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

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

There is also information out there speculating JFK was about to shed some unwanted light on the Military/Industrial Complex operating from the shadows inside the US. Kinda like when IKE warned us of the same thing. Others believe we had to trade him for Kruschev in order to fulfill a dark pact with the Soviet Union concerning ending the Cuban Missile Crisis....

originally posted by: questionyourtruth
a reply to: Grovit

I absolutely agree with you there.

To think that, theoretically speaking, someone could return from the USSR at that time, allegedly be monitored by the FBI, and then get a job in a building which the President of the United States was going to be driving by in an open topped car didn't raise any red flags is remarkable.

i think oswald was playing both sides as per his instructions....from exactly who, i dont know...the us gov/cia for sure though..

en.wikipedia.org...

Oswald returned to New Orleans on April 24, 1963.[109] Marina's friend, Ruth Paine, drove her by car from Dallas to join Oswald in New Orleans the next month in May.[110] On May 10, Oswald was hired by the Reily Coffee Company whose owner, William Reily, was a backer of the Crusade to Free Cuba Committee, an anti-Castro organization. Oswald worked as a machinery greaser at Reily, but he was fired in July "...because his work was not satisfactory and because he spent too much time loitering in Adrian Alba's garage next door, where he read rifle and hunting magazines
--------------
hanging around anti castro orgs
----------------

On May 26, Oswald wrote to the New York City headquarters of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, proposing to rent "a small office at my own expense for the purpose of forming a FPCC branch here in New Orleans

-------------------
pro castro
-----------------

One of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba leaflets had the address "544 Camp Street" hand-stamped on it, apparently by Oswald himself.The address was in the "Newman Building" which, from October 1961 to February 1962, housed a militant anti-Castro group, the Cuban Revolutionary Council. Around the corner but located in the same building, with a different entrance, was the address 531 Lafayette Street—the address of "Guy Banister Associates", a private detective agency run by former FBI agent Guy Banister. Banister's office was involved in anti-Castro and private investigative activities in the New Orleans area

-----------------------------

so a pro castro committee office in the same building as an anti castro group...

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: Answer

I thought you meant the SS guy accidentally discharged his weapon? I was asking how is it that he accidentally discharged exactly at the same time the other shooters intentionally shot.

I don't know how I'm incorrectly explaining it...

Oswald fired his first shot which missed altogether and hit the street. The SS agent heard the shot, saw Oswald in the window,and picked up the M16... flipping the safety off as he stood up in the car to get a shot at Oswald.

Oswald fired his second shot, hitting Kennedy in the throat. When it became clear that shots were being fired and Kennedy was hit, the SS vehicle accelerated and the agent lost his balance, squeezing the trigger of the M16 in the process.

There weren't multiple shooters firing simultaneously. Oswald fired shot 1 and shot 2, the agent fired shot 3 accidentally.

The movement of his body after the last shot. There's no way it came from behind.

i dont see how people believe he even made the shot..
using this # ass mail order rifle

en.wikipedia.org.../File:Oswaldrifle.jpg

he was able to land the kill shot on a moving target...how many shots in how many seconds??
how was he able to fire, eject/cock, fire, eject/cock, fire in like what, 6 seconds..

his first shot missed as per the story. is the first shot not almost always the most accurate?

i am no expert bu my opinion is there is no way oswald could have made the shot...

i think he was up there. i think 'his' plan and the 'real' plan were different things.

i think before he left the 6th floor he knew he had been set up and it was over

originally posted by: Spruce
The movement of his body after the last shot. There's no way it came from behind.

That's an old idea that's been debunked.

If you watch a slow-motion version of the Zapruder film or any of the still shots, the ejecta from the wound are blown out of the side/front of his head. If the shot came from the front, the ejecta would have been to the rear.

The rearward motion of Kennedy's head was due to the explosive ejection of blood and brain matter forcing his head backward. Same as shooting a milk jug full of liquid that jumps in random directions.

originally posted by: Grovit
i dont see how people believe he even made the shot..
using this # ass mail order rifle

en.wikipedia.org.../File:Oswaldrifle.jpg

he was able to land the kill shot on a moving target...how many shots in how many seconds??
how was he able to fire, eject/cock, fire, eject/cock, fire in like what, 6 seconds..

his first shot missed as per the story. is the first shot not almost always the most accurate?

i am no expert bu my opinion is there is no way oswald could have made the shot...

i think he was up there. i think 'his' plan and the 'real' plan were different things.

i think before he left the 6th floor he knew he had been set up and it was over

As someone who has more experience than most with firearms, it wasn't a highly difficult shot.

Oswald's rifle was definitely not the best but it was still a military firearm that was more than capable of making the shot.

