Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assasination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
    I was fine with this as a contribution until you used the word garbage as an adjective at the end. Kinda disrespectful to a number of people who are highly educated on the assassination and its antecedents in regards to the mafia certain Intel assets in respect to removing Castro. Like I said disrespectful as this thread has largely been successful about this controversial subject because disrespectful attitudes have been discouraged. I've had many private messages from people who've thanked me for guiding a thread that has brought up some very interesting new information that they never knew and information that is is highly credible. Oswald went around lauding communism whilst serving in the 1950's USMC and nothing happens to him and indeed ends up on a U2 radar base? Trade craft for a dangle.Oswald ended up with a well known contract CIA handler when he got back from the Soviet Union having gone there during a period when we know the CIA ran a false defector programme. If he had just been some attention seeking boy but we are saying that a genuine marine defector having come back from the ussr was ignored by the authorities and not prosecuted or even questioned for any notable time? This during the height of the cold war and not long gone from the red under the beds scare? Not likely. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Congress in the 1970's thought the mob was behind it and couldn't prove it so didn't take it further. More recent scholars who I'm certain you've never heard of never mind read have done some astounding work to demonstrate that it most likely was orchestrated by Carlos Marcello and santo trafficante and had very strong motives for doing so. If you haven't done so I invite you to read the thread but leave the "garbage" comments to yourself. Discussion not disrespect please.
    Well, no disrespect intended. Since you talked about tje history of this thread I thought I would glance through this thread, give it a once over so to speak. I find it interesting that you have responded to many, many posts in this thread. You are all over this thread as if you feel the need to control the interaction here. I've been on forums for many years and have never seen an individual post that much on one thread before. Why do you think this is? What do you hope to achieve with this much interaction in one thread?
    My use of the word garbage was not meant to be disrespectful. It was meant to communicate my opinion of this particular conspiracy theory. There are many theories postulated about the assassination, I'm sure you'll agree, and in discussion of them I don't think it uncommon for one person or another to voice a strong opinion about the validity of one or another. This does not mean disrespect. Actually I think you use this as a way of discrediting my opinion and thus you will not have to offer anything of substance to back up your belief, since you can't. Last time I checked HCA offered that there was a possibility that organized crime was involved in the assassination. If you have something more substantial please show it to me NOW. "Congress in the 1970's thought the mob was behind it and couldn't prove it so didn't take it further." Your words from above. Thought the mob was involved but couldn't prove it? Are you kidding? Is that like "Hey, we know who killed our president but we just don't care about investigating and prosecuting." Please do better than that, you give credible conspiracy theorists a bad name with garbage like that.
    John

    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      Like I said disrespectful as this thread has largely been successful about this controversial subject because disrespectful attitudes have been discouraged.
      I think you are making this up.

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      I've had many private messages from people who've thanked me for guiding a thread that has brought up some very interesting new information that they never knew and information that is is highly credible.
      Good to know. Can I assume you provided sources for all this information?

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      Oswald went around lauding communism whilst serving in the 1950's USMC and nothing happens to him and indeed ends up on a U2 radar base?
      So you think he was put on a radar base because he was a intel operative in training? That's not too sensible. Do you think that with all the 17, 18, and 19 year olds that our military has dealt with over the years they saw a problem teen, a misfit, saw no risk and just handled him as they do all marines? Wouldn't that make sense?

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      Trade craft for a dangle.Oswald ended up with a well known contract CIA handler when he got back from the Soviet Union having gone there during a period when we know the CIA ran a false defector programme.
      Care to name the handler and provide a source please? (Standard request on a forum like this.)

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      If he had just been some attention seeking boy but we are saying that a genuine marine defector having come back from the ussr was ignored by the authorities and not prosecuted or even questioned for any notable time?
      Again, I think he was seen as a troubled youth, now a little older, that had done no harm. I'm pretty sure the feds questioned him and kept an eye on him but would a prison term really fir. This is all just old Oliver Stone JFK stuff.

