|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
11-03-2009, 08:03 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Read a bit about the New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello and his possible involvement. I have a hard time buying into Jack Ruby shooting Oswald out of some sort of patriotic zeal.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
11-03-2009, 09:27 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 679
|
|
After reviewing the re-examination of Jack Ruby's lie detector test, it seems
he may have lied when asked if he assisted Oswald in the assasination.
He had the highest rise in blood pressure on that question over all the
others asked him during testing. There were also irregularities when asked
if he was a member of the Communist party.
|
11-03-2009, 09:30 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
The Millitary Industrial Complex.
JFK had second thoughts about Vietnam.
They stood to make billions off of that war.
He had to go.
Johnson complied because he was either intimidated or paid off.
What an absolute shame.
Dave
|
Dave,
Hmm?????????
This is before I was even born, but not by much. I have heard many things on both side of the aisle about Johnson.
One theory heard was that Johnson actually was a part of it, not just paid off, but actually involved in the whole scheme. He was the one who wnated to escallate the war.
On the other side, I had a humanities professor in college who adored him. THought his "great society" was the best thing that ever happened. Told us that many of his writings showed he was a good and compassionate man. He hated the war.
How does a person know what to believe?
|
11-03-2009, 09:41 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: clarksdale, ms
Posts: 156
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
The Millitary Industrial Complex.
JFK had second thoughts about Vietnam.
They stood to make billions off of that war.
He had to go.
Johnson complied because he was either intimidated or paid off.
What an absolute shame.
Dave
|
i'd have to go with this one. we'll probably never know the truth.
__________________
Did someone say "revolution"?
|
11-03-2009, 11:37 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
I'm sorry, Fellas but I really believe JFK was killed by our own. Sure, the Communists had motive, certainly Castro more specifically. But there were some pretty powerfull people right here in this country who thought JFK was a Communist. There were also plenty of people who stood to make billions off of the war. So, when he began waffling on Vietnam, and commented that U.S. involvement in S.E. Asia might be a "mistake"................Pop, pop, pop,---Hello LBJ. Hello massive troop deployments.
No one has stepped forward? Have you ever seen the documentary Robert McNamara made a few years back?
As the old saying goes---"Follow the money trail." Who stood to gain the most from a long protracted war in Vietnam? Castro? Nope. Kruschev? Nope. U.S. Millitary contractors? Uh..........................
When it comes to this issue, I think most Americans just don't want to think the unthinkable. I can understand that. I think it's naive. But I understand.
I think this is exactly what Eisenhower tried to warn us about.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Last edited by BlueStreak; 11-03-2009 at 11:41 PM.
|
11-03-2009, 11:48 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
"On the other side, I had a humanities professor in college who adored him. THought his "great society" was the best thing that ever happened. Told us that many of his writings showed he was a good and compassionate man. He hated the war."
How does a person know what to believe?"
Even if he was a "good, compassionate man", sometimes the best of us will do some horrendously uncharacteristic things, when there's a gun to his head.
We'll never really know. Most, if not all of the major players are gone.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
11-04-2009, 12:27 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 2,460
|
|
I think JFK had a hit out on Castro, and Castro got him first.
__________________
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed at times, with the blood of Tyrants."
|
11-04-2009, 01:10 AM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Yeah, there is no doubt Castro would have wanted him dead. JFK did have a hit out on him, and then the was the Bay of Pigs escapade (Attempted coup.) and of course the October Missle Crisis, true dat. I can certainly see where you're comin' from on this TD.
But, the question that comes to my mind is;
If it was Castro, then why was no action taken against Cuba? Other than the stupid cigar embargo, that is?
I mean, I would think murdering our President would be grounds to go to war, wouldn't you? I dunno, I kinda think the whole "It was Oswald, he's a Commie loser working alone." conclusion was just too quick and dirty. As if someone told the Warren Commission, "Pin it on Oswald, then go away. If you know what's good for you." Why didn't the investigation go beyond that point? I would think if it was Castro, our government would have been itching to call him out? This is why I tend to think it was an inside job. I don't see that there would have been any reason to cover up Castros guilt. But if it was someone powerful, infuential, an American? Oh yeah.
Anyhow. I wouldn't totally discount your theory, it's a reasonable one.
But I just don't see it.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
11-04-2009, 09:37 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 679
|
|
I think you are correct blue. In fact Ruby may have been the one shooting
from the front or grassy knoll and once Osawld was captured, he had to
take him out or risk being exposed. Maybe the Mobb was in the middle
because Ruby and Oswald both claimed to be patsies. If Ruby was exposed
and Oswald talked about the Mobb, then Ruby's family was in danger which
is what he told the Warren commision he feared would happen. He wanted
to be taken out of Dallas and into Washington for protection. Anyway,
the Military contractors did have the most to gain and did the Ruskies not
supply the North Vietnamese? so they stood to gain also. Anyway, all these
wars are really about money and power anyway. Every war we ever fought
we were supposedly liberating someone whether it be white settlers, slaves
french, south koreans, south vietnamese, iraqies, afhgans, who did I miss?
|
11-04-2009, 09:59 AM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Jack Kennedy had LOTS of enemies my friends. He was popular with the people. But the "powers that be" in 1963? Hoffa? The Mafia? The Communist Bloc? The Klan? The list goes on and on. That guy and his brothers went around stomping on toes like nobodies business.
But I do think the scenario I've presented is the most believeable.
Just my opinion.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.
|