PDA

View Full Version : Cuba Paid Oswald to Kill Kennedy, New Film Says


jAZ
01-05-2006, 10:56 PM
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060104111709990002

Updated: 10:55 AM EST
Cuba Paid Oswald to Kill Kennedy, New Film Says

By Mark Trevelyan, Reuters

BERLIN (Jan. 4) - Cuba lay behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald and its agents provided the gunman with money and support, an award-winning German director says in a new documentary film.

Wilfried Huismann spent three years researching "Rendezvous with Death," based on interviews with former Cuban secret agents, U.S. officials and a Russian intelligence source, and on research in Mexican security archives.

The film, shown to journalists in Berlin on Wednesday, says Oswald traveled to Mexico City by bus in September 1963, seven weeks before the Kennedy shooting, and met agents at the Cuban embassy there who paid him $6,500.

Oscar Marino, a former Cuban agent and a key source for the documentary, told Huismann that Oswald himself had volunteered for the assassination mission and Havana had exploited him.

"Oswald was a dissident. He hated his country...Oswald offered to kill Kennedy," Marino said in the film.

"He was so full of hate, he had the idea. We used him...He was a tool."

He said he knew with certainty that the assassination was an operation of the Cuban secret service G-2, but would not say if it was ordered by President Fidel Castro.

Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby two days after killing Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

The film argues Cuba wanted to eliminate Kennedy as the chief enemy of its Communist revolution, and portrays him and Castro as dueling opponents each trying to assassinate the other first.

Former CIA official Sam Halpern told Huismann: "He (Castro) beat us. He bested us. He came out on top, and we lost."

FBI PROBE ABORTED

Laurence Keenan, an officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who was sent to Mexico City immediately after Kennedy's death to investigate a possible Cuban connection, said he was recalled after just three days and the probe was aborted.

"This was perhaps the worst investigation the FBI was ever involved in," Keenan said. "I realized that I was used. I felt ashamed. We missed a moment in history."

Keenan, 81, said he was convinced Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, blocked further investigation because proof of a Cuban link would put him under irresistible pressure to invade the island, a year after the Cuban missile crisis had brought the United States and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.

"Most likely there would have been an invasion of Cuba which could have had unknown consequences for the whole world," he told journalists at the screening, saying that was why Johnson preferred to accept Oswald was "a crazed lone Marxist assassin."

Interviewed for the film, Alexander Haig, then a U.S. military adviser and later secretary of state, quoted Johnson as saying "we simply must not allow the American people to believe that Fidel Castro could have killed our president."

"And the reason was that there would be a right-wing uprising in America, which would keep the Democratic party out of power for two generations," Haig said.

He added that Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the assassinated president and attorney general in his administration, had personally ordered eight attempts on the life of Castro, who is still in power to this day.

Cuban and Russian sources interviewed in the film say the KGB alerted the Cubans to Oswald in mid-1962 after he left the Soviet Union, where he had lived for three years, and returned to the United States with his Soviet wife and their daughter.

Cuban intelligence first made contact with Oswald in November 1962, according to the film.

Huismann also unearthed a U.S. intelligence report shown to Johnson which said Cuban secret service chief Fabian Escalante flew via Mexico City to Dallas on the day of Kennedy's assassination, and back again the same day.

Tracked down by the film maker, Escalante denied he had been in Dallas and evaded questions about Cuba's alleged role. "What is truth, what are lies?" he said, smiling.


01/04/06 11:12 ET

jAZ
01-05-2006, 11:02 PM
This actually makes too much sense. It's not kookey enough.

greg63
01-05-2006, 11:15 PM
They provided the magic bullet.

jidar
01-05-2006, 11:16 PM
Oswald was a communist and is known with certainty to have made several attempts to become involved with the Cubans, he viewed that as a stepping stone to the Russians.
It's actually pretty plausible.

jAZ
01-05-2006, 11:20 PM
...he viewed that as a stepping stone to the Russians.
It's actually pretty plausible.
It is, but he had already "stepped" to the russians stone. He lived there for 3 years and married a russian woman. I found the latter quotes from Haig and the Escalante to be very interesting.