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      This during the height of the cold war and not long gone from the red under the beds scare? Not likely.
      I think you put this boy under a microscope after the fact and make him seem to be a big red menace when all he was was a boy who used the red enemy as his way of trying to get attention. Put anyone under a similar examination and dirt comes out but the connections that you imply don't have to exist.

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      Congress in the 1970's thought the mob was behind it and couldn't prove it so didn't take it further.
      First I'd like to see this in print form if you are asserting it as fact. A wealth of government information is online, please provide a source and/or copy/paste information that backs this. Second, can you explain why any government body would feel they knew who had murdered the leader of the government but would take no action on it.

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      More recent scholars who I'm certain you've never heard of never mind read...
      So this would be your chance to be disrespectful? I guess all you said about that was for naught.

      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      ...have done some astounding work to demonstrate that it most likely was orchestrated by Carlos Marcello and santo trafficante and had very strong motives for doing so.
      Indictments are coming soon I'm sure. While the motives might have been there I should think the motives for not murdering the POTUS would be even greater. These were not stupid men and they would know that if caught for such a heinous crime the electric chair would be far worse than the discomfort that the Kennedy brothers were currently bringing to bear on them.

      I think you have to ask yourself first and foremost what kind of assassination do you believe this to be. You must do this before jumping to believe in the CIA, Mafia, FBI, USSR involvement. If you put the second before the other you cloud your judgement and start to fit pieces into what you want to believe. Handle a Mannlicher-Carcano and ask yourself why this rifle, of any rifle in the world, would be chosen for killing of the POTUS. Ask yourself if the CIA or Mafia were involved why would the shooting take place in the open when better places and methods would always be available. If you are going involve Lee Oswald and leave him behind shouldn't he have a past that doesn't connect so easily to the CIA or Mafia. You must decide if this was a really good group of assassins or a bunch of misfits and then explain why we are left with what we have now.
      John

      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JBark View Post
        Well, no disrespect intended. Since you talked about tje history of this thread I thought I would glance through this thread, give it a once over so to speak. I find it interesting that you have responded to many, many posts in this thread. You are all over this thread as if you feel the need to control the interaction here. I've been on forums for many years and have never seen an individual post that much on one thread before. Why do you think this is? What do you hope to achieve with this much interaction in one thread?
        My use of the word garbage was not meant to be disrespectful. It was meant to communicate my opinion of this particular conspiracy theory. There are many theories postulated about the assassination, I'm sure you'll agree, and in discussion of them I don't think it uncommon for one person or another to voice a strong opinion about the validity of one or another. This does not mean disrespect. Actually I think you use this as a way of discrediting my opinion and thus you will not have to offer anything of substance to back up your belief, since you can't. Last time I checked HCA offered that there was a possibility that organized crime was involved in the assassination. If you have something more substantial please show it to me NOW. "Congress in the 1970's thought the mob was behind it and couldn't prove it so didn't take it further." Your words from above. Thought the mob was involved but couldn't prove it? Are you kidding? Is that like "Hey, we know who killed our president but we just don't care about investigating and prosecuting." Please do better than that, you give credible conspiracy theorists a bad name with garbage like that.
        Because myself and the likes of Rojik have been here from the beginning basically. Some of us wanted to discuss this subject rationally without the usual nonsense that derails it and makes it a bore. This subject is so often taken over by people who look to take the rather than discuss and thats all we've wanted. I've had many messages that have thanked me for asking people to keep it on track.... Additionally many people have asked me questions and my input. Simple as that. To be blunt also myself and the likes of Rojik are very well read on it. That's not to be conceited, that's just a fact.
        Last edited by copenhagen; 24 Nov 14, 19:08.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JBark View Post
          I think you are making this up.



          Good to know. Can I assume you provided sources for all this information?



          So you think he was put on a radar base because he was a intel operative in training? That's not too sensible. Do you think that with all the 17, 18, and 19 year olds that our military has dealt with over the years they saw a problem teen, a misfit, saw no risk and just handled him as they do all marines? Wouldn't that make sense?



          Care to name the handler and provide a source please? (Standard request on a forum like this.)



          Again, I think he was seen as a troubled youth, now a little older, that had done no harm. I'm pretty sure the feds questioned him and kept an eye on him but would a prison term really fir. This is all just old Oliver Stone JFK stuff.



