JFK: Inside the Target Car/Did the Mob Kill JFK?/JFK: The Ruby Connection

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I am well aware of the fact that she is wearing white gloves. Try zooming in on her gloved hand and you will see it's been blurred out or distorted, the area directly above her hand.

I also don't believe she could have or would have shot her own husband. It's just after viewing the film for so many times, these 2 frames made me take a closer look. Also, why have her memoirs been sealed after her death for 70 years, at her request?

I have studied the JFK assassination for quite awhile and I have always found the mob theory to be absurd how can they get the SS to pull back? or allow so many of the basic security protocols not to be followed? this was a military operation from start to finish,y'all look at who benefited the most.LBJ,The Military/Industrial complex do you realize that billions of dollars were at stake in Vietnam? JFK was gonna pull the troops so you can imagine the loses for the power brokers here in the West.

Read more about this guy. his story is very compelling. I was thinking about visiting him, since he's currently in prison for murder about 5 miles away from where I live


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by someoldguy

No. I'm suggesting she shot her husband

Ha.....I almost cried whenever I read your post.Chills filled my entire body.

I've only ever told my man,and he disagrees with me.. but I watched that film hundreds,maybe a thousand times.. and then one night I saw it.

Everything stopped,the room spun,I couldn't believe it.. and this was not what I looking for,or wanted to see.

Also,whenever Jackie climbs back over the backseat.. that was most telling to me too.. watch her hand.. keeping in mind that parts were edited (REMOVED) something was removed from this clip.It looks to me as if she SLID something to the man (SS agent).That IS the gesture.

Not grabbing brain,as suggested,but sliding something that has been edited-REMOVED-from the film.

Obviously they couldn't edit Jackie climbing over the backseat and rear of the car(too many witnesses).

Right now I am just very excited that somebody else sees Jackie as at least one of the gunpersons.. so much so that I am shaking a little bit-lol.

Believe me-This is NOT what I wanted to see,not how I wanted to believe,but it is,and nothing is going to change my mind--that's how sure I am.

How I came to see this was by focusing only on one small portion of the film each time I viewed it.. say I would study one small section for 20 to 50 views.Initially I was looking for the gunman to be the driver,but as hard as I tried I could not see that.

Who would ever suspect her though.It seems unbelievable even when I saw it,and I'll never forget the night I saw it.An animal like sound came from somewhere inside of me and I said oh no,not you Jackie.

I know this sounds all drama.Well,it was.It was a bad night for me.I loved Jackie...

reply to post by RobinB022


So, I'm not the only person that thinks the is something funny about Jackie. I found it very odd that when Jack is obviously in distress, she is busy looking
at Connolly, like she waiting for a sign or a signal. Then bang!

OK conspirators who are pointing the finger at Jackie ...

Please provide the community with a motive.

I will take a look at the frames in question hopefully next week.

Cheers

reply to post by george_gaz


I'm still thinking about that.

You would have to understand my complete shock at this even being a reality.It was as if my eyes and brain were decieving me.I still don't understand.. but I will tell you,and being on computer there is no way I can express the extent and magnitude of my beliefs and how very right I feel about this.

That night it was so real.. the feeling was so real,so true,that it was as if I knew.Knew for sure.I felt depleted afterwards and have since[on this subject].Reading here that someone else saw anything pointing to Jackie did make me feel better,but not because I wanted .. well.

I have only speculations as to why,and none seem good enough-but I can't help what I see when looking at the film,or more,how I feel.

I have studied the Zapruder film for years. I also have quite a collection of other films of the Kennedy assassination, including the Morman film. When you take notes of all of the films and then put them all together, there are some inescapable conclusions: shots were fired from both in front and behind President Kennedy (i.e., conspiracy); shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll; Kennedy and Connolly were hit by seperate bullets, the fatal head shot came from in front and to the right of Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll; a total of 6 shots were fired in total.

reply to post by Wally Conley


But ... who do you think did it?

reply to post by george_gaz


A combination of the Mafia and Anti-Castro Cubans, with the CIA and FBI covering up their involvement with both Ruby, Oswald, the Mafia, and anti-Castro Cubans.

reply to post by eightonefive


I am interested in this John Files guy. Never heard of him until this thread!

If you go and visit him then please do relay what you can for us here

Like many people familiar with the assassination of JFK, I initially wanted to know "Who" really shot JFK because I didn't believe Oswald had anything to do with the murder except to be the patsy. About 15 years ago I started to ask the question "WHY?", not who. With Oswald being eliminated by Jack Ruby (to silence him) and Ruby dying in prison (He would never talk), that left the question of who would benefit from Kennedy's death. Two parties came to mind immediately, LBJ for sure and the CIA. But to my surprise they were not the only ones. A third party would benefit more than these two. And that party would have the power to keep the lid on the truth and the cover-up for the last 46 years. I suggest you read "The Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper. It opened my eyes.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by someoldguy]

reply to post by someoldguy


Or you give us a summary?