Pitt Gorilla
01-05-2006, 11:24 PM
That's cold, calling him a "tool."

greg63
01-05-2006, 11:25 PM
"He was a tool."


ROFLROFLROFL

arrowheadnation
01-05-2006, 11:27 PM
I too found that to be cold.....

but hilarious.

jidar
01-05-2006, 11:36 PM
It is, but he had already "stepped" to the russians stone. He lived there for 3 years and married a russian woman. I found the latter quotes from Haig and the Escalante to be very interesting.


He lived in Russia but he had zero connections with the KGB while there other than being under constant surveilance. Oswald decided he wanted to work for the KGB after he returned to the US and so he got involved with Cubans in the US hoping to exploit their relationship with the Russians to get involved with them.
Or so I read.
Of course I also read that these attempts were clumsy and didn't lead to anything.

banyon
01-05-2006, 11:43 PM
Oh, good, for a second I thought this was about the MTV Vee-Jay.

http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2005/news/050725/kennedy.jpg

jAZ
01-05-2006, 11:43 PM
He lived in Russia but he had zero connections with the KGB while there other than being under constant surveilance. Oswald decided he wanted to work for the KGB after he returned to the US and so he got involved with Cubans in the US hoping to exploit their relationship with the Russians to get involved with them.
Or so I read.
Of course I also read that these attempts were clumsy and didn't lead to anything.
Ahhh! Makes sense now.

JohnnyV13
01-06-2006, 12:08 AM
There's one really big hole with one of Haig's statements. How in the hell does Bobby Kennedy order Castro's assassination WHEN HE IS ATTORNEY GENERAL?

The Attorney General heads the justice department, which includes all federal law enforcement agencies under its umbrella. The key here is "DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT". Now, the FBI can investigate the Kennedy assasination in Mexico because it concerns a domestic law enforcement issue, but no domestic law enforcement agency has the power to perform covert operations on foreign soil.

Now, you might say that Bobby Kennedy, for all intents an purposes was the no. 2 man in JFK's administration. Even so, don't you think Bobby is going to royally piss off some other dept heads in D.C. if he's ordering hits that he has no authority to order? Wouldn't the CIA director be rather pissed? Or the NSA, for that matter. And WHO is going to implement Bobby's order...the FBI? Gee, and Hoover just LOVED the Kennedy's didn't he? Do you think Hoover is going to sit on his hands while Bobby issues totally unconstitutional orders?

The other question is why would Al Haig know this about Bobby?

Miles
01-06-2006, 12:08 AM
http://www.reflections.it/interviste/2005/oliver_stone/01.jpg

"Damn, I knew I left something out."

jAZ
01-06-2006, 12:12 AM
There's one really big hole with one of Haig's statements. How in the hell does Bobby Kennedy order Castro's assassination WHEN HE IS ATTORNEY GENERAL?

The Attorney General heads the justice department, which includes all federal law enforcement agencies under its umbrella. The key here is "DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT". Now, the FBI can investigate the Kennedy assasination in Mexico because it concerns a domestic law enforcement issue, but no domestic law enforcement agency has the power to perform covert operations on foreign soil.

Now, you might say that Bobby Kennedy, for all intents an purposes was the no. 2 man in JFK's administration. Even so, don't you think Bobby is going to royally piss off some other dept heads in D.C. if he's ordering hits that he has no authority to order? Wouldn't the CIA director be rather pissed? Or the NSA, for that matter. And WHO is going to implement Bobby's order...the FBI? Gee, and Hoover just LOVED the Kennedy's didn't he? Do you think Hoover is going to sit on his hands while Bobby issues totally unconstitutional orders?

The other question is why would Al Haig know this about Bobby?
If you are going to try to knock of a foreign head of state, who's to say the FBI can't do it. That can't be any more "illegal" than having the CIA do it, right?

JohnnyV13
01-06-2006, 12:36 AM
If you are going to try to knock of a foreign head of state, who's to say the FBI can't do it. That can't be any more "illegal" than having the CIA do it, right?