          I think you put this boy under a microscope after the fact and make him seem to be a big red menace when all he was was a boy who used the red enemy as his way of trying to get attention. Put anyone under a similar examination and dirt comes out but the connections that you imply don't have to exist.



          First I'd like to see this in print form if you are asserting it as fact. A wealth of government information is online, please provide a source and/or copy/paste information that backs this. Second, can you explain why any government body would feel they knew who had murdered the leader of the government but would take no action on it.



          So this would be your chance to be disrespectful? I guess all you said about that was for naught.



          Indictments are coming soon I'm sure. While the motives might have been there I should think the motives for not murdering the POTUS would be even greater. These were not stupid men and they would know that if caught for such a heinous crime the electric chair would be far worse than the discomfort that the Kennedy brothers were currently bringing to bear on them.

          I think you have to ask yourself first and foremost what kind of assassination do you believe this to be. You must do this before jumping to believe in the CIA, Mafia, FBI, USSR involvement. If you put the second before the other you cloud your judgement and start to fit pieces into what you want to believe. Handle a Mannlicher-Carcano and ask yourself why this rifle, of any rifle in the world, would be chosen for killing of the POTUS. Ask yourself if the CIA or Mafia were involved why would the shooting take place in the open when better places and methods would always be available. If you are going involve Lee Oswald and leave him behind shouldn't he have a past that doesn't connect so easily to the CIA or Mafia. You must decide if this was a really good group of assassins or a bunch of misfits and then explain why we are left with what we have now.
          The mannlicher carcano was used as part of a paper trail. There was such an obvious paper trail for it, it was ridiculous. Anyone in Texas at that time could just buy a rifle for the job without leaving a trail. Instead it was ordered by mail order. Stuck out like a sore thumb. As you bring ballistics up, the Warren Commission said there was 3 shot to do all the damage. With the repeated reliable testimony of Parkland Hospital doctors and the Zapruder film, one can see there is clearly 5, with the exception of course of the miss even acknowledged by the Warren Commission but ultimately make their case weaker. This has been discussed earlier. This simply requires a lot of reading though that goes beyond the mainstream. I advise the work of Lemar Waldron. I know what kind of assassination it was. It was the Mafia's desperate move to get the Kennedy brothers from exerting the overwhelming pressure that was squeezing them and about to cost them billions never mind deport Carlos Marcello which RFK had already tried once. They had wanted to kill RFK but realised that would make their predicament worse so they cut off the head of the snake instead .The incredible fact that the CIA had involved them in the plot to kill Castro gave them the unprecedented opportunity to do so. Jack Ruby's involvement is where the Mafia's involvement overtly reared its head. Wanted to spare Jackie the trauma. Please. I'm not going to convince you that's not my intention but if you truly want to get into it and are interested you have to get in deep and read a lot. A lot of where to look is in the thread. Rojik is very good for even more of the mob stuff....


          The handler was called George de Mohrenschildt.


          A white Russian. He died shortly before testifying before the Assassinations committee in the 70's from a self inflicted gun shot wound. He died as did many of the other Mafia witnesses just before they were supposed to testify not from self inflicted wounds I might add, including the infamous Jimmy Hoffa.

          The print form and the sources you seek are from within many of the research done by the likes of Lamar Waldron and Larry Hancock whose sources are extensive. Waldron's stuff is huge. Of course there is the published works of the Committee themselves. It still available. Gaeton Fonzi who worked on the investigation wrote a book on it. In addition I've even shown some of the official memos that were part of their work. You've read the thread so you say so you would have seen this. If you read and understand who was involved in the plots to kill Castro and how illegal it was what they were doing plus the feeling that to dig into it could lead to war with Russia (as was LBJ's fear and this can even be heard on you tube from his phone tapes) then you would understand why all the information that lead away from Oswald was suppressed and pushed down. Plus that Oswald had been on Law enforcement and the FBI's radar before. No one wanted to be known that the "murderer " of the president had at times worked for them or been under their surveillance. The boy under the microscope as you put it was well known to intelligence and the FBI and the memos exist to show it , one of which is in this thread. No boy who just wanted attention, goes to live with a high society white Russian who is also a CIA handler having just got back from "defecting " from Russia with out prosecution. Much of Oliver Stones JFK information is inaccurate but not all of it. I'm afraid you're wrong there. As I said , it's not my intention to convince you. If you change your mind that will be because you chose to do your own reading and thinking as did I having been quite sure that Oswald did it all by himself. I now don't think you were trying to be disrespectful so I withdraw the comment, its just that we've had others who are just trouble makers and we just want an honest open minded discussion. What I've written above is a more scaled down version of the information I've talked about in the other posts of the thread. Beyond that you will need to read the stuff that I and others have and have pointed to. That is course up to you...
          Last edited by copenhagen; 24 Nov 14, 19:09.