Oswald fired the first shot and missed. He readjusted and fired the second, getting a hit. The third shot wasn't Oswald's, I believe. It's not unusual to miss the first shot on a moving target and adjust as needed for the second shot.

originally posted by: Answer

As someone who has more experience than most with firearms, it wasn't a highly difficult shot.

Oswald's rifle was definitely not the best but it was still a military firearm that was more than capable of making the shot.

Oswald fired the first shot and missed. He readjusted and fired the second, getting a hit. The third shot wasn't Oswald's, I believe. It's not unusual to miss the first shot on a moving target and adjust as needed for the second shot.

the rifle may have been capable of making the shot but i dont think oswald was.

not unusual to miss the first time...ok, is it unusual to be so far off the first time and then nail it down the second time?
how much time would it take a great shooter to shoot, adjust, then shoot the kill shot...how many seconds?

now how about an average shot?
------------

im curious to what you will say but im set in my theory...its what i believe.
i very well could be wrong. nobody on this board knows for sure...
still though, its what i beleive

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: Answer

As someone who has more experience than most with firearms, it wasn't a highly difficult shot.

Oswald's rifle was definitely not the best but it was still a military firearm that was more than capable of making the shot.

Oswald fired the first shot and missed. He readjusted and fired the second, getting a hit. The third shot wasn't Oswald's, I believe. It's not unusual to miss the first shot on a moving target and adjust as needed for the second shot.

the rifle may have been capable of making the shot but i dont think oswald was.

not unusual to miss the first time...ok, is it unusual to be so far off the first time and then nail it down the second time?
how much time would it take a great shooter to shoot, adjust, then shoot the kill shot...how many seconds?

now how about an average shot?
------------

im curious to what you will say but im set in my theory...its what i believe.
i very well could be wrong. nobody on this board knows for sure...
still though, its what i beleive

Oswald was trained by the US Marine Corps. So was I. I use the principles I learned in the Marines to turn unskilled shooters into excellent marksmen. I don't know how good Oswald was when the assassination took place but he was at least above average.

As for your question about being far off on the first shot, he could have jerked the trigger, the rifle could have slipped on its rest, or Oswald tried to lead the target too much. Also, as the car got farther from the window, the shot became easier since the Limo was heading more directly away from the shooter with less angle.

It has been proven many times that Oswald could have fired all 3 shots in the time allowed. I honestly believe he only fired 2 of them with 1 hit (the throat wound.)

originally posted by: Answer


Oswald was trained by the US Marine Corps. So was I. I use the principles I learned in the Marines to turn unskilled shooters into excellent marksmen.]

im sure you did learn that..i dont doubt it for a second.

still, not everyone in the marines can be trained to be a good shot...

dont matter.

thanks for answering......

im done....never wanted to debate anything..just to present my theory for the OP

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: Answer


Oswald was trained by the US Marine Corps. So was I. I use the principles I learned in the Marines to turn unskilled shooters into excellent marksmen.]

im sure you did learn that..i dont doubt it for a second.

still, not everyone in the marines can be trained to be a good shot...

Actually, you have to reach a certain level of marksmanship to advance in boot camp and you're required to requalify periodically. All Marines can shoot. Your opinion of Oswald doesn't change the fact that he was a well-trained and capable marksman.

I'm not trying to debate you but if you think Oswald was incapable of making the shots, your opinion isn't realistic and frankly... I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion in the first place.

In addition to all the other unexplained things in the theory that Oswald was the lone gunman the big thing to me that makes me doubt it is, that Oswald didn`t know how to drive , didn`t own a car.

It`s just not believable to me that he careful planned out this whole assassination and that part of his plan was to make his get away on foot.
so, here we have this guy who meticulously planned and carried out the assassination of the president and made his get away on foot without anyone seeing him or even getting a description of him as the shooter.
After he successfully made his get away on foot without having been seen he draws attention to himself by shooting a cop miles away from dealy plaza,which results in his arrest.

Nobody is going to plan any crime,especially the assassination of the president,and use simply walking away as their plan of escape and yet that`s exactly what he did, how is that even possible?
Did he actually believe that he could make his escape by just walking away or was someone suppose to be there to give him a ride and they set him up, double crossed him by not being there.

Did he know he could make his escape by just walking away because his co conspirators had the power to make sure he would have a clear path?

He had already made his escape and was safely back in his room at the boarding house but does he stay there? nope he goes out on the streets and shoots a cop in broad daylight.

Assassinating the president isn`t something that you just do on a whim it takes a lot of careful planning.anyone who is capable of that kind of planning would surely have a better escape plan than just walking away, which would seem to be a guarantee that you will be caught.

I`m just not believing it, it`s like james bond planned the assassination and dafy duck planned the escape and yet we are suppose to believe that the same person who planned and carried out the assassination also planned and carried out a successful escape,alone,an escape that defies logic and should have had little to no chance of succeeding.