My post is more about how power works in washington, and what agencies will have people with the capabilities you need to get the job done.

I mean think about it, Hoover and the Kennedy's hated each other. If Bobby were to go around ordering assassinations he's not supposed to order, then Hoover has the goods on him. Using the FBI would be VERY risky, b/c you'd have to bypass Hoover, and he was there FOREVER. If Hoover found out, he either use the info to squeeze the kennedys' nutsack in politics OR he'd leak it.

Now, think about this: Bobby is going to use a covert agency, say the NSA. That means Bobby is going over the head of the NSA chief to task people under the NSA authority, and the NSA chief is not under the DOJ. At best, Bobby would have to give up political favors to get NSA guys to do this job. And. the Sec. of Defense isn't going to be real happy b/c the NSA is under the DOD.

Now maybe the theory is Haig knows b/c Haig is a military advisor and Bobby used covert military intelligence units to get it done. But again, the AG isn't in the chain of command for military units. That would have to come out of the White House.

You could argue JFK was using Bobby as a backdoor conduit for his orders, but how "covert" is using your freak'n brother? Anything Bobby does is going to be connected to JFK, and its not like he is going to gain any deniability by using Bobby.

This whole sequence just seems rather unlikely

scho63
07-08-2013, 03:14 PM
I continue to firmly believe as I have stated in other posts that there is ZERO chance Oswald acted alone. There is at least two other players in this mess; Russia, Cuba, the Mob

----------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/book-former-cia-analyst-sheds-light-cuba-kennedy-180735990.html

(Reuters) - Lee Harvey Oswald had closer ties to Cuba's intelligence agency in the months before his fatal shooting of John F. Kennedy than previously known, according to a new book by a former CIA analyst.

Furthermore, the CIA lied about its knowledge of those ties to the Warren Commission that was tasked with investigating the crime, according to Brian Latell, the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America from 1990 to 1994 and author of the book "Castro's Secrets: Cuban Intelligence, the CIA, & the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," due out on July 9.

Cuba also hid what it knew about Oswald, writes Latell, citing a CIA wiretap of a conversation between two Cuban secret service agents he uncovered in declassified archives.

"I am now convinced that Oswald was engaged with the Cubans," Latell told Reuters.

While he is careful not to suggest Oswald killed Kennedy on instructions from Havana, Latell says the new evidence confirms a widely held belief that Oswald was motivated to kill Kennedy by a fervent desire to impress Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

"I'm convinced he wanted to defect to Cuba," Latell said. "He loved Cuba and Castro, and wanted to join the revolution."

Latell's book, which is a revised edition of an earlier work on Cuban intelligence published last year, is based on new pieces to the puzzle uncovered from several sources, including the unpublished memoirs of Thomas Mann, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico at the time of the assassination, as well as an interview with a former Cuban intelligence agent and declassified government documents.

Seven weeks before Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, Oswald famously traveled to Mexico City by bus hoping to obtain a visa from the Cuban embassy there to visit Havana. Cuba denied him a visa, but the bus trip, and Oswald's known communist sympathies, have long generated suspicion of Cuban involvement in Kennedy's death, although no hard evidence has ever been found.

"What he did during most of the time he spent in the Mexican capital remains perhaps the most important unsolved mystery of the Kennedy assassination," writes Latell, who spent much of his career at the CIA working on Cuba.

U.S. officials never admitted the full extent of what they knew, fearing perhaps they would face public pressure to retaliate against Cuba if greater evidence of a Cuban link became known, Latell argues.

Mann learned shortly after Kennedy's death that Oswald had stayed at the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City, known by the CIA to be a haven for Cuban spies in Mexico working for the DGI, Havana's national intelligence agency, closely run by Castro.

Mann learned this information at the time from the CIA station chief in Mexico, according to his memoirs, written in 1982. But when he raised it with his superiors in Washington, Mann was silenced by the State Department and told to cease his inquiries about Oswald's stay in Mexico.