          Comment


          • I've been posting on this forum for years as you can see for yourself. My prime area of interest is WWII. If someone in that area asked for a source they would get book title, author and page number. Some posters scan sections of books and post them, with proper citation. I'm surprised that you do not do that. I told you I skimmed over this thread, I didn't read all 430+ posts. I'm going to guess that you believe anything you read in a book and will try to make an argument with something resembling fact.

            Give me a direct answer to my question about the HCA concluding that the mob killed Kennedy but chose to do nothing about it. What possible logic could justify this?
            John

            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JBark View Post
              I've been posting on this forum for years as you can see for yourself. My prime area of interest is WWII. If someone in that area asked for a source they would get book title, author and page number. Some posters scan sections of books and post them, with proper citation. I'm surprised that you do not do that. I told you I skimmed over this thread, I didn't read all 430+ posts. I'm going to guess that you believe anything you read in a book and will try to make an argument with something resembling fact.

              Give me a direct answer to my question about the HCA concluding that the mob killed Kennedy but chose to do nothing about it. What possible logic could justify this?
              You think im going to go back through all of my books to look everything up just for you at 1 in the morning? Lol get over yourself. This ain't court fella it's just a forum that I dip into for fun in what spare time I have. Waldrons sources are credible. Go to Amazon and do your own legwork. Read the thread properly might be a start on that front.Less of the you believe everything you read fella. I might get the feeling you are being disrespectful again. I've told you where to read. The rest is up to you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                You think im going to go back through all of my books to look everything up just for you at 1 in the morning? Lol get over yourself. This ain't court fella it's just a forum that I dip into for fun in what spare time I have. Waldrons sources are credible. Go to Amazon and do your own legwork. Read the thread properly might be a start on that front.Less of the you believe everything you read fella. I might get the feeling you are being disrespectful again. I've told you where to read. The rest is up to you.
                If you expect to be taken seriously you will back up what you say...SOP on a history forum. "Go to Amazon..." LOL, so for me to feel that you know what you are talking about I have to buy all the books you won't even name or cite pages from.
                I respect all people (with the exception of those that deserve their respect taken away by heinous acts) but I do not respect the attitude you are putting out here. The "I know all there is to know about this subject but I will not cite my sources" mantra is ridiculous.

                Do you genuinely research the authors of the books you read? Do you go over their bibliography and determine if their sources are legitimate? One of the fundamental building blocks of history research is understanding that the written word itself means little if not properly vetted. This is one of the reasons that watching documentaries is a waste of time as there is no opportunity to vet what has been offered and thus you can not tell if any of the information is worthwhile.
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  If you expect to be taken seriously you will back up what you say...SOP on a history forum. "Go to Amazon..." LOL, so for me to feel that you know what you are talking about I have to buy all the books you won't even name or cite pages from.
                  I respect all people (with the exception of those that deserve their respect taken away by heinous acts) but I do not respect the attitude you are putting out here. The "I know all there is to know about this subject but I will not cite my sources" mantra is ridiculous.

