originally posted by: DeadSeraph
-Jackie killed JFK (I've actually seen someone suggest this)
This, definitely. THIS, because it is by far the silliest
JFK assassination theory put forth other than that he committed suicide. Since the
film clearly shows Jackie Kennedy holding no weapon
(as if she would 1) kill him in the first place and 2) choose to do it in broad daylight in
front of hundreds of witnesses including a state governor--just to name the two biggest arguments against--) this means she must have hired it
--then sat right next to the intended victim in a moving vehicle
, smiling away in full confidence of her hitman's marksmanship
abilities as he blasted away with a high-powered rifle, wounding the governor. (To give credit where credit is due, Secret Service agent Clint Hill
is credited with saving Mrs. Kennedy's life.)
Sent the following message to Brad Meltzer, who did the Lost History
program seeking JFK's missing brain:
When I say, "if everyone was truthful," it seems to me the entire "it's at Arlington" theory rests with this John Metzler, the cemetery superintendent
who oversaw every aspect of the 1967 reinterment.
1. Nothing can have gone in the casket or the vault because the vault was sealed in 1963 and never reopened.
2. Nothing can have been put in the new grave before
it was dug. (Duh.)
3. Nothing can have been put in the new grave, or the old one either for that matter, during the ceremony, or after it while people were still
around--too many witnesses.
4. The only
way anything can have gone in the new grave is if it was dug well before the ceremony, Bobby Kennedy (assuming he had the brain),
paid this Metzler something to keep quiet while he put something in the bottom of the grave, then covered it so no one would know anything was down
there. One would have to ascertain when the new grave was dug and try to account for Bobby's whereabouts the whole time it was open, assuming he
didn't assign this vital job to someone else. (Not Teddy...please
5. If you don't believe in conspiracy theories, Bobby Kennedy is practically the only person with any motive to take the brain. Now, you don't
he just told whoever was in on it (Teddy, possibly Steve Smith and a choice few others), "Let's just keep the damn thing around, wait till
the next family member dies" (supposing that to be one of his parents) "and put it in with them
," meaning it is
6. If you don't believe in conspiracy theories--and I don't want to, but I'd like to see anyone explain the discrepancies just between the film and
the autopsy photos, along with about a million other things--there are far too many suspects to mention and I don't want to "go there." No one can
Bobby took it--and if anyone (surviving) knows about it (his widow Ethel, and only surviving sister Jean would be among the few if any),
they don't want to besmirch his memory and will take it to their own graves.
7. It would be undesirable to see people go poking around the grave as they did with Lincoln's, to the extent that his son had to have him encased in
cement, but perhaps at some future date ground-penetrating technology will be sophisticated enough to tell if anything extra is in JFK or RFK's
I remember seeing the headline "President Kennedy's Brain is Missing" at least 40 years ago and finding it pretty wild. Personally, I enjoyed your
presentation of the case. You showed remarkable restraint not to show (or even mention) the brain-stealing scene from Young Frankenstein
To save message board members here the trouble of Googling the subject, earlier I posted the following regarding photographic evidence, which I also
mentioned to Meltzer.
Regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I go back and forth on that. Yes, there is ample
evidence that plenty
and groups with massive
motives wanted Kennedy dead, and some interesting coincidences beginning with how many of these people were in Dallas
that day. For those who believe in a government conspiracy regarding UFOs (and for those who don't, Lord help your poor innocent souls
interesting that Kennedy is the only
president since the coverups began to demand full disclosure. Ten days after doing so, he was dead. If
that had anything to do with it, he wouldn't be the first or the last, which is one of many reasons the government cannot make full disclosure.
There are also indications that shots were fired from behind a fence which would have been in front of Kennedy at the time (gunshots heard from there,
suspicious activity seen, etc.) Now, there is no indication (proven) that any shots fired from the front actually hit him--but isn't it interesting
that if Oswald would have missed, someone else was perhaps ready to do the job? Not to mention the autopsy was botched in the first place, a lot of
materials are missing from it and JFK's brain hasn't been accounted for since 1965.
That being said, there is a lot of evidence for Oswald acting alone, a few examples of which are:
1. If the C. I. A. and whoever else wanted JFK dead, why would they recruit a nutjob like Oswald?
2. How would they even get in touch with Oswald to let him know where and when to carry out the hit? He was there because he already worked in
(Granted, he knew enough in advance to pick up the rifle from its hiding place--it's not as if he kept a rifle at work all the
3. Any advanced organization planning the crime of the century wouldn't supply their hitman with the crappiest gun available--one with which an
expert marksman can barely fire that number of shots in that amount of time, (which has been tried numerous times and shown to be possible, but with
great skill required), let alone with that degree of deadly accuracy (two hits out of three shots--the third not only fatal but quite devastating in
terms of damage).
So, okay, you've almost got me convinced of Oswald acting alone, with maybe someone else lying in wait working separately from Oswald, and maybe even
attempting to shoot Kennedy at the same time, but not hitting him.
BUT--AND I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW COMPLETELY I DIDN'T SEE THIS UNTIL THE OTHER DAY--
AFTER SEEING THE ZAPRUDER FILM COUNTLESS TIMES (and I need hardly say Warning: Graphic, right? I remember the newscaster the first time it was on
TV, "For God's sake, get Granny and the kids out of the room!"--) I guess I just spent my time trying to see which way he was falling, to tell where
the shot may have come from, instead of looking closely at its effect.
I SIMPLY MUST
How is the film showing a COMPLETELY different wound than the autopsy photos?
Film shows him getting blasted in the side of the head in front of the right ear, with almost certainly some damage to the face and NONE to the back
of the head! Autopsy photos show undamaged face and extensive damage on top of and back of the head, behind the ear!
edit on 19-11-2014 by CoriSCapnSkip because: To add information regarding photographic
evidence so people can see for themselves.