Kennedy Assassination

Originally posted by ivanhoe
My guess is that you're on the right track.

By way of analogy I thought this liitle bit on Caesar illustrates my point.

Apparently as many as 60 senators stabbed Julius Caesar to death on that fateful day in 44BC during the ides of March.


The traditional argument proposed for Caesars assassination was that in amassing personal power to his office as ruler and because of his great popularity he was usurping the power of the senate and thus undermining the democratic principles of the Roman Republic.

Michael Parenti in his book ‘The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome, poses an ‘alternative explanation: the Senate aristocrats killed Caesar because they perceived him to be a popular leader who threatened their privileged interests.’ http://hnn.us/articles/1643.html


Caesar’s assassination provides a good history lesson as to the ways of power.

In JFK’s case I think what is rather similar is that by the time of Nov 22, 1963, there were a whole host of people queuing up to be the first in line to wield a ‘dagger’.

For my money the person who makes most sense as the leader of the insurrection, would be none other that J Edgar H.

Just a quick list.

JEH was in bed with certain mob interests because of his predilection for hotel rooms and choice of companionship. Apparently he liked a day at the races as well, and he loved to enjoy his Florida excursions on the house. Because of his cozy relationship, some say because the mob had some of his exploits on film, he tended to avoid letting his bureau catch to many big fish in his war on the cosa nostra.

JFK had a dad who made money in banking when he had become respectable, but had also made a fortune bootlegging. He enlisted the help of Sam G of Chicago to get his boy elected.

However once in power JFK and RFK proposed a war on organized crime. A classic case of biting the hand… One of the casualties of this war on crime was one ole blue eyes and the rat pack which included Peter Lawford who by marriage had became a conduit between Frankie and Jack and Bobby which gave the two brothers all that Hollywood jazz. ( I always wondered about Marilyn. Born Norma Jean, she took the last name of the street Frankie was born on 12 Dec in1915. That address? 415 Monroe St.)

When told by Lawford that Jack would not be visiting his (Frank’s) palatial pad complete with heliport because of heat over Frankies connections, Frank in a fit of rage took to the concrete helipad with a sledgehammer and had it destroyed.

But those are just asides. What did JFK do to JEH? He installed a hotline to J Edgars office and would summon him to the oval office much like you would an errand boy.

Jack and Bobby would have loved to have been rid of J Edgar. The war on the cosa nostra was in part a shakedown of Hoover.

Kennedy was popular, he was young, he was being mythologized even while he was still alive. And he’s policies and he’s world view had a high moral tone that played havoc with those who had helped him become elected.

I think as with Caesar it becomes a moot point as to who stabbed the first dagger. In the case of Kennedy when you add in the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, the Missile Crises, the potential loss of military contracts for people like Howard Hughes, or the oil men that he loathed……… Eventually you probably need to have a lottery to see who can be involved in the assassination for fear of would be assailants tripping over each other in the field because of their sheer numbers.

At the end of the day, not many people were required to implement the turkey shoot. As with any obedient command structure, only a few words need to be spoken at the top for the vast majority to perform their duty on a need to know basis

Originally posted by zeeblebot
what was the attorney general doing while all this was going on? (the coverup?)

Working out that there were'nt many people he could trust, what would be the point of creating a side show of acrimony. If the reality was what it was he may as well do what he could for as long as he could. No point living in fear, if for him, the writing already had appeared on the wall.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, from the left.

..... and what is it Mrs. Kennedy grabs from the back of the car ?

Originally posted by kmax87
By way of analogy I thought this liitle bit on Caesar illustrates my point.

Apparently as many as 60 senators stabbed Julius Caesar to death on that fateful day in 44BC during the ides of March.


The traditional argument proposed for Caesars assassination was that in amassing personal power to his office as ruler and because of his great popularity he eed to be spoken at the top for the vast majority to perform their duty on a need to know basis

That's all very relevant, however I think you are forgetting the issue which truly made the difference in the decision to kill him and that is the, in many eyes catastrophic, intended presidential policy of withdrawing the troops from Vietnam and making peace with the Communist Sowjet Union. His brother Robert was killed for the same reason. He wanted to carry out the policies he and JFK had laid out for the future of America and therefore RFK sought the Democratic nomination for the office of President of the United States. They decided to kill him too before he would become President.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
..... and what is it Mrs. Kennedy grabs from the back of the car ?

It looks, to me, like she is just trying to get out of the car. And it also looks like she is seeking the help of the secret service agent, or whomever, who is running up behind the car.