I would hate for my terrible case of conjunctivitis to continue.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by george_gaz]

People always ask opinions,questions,and then disagree.. and that is their right,but why not look and read,then come to your own conclusions.

Eye drops can help with the conjunctivitus.. but you seem to want answers dropped in your lap so that you can then do your own speculating anyway.

Most people see whatever they want to see.Seeing beyond the obvious,or what has already been planted into our brains can take effort.

This looks like the right place to add this interesting snippet...

New FBI and CIA Files, Tapes about JFK Assassination Revealed

FBI files at the National Archives say that in 1985, Louisiana-Texas godfather Carlos Marcello confessed to a "reliable" Bureau informant that he ordered the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Marcello's confession to the informant was obtained during a long-secret FBI undercover operation, code-named CAMTEX. According to the files, the FBI used a bugged transistor radio in Marcello's prison cell to secretly record "hundreds of hours" of tapes of Marcello talking to confidants about his crimes. The tapes included Marcello talking about his meetings with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Tampa-Miami mob boss Santo Trafficante.

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, chaired by Rep. Louis Stokes, published their conclusion that "Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy." Their final report stated that "the Committee found that Trafficante, like Marcello, had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy." Marcello died in 1993, and Trafficante passed away in 1987, after discussing his role in Kennedy's murder with his attorney, the late Frank Ragano. As for motive, the Committee pointed out that from 1961 to 1963, President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had waged a massive war against organized crime. They had especially targeted the mob families of Marcello in New Orleans, Trafficante in Tampa, and the Chicago Mafia.

I have always thought that the mob had something to do with this..

They helped get JFK elected, and thought they were buying off the heat so to say but when brother RFK targeted organized crime as Atty General, they acted as usual.. kill one of the family members to send the message to the intended? RFK in this instance?

Has anyone seen these purported files with the alleged mob confession? Or is this just to help sell a book?

I don't know, just posting it up for those interested in this widely researched conspiracy.

After looking at the hi quality version of the footage, since it's been mentioned, Jackie definitely looks like she passes something into her right hand, then slides her hand to the back of the car. She also swiftly returns to her seat as well.

Can't believe for a second that she was the second gunman though.

The feelings that some of you get when you watch the footage that convince you that it is Jackie so much that you don't even want to state it was her plainly is egomania.

I have looked again at the Zapruder footage, as well as the enhanced and close-up versions. I believe that there are both psychological and physical reasons why Jackie was not a gunman:

1: I don't know if any of you have ever done something bad or been so scared that your hands shake but it is an involuntary reaction that can only be suppressed by practice. Jackie's hand movements are too swift to suggest that she pulled the trigger unless she is a trained killer.

2: This is something you may not realize: the head shot clearly came from the front and to the side. While it is plausible that Jackie did have her hands beneath JFK's head, to think that she was able to curl her hand/s around to get the shot without twisting her shoulders further is not so plausible.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by nightmarehalo]

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
The feelings that some of you get when you watch the footage that convince you that it is Jackie so much that you don't even want to state it was her plainly is egomania.

I have looked again at the Zapruder footage, as well as the enhanced and close-up versions. I believe that there are both psychological and physical reasons why Jackie was not a gunman:

1: I don't know if any of you have ever done something bad or been so scared that your hands shake but it is an involuntary reaction that can only be suppressed by practice. Jackie's hand movements are too swift to suggest that she pulled the trigger unless she is a trained killer.

2: This is something you may not realize: the head shot clearly came from the front and to the side. While it is plausible that Jackie did have her hands beneath JFK's head, to think that she was able to curl her hand/s around to get the shot without twisting her shoulders further is not so plausible.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by nightmarehalo]

But do you agree that she definitely looks like she's sliding something with her right hand to the back of the car?

And with all due respect, are you a trained killer? Do you honestly know what the actions are of someone who has been told/ordered to kill another person?

Admittedly it's a stretch thinking that Jackie shot him, but her behaviour certainly looks suspicious. Which is probably due to seeing her husband getting his head blown apart.

Originally posted by someoldguy
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

. Also, why have her memoirs been sealed after her death for 70 years, at her request?

I always thought that was because she allegedly names a few suspects, and goes into detail about the assassination.

I personally don't believe anyone in the car did the fatal headshot. What would be easier, using trained marksmen hidden from a distance, or someone in plain view sitting right next to him?

Oswald tried from a considerable distance, missed, (well only injured him) so the backup assassin was next in case that happened, and hit him in the head. If he missed there was probably someone by the underpass, in case the other two failed.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I believe that this is WHY it happened:
www.youtube.com...

Just my thoughts.

Be careful, that video is deceptively edited, cutting out entire paragraphs of his speech to make it seem like he's saying something he's not. The full text is online here www.jfklibrary.org... and occurs a week after his address to the media on Bay of Pigs. My own opinion is that the subject of this speech was communism, not the mob or the Freemasons or groups like that, based on the context of when it was made, who it was made to, and what it actually says.