                  Do you genuinely research the authors of the books you read? Do you go over their bibliography and determine if their sources are legitimate? One of the fundamental building blocks of history research is understanding that the written word itself means little if not properly vetted. This is one of the reasons that watching documentaries is a waste of time as there is no opportunity to vet what has been offered and thus you can not tell if any of the information is worthwhile.
                  I'm just not going to trawl through my books to do your bidding. End of. This is a fun forum not a dissertation. I've told you where to look, the whole thread is full of stuff. This is a controversial subject so if you want to know ,do it. I'm not going to jump to your tune and do it for you. I could spend all night researching and then typing out the bibliography and each source but you'd still dismiss it because you're not here to discuss, you're to just debunk. Your Devils advocate stance on Oswald shows your lack of reading on the subject as with the comments about the rifle.I don't really care what you think to be frank. My only issue was you just came here and called peoples opinion "garbage." I thought Id give you the benefit of the doubt but I was mistaken. The reading is there for you with all the sources you desire. That's why Amazon was mentioned because I chose to actually read deeper and further and put in the time and thats where I ordered my reading from.As I said when you say jump I do not say how high. Like it or lump it frankly.
                  Last edited by copenhagen; 25 Nov 14, 13:03.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                    I'm just not going to trawl through my books to do your bidding. End of. This is a fun forum not a dissertation. I've told you where to look, the whole thread is full of stuff. This is a controversial subject so if you want to know ,do it. I'm not going to jump to your tune and do it for you. I could spend all night researching and then typing out the bibliography and each source but you'd still dismiss it because you're not here to discuss, you're to just debunk. Your Devils advocate stance on Oswald shows your lack of reading on the subject as with the comments about the rifle.I don't really care what you think to be frank. My only issue was you just came here and called peoples opinion "garbage." I thought Id give you the benefit of the doubt but I was mistaken. The reading is there for you with all the sources you desire. That's why Amazon was mentioned because I chose to actually read deeper and further and put in the time and thats where I ordered my reading from.As I said when you say jump I do not say how high. Like it or lump it frankly.
                    So you aren't even willing to provide the name of one book. That's amazing. You say I'm not here to discuss, HA! Your idea of discussion is to believe you know more than everyone else because you found someone who wrote a book you like. Check my post #437. I asked you questions which you refuse to come close to discussing. Why?

                    I asked the question about the rifle to see what you thought. The conclusion you wish to jump to is your decision based on fear. I know more about that gun and firearms than you and hoped you would enter into a serious discussion about it but you ran away from that. I owned a Carcano and still own the same scope Oswald used. Care to talk intelligently about it or would you just like to cling to the opinions of the author you chose to believe?

                    If my comments about Oswald don't sit right with you have the guts to say why and how. Discuss it, don't run away. I know much more about this topic than I am showing you to give you the opportunity to speak but it seems that is not what you want to do. You want to tell me I am disrespectful, or uninformed but you don't discuss anything. You say go read a book.

                    A little advice, if this is the way you discuss and stand behind your topic on a thread don't venture out in to the rest of the forum. Stay right here in your shell.

                    “that Trafficante, like Marcello, had the motive,
                    means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy.” (Legacy of Secrecyp viii, see, that's called a quotation from a source. ) You do realize that this does not mean the HCA concluded that these two actually murdered JFK. This kind of writing is garbage.
                    John

                    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                    Comment


                    • Would you read it if I told you a name of a book. I gave you the author and I see you found one of them in Legacy of secrecy. Books that Are mentioned throughout the thread I said to read. Would you buy it?

                      Based on fear? What the...?

                      I never said they concluded officially because they weren't able to. They didn't have the conclusive proof and they were being shut down. It was amazing that they got that far. But that was the belief that the investigators had but could go no further. See you looked it up, which is what I told you to do because I haven't the time nor the inclination to do it. I think Waldron is probably right and the Mafia had the most reason to do it and the chance to do it. Oswald was no loner as was pertained by the Warren Commission even though their reason for doing so had merit in preventing a war, amongst other things. Get Legacy of Secrecy and others. You'll see the huge number of sources to back up what is being said. That I wont trawl those sources just for you changes that not one jot and you can stomp all you like. Read it or not that's up to you but don't come and say its all garbage when you haven't studied it and are not familiar with the material. If you wish to continue to be grumpy and accuse me of this and that its only because I wont jump to your tune and go through it all just for little old you. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination and anyway you didn't say please. Read the material then come back if you're that into being thorough but I bet you wont because that's not why you've loitered in this thread.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                        Would you read it if I told you a name of a book. I gave you the author and I see you found one of them in Legacy of secrecy. Books that Are mentioned throughout the thread I said to read. Would you buy it?
                        Read it, probably not but I would look them over. I've acquired Waldron's books and will continue to look them over. To be honest they look like standard assassination conspiracy stuff; jumping to conclusions, full of assumptions, dots connected where they shouldn't be.

