to avoid the American people demanding WW3..

Ok, so to set the political scene.. this is the middle of the nuclear revolution..

But you really got to go back a couple decades to when WW2 had just been kicked off by the assassination of a very popular arch duke by Serbian nationals with close ties to the Serbian government. All of Europe burned and 10 million people died before it concluded when the US dropped the bomb in 1945..


and then soviets get theirs by 1950...



Then you have the Cuban missle crisis just a year before the assassination of A very popular American president...


What happens if the morning after Kennedys assassination the headline of every paper in the US reads "suspected Soviet agent kills JFK!"

What would the American people want done and does the world even survive that???

What if all the cover up was really to make sure it was a nice and tight "lone wolf gunman" rather than a wide open suspected communist agent with close soviet ties who had just assassinated a very popular American president??




If you were pulling the puppet strings and you knew the end result would probably be a global nuclear war, what do you tell the American people???


What does the headline of your newspaper say that next morning if your the editor??


There are a thousand cool JFK theories , but imho it's ones like these that really don't fit ANYONES political narrative that I find the most interesting.. so when I ran across this one it had the just crazy enough to be true ring to it.


edit on 28-3-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's possible, didn't Oswald spend some time in USSR? Reminds me of a thread about the Kursk Incident recently. Russian missile hits the Pentagon etc. It can work both ways i.e. Plausible deniability if it was ever proven that a missile hit the Pentagon. Better to blame Russia than have another civil war.

Just thinking out loud...



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's possible, didn't Oswald spend some time in USSR? Reminds me of a thread about the Kursk Incident recently. Russian missile hits the Pentagon etc. It can work both ways i.e. Plausible deniability if it was ever proven that a missile hit the Pentagon. Better to blame Russia than have another civil war.

Just thinking out loud...



Is it better to go to war with Russia than have a civil war when global nuclear war is the risk with Russian/US war???



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You might want to check your history ;-)

" This crisis was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by an ethnic Serb who had been supported by a nationalist organization in Serbia. The crisis escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia came to involve Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and Great Britain. Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis that preceded the war included misperceptions of intent (e.g., the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), fatalism that war was inevitable, and the speed of the crisis, which was exacerbated by delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications."

That was world war 1. Germany was held at bay through legal agreement, 20 year armistice, which then allowed germany via hitler to go after what germany believed was the rest of the german empire, then occupied by little things, like other countries. If I remember right however, germania was part of initially (if we go back that far), a roman occupied territory and then held by the french. Maybe Hitler was confused?

Concerning your OP and the russians; who had the most to gain or lose by having kennedy killed? Personally, I'd go with the FED as kennedy was trying to get a commodity (gold/silver) backed currency off the ground in EO 11110. Since many of us have a good idea of the food chain, most likely the FED used the CIA or some other intel group good at wetwork to off him. The russians stood to gain nothing by having kennedy dead, however, the FED and their handlers stood to lose trillions if he had of stayed alive and moved forward on having treasury start coining american currency, taking it out of the FEDS hands.

Why was kaddafi killed? Can you say Gold Dinar? Sure, knew ya could ;-)

Follow the money.....

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/28.2017 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




But you really got to go back a couple decades to when WW2 had just been kicked off by the assassination of a very popular arch duke by Serbian nationals with close ties to the Serbian government. All of Europe burned and 10 million people died before it concluded when the US dropped the bomb in 1945..


Are you sure about that...the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand supposedly was the reason for WW1, the invasion of Poland being the excuse for WW2

Oswald spending some time in Russia was the perfect excuse to have a second shooter ensure that JFK died and to keep the cold war alive.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Thanks for correcting Joshua about the wars...this especially about the Fed



I'd go with the FED as kennedy was trying to get a commodity (gold/silver) backed currency off the ground in EO 11110. Since many of us have a good idea of the food chain, most likely the FED used the CIA or some other intel group good at wetwork to off him. The russians stood to gain nothing by having kennedy dead, however, the FED and their handlers stood to lose trillions if he had of stayed alive and moved forward on having treasury start coining american currency, taking it out of the FEDS hands.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Interesting theory. Heres another. Where were the clintons on nov. 22, 1963?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Sounds like an awesome video game

In all honesty, why not, but I'm going with the CIA in this one.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It was probably someone in our government or intelligence agencies. That is what everyone was saying back when it happened anyway. There were a lot of people in our upper levels of the country that really did not like the way Kennedy was doing things.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
You are laughable. Would you ever actually post this if it weren't for the supposed "Russian interference" currently headlining in the US media at this point in history?

I've looked at your posting history (which you should take a lesson on and actually do some research before you begin to move your fingers on the keyboard) and it is very disappointing.

What exactly are you asking or implying?

I don't want to sound harsh, but you are just wasting people's time and mental energy by even asking the questions you expect a response to.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: godsmokes
You are laughable. Would you ever actually post this if it weren't for the supposed "Russian interference" currently headlining in the US media at this point in history?

I've looked at your posting history (which you should take a lesson on and actually do some research before you begin to move your fingers on the keyboard) and it is very disappointing.