Personally, I think there were possibly two or three shooters - and I wouldn't include anybody in the cars in that number (just my opinion), probably one on the knoll (head shot), one in the depository and one in the Dal-Tex, with the latter two accounting for another three shots.

Of course, that's not to say anyone's opinions are any less valid than my own, that's just the conclusions I've drawn from it all thus far.

Anyway, at the risk of moving off topic, it's probably worth mentioning that we're meant to - largely speaking - be discussing fundamentally suspicious issues regarding the assassination rather than exactly how it was carried out?

Has anyone got any ideas about the multiple Oswalds? The supposed picture of him in Mexico City is absolutely farcical.

a reply to: Answer

The explain to me how a piece of his head ended up on the trunk behind Jackie. She crawled up there to grab it.

a reply to: questionyourtruth

Alex Cox's excellent book, The President and the Provocateur, presents convincing evidence that there were two Oswalds (something about which I was previously skeptical). For example, while Oswald was in the Soviet Union, there are documents proving that Oswald was simultaneously in the U.S. working and checking out library books. Also, when the Oswald who was in the Soviet Union decided to return to the U.S., he hopped a U.S. military flight. Exactly how could a real defector manage that?

One of the Oswalds and Marina and child were repeatedly bailed out financially and driven long distances by a politically active hard right couple who acted as their benefactors. One of the Oswalds was involved in conspicuous right wing activities and one was involved in left wing activities.

There are photos of Oswald that appear to be of different people. They look enough alike that at a casual glance they might be mistaken for each other but, on closer examination, look quite different. Cox quotes Oswald's brother as saying that at one point he didn't recognize him. I don't have a copy of the book but I seem to recall that Marina also said that Oswald (which one?) was not the man she married. The book is definitely well worth reading and heavily documented.

It seems to me that the real question isn't who could have killed JFK (many individuals or groups could have) but who could have covered it up after the fact. That would eliminate the mob and the anti-Castro groups. The coverup had to be at the highest level: a person or group capable of controlling the White House, Warren Commission, CIA and FBI. I can think of only one person who met that requirement and he was affiliated with very powerful people who benefitted from JFK's death. He also personally benefitted tremendously.

a reply to: Answer Time travel. The M-16 variant of the Armalite AR-15 was not introduced to the military until 1964. A single batch of a thousand were sent to the Air Force in 1962/1963. It was not in general use by U.S. Government agencies for years, being considered a military weapon and unsuited for civilian law enforcement. A side thought, anyone thinking the M-16 is not a Mattie Mattel toy, a challenge. I will bet an M-14 with iron sights, at five hundred yards will stop you. To be fair, I shoot ten for ten, heart, at five hundred yards with iron sights. Want to face off with an M 16?

Now, further fun. On November 23, 1963, posters were widely distributed in Dallas, Wanted For Treason John F. Kennedy Dead or Alive , by the John Birch Society, the forerunner of the Tea Party and Teapublicans. On the Warren Commission were members of the John Birch Society, or individuals with its approval, like Gay Edgar Hoover. Strange an poster inciting the murder of a sitting President is circulated and he ends up dead. Wonder who got the reward?

originally posted by: Spruce
a reply to: Answer

The explain to me how a piece of his head ended up on the trunk behind Jackie. She crawled up there to grab it.

Ride down the road in a convertible vehicle with the top down, hold up a piece of debris, and let it go.

Let me know where it lands. Physics is physics.

originally posted by: Brandyjack
a reply to: Answer Time travel. The M-16 variant of the Armalite AR-15 was not introduced to the military until 1964. A single batch of a thousand were sent to the Air Force in 1962/1963. It was not in general use by U.S. Government agencies for years, being considered a military weapon and unsuited for civilian law enforcement. A side thought, anyone thinking the M-16 is not a Mattie Mattel toy, a challenge. I will bet an M-14 with iron sights, at five hundred yards will stop you. To be fair, I shoot ten for ten, heart, at five hundred yards with iron sights. Want to face off with an M 16?

Don't be silly.

For one:


The agent riding in the follow vehicle had an M-16. Whether it was technically called an M-16 at the time or not is semantics that aren't necessary for the lay person. It's a 100% known fact that an agent in the follow-vehicle had that rifle so you can't argue that.

As for your "I'll use this rifle and challenge you to blah blah blah" BS that I've heard a million times, it's really irrelevant to the discussion. The M-16/M4 has been in use for 50 years because it's effective. The M-14 is also effective. The old "the M16 is a plastic piece of crap" argument has been done to death and it's simply not factual. I own and love both rifles and they're both capable of accurate kills beyond your 500 yard challenge.

Bill Hicks:

You Are Free To Do As We Tell You

Oswald's tax returns & pay statements locked up for national security reasons...lol

It's always follow the money...i dunno who signed those checks the CIA or FBI...or Lyndon Johnson guess will find out in a 100 years.