                        Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                        Based on fear? What the...?
                        What don't you understand? You fear someone showing you are wrong so you play games to run from discussion. I've already asked you direct questions and asked you to answer them. You won't. You want to lecture, not discuss. You want to present the info you feel is credible and have everyone pat you on the back for knowing so much. You won't discuss anything.

                        Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                        I never said they concluded officially because they weren't able to. They didn't have the conclusive proof and they were being shut down. It was amazing that they got that far. But that was the belief that the investigators had but could go no further. See you looked it up, which is what I told you to do because I haven't the time nor the inclination to do it. I think Waldron is probably right and the Mafia had the most reason to do it and the chance to do it. Oswald was no loner as was pertained by the Warren Commission even though their reason for doing so had merit in preventing a war, amongst other things. Get Legacy of Secrecy and others. You'll see the huge number of sources to back up what is being said. That I wont trawl those sources just for you changes that not one jot and you can stomp all you like. Read it or not that's up to you but don't come and say its all garbage when you haven't studied it and are not familiar with the material. If you wish to continue to be grumpy and accuse me of this and that its only because I wont jump to your tune and go through it all just for little old you. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination and anyway you didn't say please. Read the material then come back if you're that into being thorough but I bet you wont because that's not why you've loitered in this thread.
                        Okay, enough of all this. Let's have a discussion IF YOU DARE.

                        1.) Prove to me that the purchase of the Carcano was to create a paper trail. I say it was not. I say Oswald sees himself as a clandestine operative (on his own) and wants to use his fake I.D. to buy the rifle believing it will never be traced back to him. His way of proving how clever he is.

                        2.) You say there were 5 shots fired at the president, I say there were three. I don't think you can come close to proving the were more than three.

                        3.) Explain to me why the Mafia would kill the president in this manner. In the open, with multiple shooters, tremendous cover up after the fact. This is unprecedented in the history of the mob, let alone this country. The mob has never before tried something like this nor since (unless you want to believe Waldron that the mob has killed the Kennedys, King, Elvis, Michael Jackson and Lincoln.) Presidents come and go, there effect is temprorary and can very easily be waited out. More importantly the question is why kill someone like this and not in a "better" way. The president's lifestyle would easily lend toward a more discreet and secure method of assassination.

                        Care to discuss?
                        John

                        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                          Read it, probably not but I would look them over. I've acquired Waldron's books and will continue to look them over. To be honest they look like standard assassination conspiracy stuff; jumping to conclusions, full of assumptions, dots connected where they shouldn't be.



                          What don't you understand? You fear someone showing you are wrong so you play games to run from discussion. I've already asked you direct questions and asked you to answer them. You won't. You want to lecture, not discuss. You want to present the info you feel is credible and have everyone pat you on the back for knowing so much. You won't discuss anything.



                          Okay, enough of all this. Let's have a discussion IF YOU DARE.

                          1.) Prove to me that the purchase of the Carcano was to create a paper trail. I say it was not. I say Oswald sees himself as a clandestine operative (on his own) and wants to use his fake I.D. to buy the rifle believing it will never be traced back to him. His way of proving how clever he is.

                          2.) You say there were 5 shots fired at the president, I say there were three. I don't think you can come close to proving the were more than three.

                          3.) Explain to me why the Mafia would kill the president in this manner. In the open, with multiple shooters, tremendous cover up after the fact. This is unprecedented in the history of the mob, let alone this country. The mob has never before tried something like this nor since (unless you want to believe Waldron that the mob has killed the Kennedys, King, Elvis, Michael Jackson and Lincoln.) Presidents come and go, there effect is temprorary and can very easily be waited out. More importantly the question is why kill someone like this and not in a "better" way. The president's lifestyle would easily lend toward a more discreet and secure method of assassination.