What exactly are you asking or implying?

I don't want to sound harsh, but you are just wasting people's time and mental energy by even asking the questions you expect a response to.


I see your point on the OP lol. I went through the OP posting list and man, a little fixated on "stuff" methinks.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I very much appreciate your feedback. I've been what people call 'lurking' for several years now and I just can't stand it anymore. Unfortunately, ATS has been on a very gradual decline and getting too political for my taste. I still check in frequently and love the original posts and great thinkers this forum has to offer.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's possible, didn't Oswald spend some time in USSR? Reminds me of a thread about the Kursk Incident recently. Russian missile hits the Pentagon etc. It can work both ways i.e. Plausible deniability if it was ever proven that a missile hit the Pentagon. Better to blame Russia than have another civil war.

Just thinking out loud...



Is it better to go to war with Russia than have a civil war when global nuclear war is the risk with Russian/US war???


That's arguable. A civil war in the US would make the country so vulnerable that a foreign power could just walk in and take it.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I don't think USSR had sufficient motive, and they understood the blowback ramifications.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You might want to check your history ;-)

" This crisis was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by an ethnic Serb who had been supported by a nationalist organization in Serbia. The crisis escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia came to involve Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and Great Britain. Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis that preceded the war included misperceptions of intent (e.g., the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), fatalism that war was inevitable, and the speed of the crisis, which was exacerbated by delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications."

That was world war 1. Germany was held at bay through legal agreement, 20 year armistice, which then allowed germany via hitler to go after what germany believed was the rest of the german empire, then occupied by little things, like other countries. If I remember right however, germania was part of initially (if we go back that far), a roman occupied territory and then held by the french. Maybe Hitler was confused?

Concerning your OP and the russians; who had the most to gain or lose by having kennedy killed? Personally, I'd go with the FED as kennedy was trying to get a commodity (gold/silver) backed currency off the ground in EO 11110. Since many of us have a good idea of the food chain, most likely the FED used the CIA or some other intel group good at wetwork to off him. The russians stood to gain nothing by having kennedy dead, however, the FED and their handlers stood to lose trillions if he had of stayed alive and moved forward on having treasury start coining american currency, taking it out of the FEDS hands.

Why was kaddafi killed? Can you say Gold Dinar? Sure, knew ya could ;-)

Follow the money.....

Cheers - Dave


My bad promis I knew that lol.. I just missed a step when laying it all out..

Good catch.

Anything is a possibility, just thought this was a cool angle..

Kinda like the "secret service shot him by accident amid the assassination attempt and the cover up was to hide the accident."



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's possible, didn't Oswald spend some time in USSR? Reminds me of a thread about the Kursk Incident recently. Russian missile hits the Pentagon etc. It can work both ways i.e. Plausible deniability if it was ever proven that a missile hit the Pentagon. Better to blame Russia than have another civil war.

Just thinking out loud...



Is it better to go to war with Russia than have a civil war when global nuclear war is the risk with Russian/US war???


That's arguable. A civil war in the US would make the country so vulnerable that a foreign power could just walk in and take it.



I don't think there is a greater evil than 10,00 nukes vs. 10,000 nukes..

Is hitler running the world better than a global nuclear war??? Probably...most likely... screw it guarenteed..

Ain't no comming back from that..

What's the quote??

"I don't know how big the bombs will be during the next world war, but the war after that will be fought with sticks and stones..."(Oppenheimer??? Maybe??? Definitely someone smarter than me..)
edit on 29-3-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it was Einstein.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

missed a step? I think you should have posted in the Short Stories section....not History



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: godsmokes
You are laughable. Would you ever actually post this if it weren't for the supposed "Russian interference" currently headlining in the US media at this point in history?

I've looked at your posting history (which you should take a lesson on and actually do some research before you begin to move your fingers on the keyboard) and it is very disappointing.

What exactly are you asking or implying?

I don't want to sound harsh, but you are just wasting people's time and mental energy by even asking the questions you expect a response to.



No actually I specifically took the time to seperate the Soviet government and officials that hypothetically would have been involved and a totally different Russian government led by putin..

It was 50 years ago roughly.. putin wasn't running things 50 years ago, anyone running things then was prob at least 45-50 and most likely long dead, let alone still in power.

I ran across this from dan Carlin from hardcore history.... I don't think he actually said this specifically, but either eluded to it or laid out the elements and in tieing it togather.

After the arch duke you had WW1..

Then you had WW2 and nukes hit the table..

Then you have a very popular president assassinated by a Cuban national with Soviet/communist ties, yet no deeper conspiracy was ever even considered..at least not publicly..

It was cut and dry Oswald, nothing to see here.

So assuming that is the next mornings headline, I don't think it is far fetched to think the American people would want blood.

Why did no politician try and use it for political fodder true or not??



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: JoshuaCox

missed a step? I think you should have posted in the Short Stories section....not History



What's your JFK theory??

Ps this isn't some long held dogma of mine, just an interesting thought.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join