Do you have some other take on that?

Originally posted by LemonJello
It looks, to me, like she is just trying to get out of the car. And it also looks like she is seeking the help of the secret service agent, or whomever, who is running up behind the car.

Do you have some other take on that?

She is trying to get out of the car ? ....... What do you think the secret agent gives to Mrs. Kennedy while she is on the back of the car before returning to her seat ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
That's all very relevant, however I think you are forgetting the issue which truly made the difference in the decision to kill him and that is the, in many eyes catastrophic, intended presidential policy of withdrawing the troops from Vietnam and making peace with the Communist Sowjet Union. His brother Robert was killed for the same reason. He wanted to car ...[text shortened]... President of the United States. They decided to kill him too before he would become President.

Who is "they"?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
She is trying to get out of the car ? ....... What do you think the secret agent gives to Mrs. Kennedy while she is on the back of the car before returning to her seat ?

I'm just looking at the link you posted, and it doesn't show her returning to her seat. If you have some point, just state it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm just looking at the link you posted, and it doesn't show her returning to her seat. If you have some point, just state it.

Try this one. Maybe we should first conclude that the secret agent does indeed give something to the First Lady. Right ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=gI6GAfAGYek

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Try this one. Maybe we should first conclude that the secret agent does indeed give something to the First Lady. Right ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=gI6GAfAGYek

From that video, it looks like maybe the agent does give her something. It's a little hard to tell. There's also no way to tell from the video what it may be.

What does any of this have to do with your claim of a frontal shooter?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Err ... no.

Wow! You're quite the jackass.

Originally posted by LemonJello
From that video, it looks like maybe the agent does give her something. It's a little hard to tell. There's also no way to tell from the video what it may be.

What does any of this have to do with your claim of a frontal shooter?

The first Lady gets on the back of the car to grab pieces of the Presidents skull. She manages to grab one big piece while the secret agent wants to give her a second one. Then after collecting what she wanted to collect, she returns to her seat.

The pieces of skull came, obviously, from the back of Kennedy's head. The direction they took is roughly from the right upper part of the back of the car, where the President was sitting to the left lower part of the back of the car where the secret agent was situated. This means that the exit wound was on the side indicated by the direction taken by the big pieces of skull coming from the president's head.
Remember your banana picture where the content was blown to the right and the bullet came from the left ? Here the content of the President's head is blown to the left and therefore the bullet came from the right.

Now if you deny that the First Lady went to the back of the car to pick up pieces of Kennedy's skull and also deny that the secret agent was trying to hand over to the First Lady a piece of skull (She reaches out with her right hand to the secret agent's right hand) then you'll have to give your interpretation of the events taking place here. What is it the secet agent is trying to give to the First Lady, for instance, and what is it the First Lady grabs at the back of the car ?

Obviously the premise that the First Lady wanted to get out of the car isn't in line with the fact that she reaches out to something, grabs something and then reaching out to the secret agent's hand and then returning to her seat without giving it any try at all to indeed leave the car.

How do these actions fit into your account of the events taking place here ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=gI6GAfAGYek

Originally posted by LemonJello

What does any of this have to do with your claim of a frontal shooter?

Slightly off your skull fragment argument, but one detail not debunked that tends to show the improbability of the single bullet theory and hence the reality of a shot fired from a different location is the fact of a bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket about 5 inches below the location that the magic single bullet passed through him. Its amasing the disinformation that increasingly is spawned. We have 3D reconstructions that rightly show Connolly siiting below JFK and inboard to his position but what is now inferred is that in conjunction with the elevation of the book repository location a shot taken from there is meant to provide a perfectly straight trajectory between Jack and Connolly turned in converstion with him. But this neatly overlooks the hole in the jacket and shirt which even with bunching up and leaning forward indicate an immediate cover-up of a wound entrance and a subsequent displacement upwards of that ballistic entry to the base of the neck.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Who is "they"?

Probably the same 'they' that Jackie emphatically insisted killed her husband. If there had been no sense of foreboding on the issue why did she choose 'they'. It would have been more reasonable for her first reaction to be along the lines of 'someone's just shot Jack'. The way in which she says 'they' suggests a resignation on her part that Jack's luck in walking a precarious tight-rope of counterbalanced forces that was the precarious nature of her husbands fragile position within the power nexus that was/is the oval office finally ran out, and her statement therefore takes on the mantle of a premonition of disaster, finally arrived.