                          Care to discuss?
                          All this has been previously discussed in the thread before and as I said go and read the material which is what my belief in the probable culpability of the mob is based upon. All of it and he sources are there. Go to the horses mouth rather than moan on here. I simply do not wish to rehash it all again just for you , well because I don't want to. If you understood the case of those involved you would understand how the main players are all associated with the Louisiana and Tampa mob. From Oswald to those he hung around with throughout 62 and 3 from David Ferrie to later Jack Ruby. These men lead to Carlos Marcello's organisation aswell as their infiltration of the operations to kill Castro which gave the mob the bizarre opportunity to do the hit. You need to read it before you can really try and even debunk it . I'm sorry if that doesn't fulfil your egos needs to win an argument on a internet forum or your belief that I am afraid of you. I have to say that made me chuckle. You need to read it before you can say its garbage which is how you you entered this thread remember. Lamar Waldron and Stefano Vaccara have done the really heavy work on this , mainly Waldron but Vaccara does put it all very succinctly. I've posted this before but I shall do so again just for you. Think what you will. I simply don't wish to go in depth again but I've told you where to find it if you really care that much and put in the reading time with an open mind which I've already done.

                          http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...wa%2Caps%2C398



                          Last edited by copenhagen; 27 Nov 14, 16:58.

                          Comment


                          • So you have no desire to discuss this issue. You keep coming back to this thread after hundreds of posts NOT TO DISCUSS THE THREAD TOPIC. Well done you. In my country we call that chickens##t debate tactics. I don't come to a thread like this to read a book, I come to exchange ideas, debate the issue. You came here to prove you read a book and bought it hook, line and sinker. I don't believe that the mob would have the motivation or capability to pull off an assassination of this level so why should I read the books to discuss that with you. From what I can tell you are not willing to think for yourself but simply want to echo what you have read, not even willing to give your personal reasons for believing what you read.

                            I have an idea, why not get this thread closed. You don't want to discuss anything.
                            John

                            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                            Comment


                            • Well guys in my opinion the Mob had the motivation to kill JFK but it would and did require the support and assistance of very powerful connected US elites. It appears both of you have a sandbag wall built to stop the blame for going higher than the Mob (and maybe a few low level contractors acting independently) or a single crazed man Oswald theory.

                              The motivation of these elites was to remove JFK due to his unwillingness to engage US ground troops into Vietnam so as to commit massive scale killings upon the Vietnamese people to destroy the independence movement and setup/protect the passive compliance state centered at Saigon. These elites also wanted and did assist in 1966 and 1967 the successful massive scale killings upon the Indonesian people for the very same reasons. One can naturally assume JFK would be opposed to this slaughter also.

                              These same elites were already very upset on JFK not allowing them to invade Cuba or strike it with atomic bombs.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                So you have no desire to discuss this issue. You keep coming back to this thread after hundreds of posts NOT TO DISCUSS THE THREAD TOPIC. Well done you. In my country we call that chickens##t debate tactics. I don't come to a thread like this to read a book, I come to exchange ideas, debate the issue. You came here to prove you read a book and bought it hook, line and sinker. I don't believe that the mob would have the motivation or capability to pull off an assassination of this level so why should I read the books to discuss that with you. From what I can tell you are not willing to think for yourself but simply want to echo what you have read, not even willing to give your personal reasons for believing what you read.

                                I have an idea, why not get this thread closed. You don't want to discuss anything.
                                I've already discussed everything ad nauseum in a thread I pretty much got going ,hence my many contributions to it. What you don't like is that I don't want to go through it all in depth with you all over again so anything you want discussed will pretty much have been covered already I'm sooooo sorry that me not giving special little you the time you crave has upset sensitive little you and forced you to call me names but that's just too bad. As for accusing people of believing whatever they read, that makes us laugh as you want to back up the Warren Commission, which his hilarious whether I am right about the Mafia or not!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X