Mann was furious and objected, but did as he was told. "In the week after the assassination Mann was convinced Cuba was involved. He was convinced Oswald was working for the Cubans at the hotel," Latell said.

"He started getting very aggressive and upsetting apple carts in Washington."

Mann, who died in 1999, was reposted out of Mexico barely a month after the Kennedy assassination.

During its investigation of the crime in 1964, the Warren Commission was curious about the Mexico trip. But when the commission traveled to Cuba and asked about Oswald's hotel stay, the CIA hid its knowledge about goings on at the hotel, according to Latell.

The Warren Commission later declared that it found no evidence of Cuban government involvement in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

In his research on Cuban intelligence Latell also discovered records of a CIA wiretap of a phone conversation between two DGI officials in Mexico and Havana shortly after the assassination in which they discussed the events in Dallas. One of them remarked how interesting it was that Oswald had wanted to fight for the revolution. How could they have known that, Latell asks, unless the DGI already had a file on him?

Latell suspects Cuba was aware of him as far as 1959 when Oswald first sought contact with Cuban officials at the Cuban consulate in Los Angeles.

Castro has always asserted that Oswald was totally unknown to Cuban authorities. Latell and others find that hard to believe, citing reports that after being denied a visa in Mexico, Oswald shouted, "I'm going to kill Kennedy," in the street outside the Cuban consulate.

"We thought that was incriminating of Oswald," said Notre Dame law professor G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel to the 1977 House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, which re-examined the evidence in Kennedy's death.

Castro was asked about Oswald's shouted threat, but denied any knowledge of it.

"We found that it did happen and he lied about it," said Blakey, adding that the motive of Oswald's Mexico trip remains unclear as Latell's book does not reveal exactly what occurred in the Hotel del Comercio.

Latell also cites an interview with a former Cuban agent tasked with monitoring U.S. communications, who said that on the day of the assassination he was ordered to stop all CIA tracking efforts and redirect his antennae toward Texas.

"Castro knew Kennedy was to be fired upon," Latell says the agent told him.

U.S. officials covered up these vital clues because they were concerned about the consequences if a Cuban connection was publicized, Latell argues.

"Had it been known it could have triggered an invasion of Cuba," he said. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, "didn't want that" so soon after the missile crisis that had brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war barely a year earlier.

"They went nose to nose before and they didn't want to do it again," Latell says.

loochy
07-08-2013, 03:32 PM
Children in England Attend Magic School and Fight Evil Wizard, New Film Says

Frazod
07-08-2013, 03:39 PM
Amazing to think that sonofabitch Castro is still sitting down there laughing at us. Eleven American presidents later.

Dayze
07-08-2013, 03:40 PM
if it could be proven that the CIA orchestrated it by having JFK swallow and M80, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
nothing the government does, or what they have done, shocks me.

DJ's left nut
07-08-2013, 04:01 PM
If that's true, Johnson was probably right to handle it how he did.

Invading Cuba really could've sparked another global war. Perhaps not truly WWIII in scale, but it would've been an extremely volatile and potentially catastrophic situation.

The cold logic of it all is that the American public probably was better off for not knowing of any potential Cuban involvement.

gblowfish
07-08-2013, 04:09 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oMWZ1n-XjP4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KILLER_CLOWN
07-08-2013, 04:12 PM
Absolute horseshit.

Amnorix
07-08-2013, 04:19 PM
Absolute horseshit.


Why? What's your theory?




this should be fun

Donger
07-08-2013, 04:20 PM
Why? What's your theory?




this should be fun

LMAO

BigRedChief
07-08-2013, 05:27 PM
Why? What's your theory?




this should be funObligatory
:popcorn:

My moneys on the military industrial complex.

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 05:41 PM
My post is more about how power works in washington, and what agencies will have people with the capabilities you need to get the job done.

I mean think about it, Hoover and the Kennedy's hated each other. If Bobby were to go around ordering assassinations he's not supposed to order, then Hoover has the goods on him. Using the FBI would be VERY risky, b/c you'd have to bypass Hoover, and he was there FOREVER. If Hoover found out, he either use the info to squeeze the kennedys' nutsack in politics OR he'd leak it.

Now, think about this: Bobby is going to use a covert agency, say the NSA. That means Bobby is going over the head of the NSA chief to task people under the NSA authority, and the NSA chief is not under the DOJ. At best, Bobby would have to give up political favors to get NSA guys to do this job. And. the Sec. of Defense isn't going to be real happy b/c the NSA is under the DOD.

Now maybe the theory is Haig knows b/c Haig is a military advisor and Bobby used covert military intelligence units to get it done. But again, the AG isn't in the chain of command for military units. That would have to come out of the White House.

You could argue JFK was using Bobby as a backdoor conduit for his orders, but how "covert" is using your freak'n brother? Anything Bobby does is going to be connected to JFK, and its not like he is going to gain any deniability by using Bobby.

This whole sequence just seems rather unlikely

His brother was the President.

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 05:44 PM
Either way its been proven that Oswald killed him, alone. So I am willing to accept this story. I also agree the American Public was better off not knowing. It would have been WWIII, with the Russians getting destroyed.

Rausch
07-08-2013, 05:46 PM
Either way its been proven that Oswald killed him, alone. So I am willing to accept this story.

That's like watching a pink elephant fly down out of the sky and rape a cow to death, fly off, and then say "It's God's will."

Uh....based......on.....whut?

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 05:51 PM
That's like watching a pink elephant fly down out of the sky and rape a cow to death, fly off, and then say "It's God's will."

Uh....based......on.....whut?

Based on forensic evidence. They even found the third bullet. He did it with a spectacular display of shooting. Marine Corp shooting.

Donger
07-08-2013, 05:52 PM
That's like watching a pink elephant fly down out of the sky and rape a cow to death, fly off, and then say "It's God's will."

Uh....based......on.....whut?

The lack of any verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Chocolate Hog
07-08-2013, 05:53 PM
If that's true, Johnson was probably right to handle it how he did.

Invading Cuba really could've sparked another global war. Perhaps not truly WWIII in scale, but it would've been an extremely volatile and potentially catastrophic situation.

The cold logic of it all is that the American public probably was better off for not knowing of any potential Cuban involvement.

I'm a dove and even I would be for blowing up Cuba if they were behind the assination of a US president.

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 05:57 PM
I'm a dove and even I would be for blowing up Cuba if they were behind the assination of a US president.

Oh fuck yeah. Its time to throw down, any country.

Chocolate Hog
07-08-2013, 06:00 PM
Oh fuck yeah. Its time to throw down, any country.

If they kill a preaident? That's not an act of war?

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 06:01 PM
If they kill a preaident? That's not an act of war?

its and act of war with a dash of something else.

Rausch
07-08-2013, 06:17 PM
Based on forensic evidence. They even found the third bullet. He did it with a spectacular display of shooting. Marine Corp shooting.

The "magic bullet" theory?

I don't have a favorite theory.

I do think there are just too many coincidences to think there wasn't a larger player than just LHO alone...

DeezNutz
07-08-2013, 06:26 PM
That's like watching a pink elephant fly down out of the sky and rape a cow to death, fly off, and then say "It's God's will."

Uh....based......on.....whut?

History Channel did a special, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" or some shit like that. Anyway, they used computer generated graphics to debunk the "magic bullet" theory, and the key piece of evidence that most don't consider in arguing to the contrary is that the convertible had "stadium seating" of sorts.

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 06:26 PM
The "magic bullet" theory?

I don't have a favorite theory.

I do think there are just too many coincidences to think there wasn't a larger player than just LHO alone...

There was no "magic bullet". Maybe Dumbledore did something, but I think he was at Hogwarts at the time investigating Tom Riddle. The bullet struck bone and ricochet into the Tex Gov. LHO's first shot went through a street sign and he adjusted to fire the next two. People didn't even hear the first one. Video shows the bullet striking him from behind.

And now we find out that the Cubans pontentially gave him dough when he wanted to shoot Kennedy anyway.

This was the Holy Grail of modern conspiracy theorists and its been debunked in my mind.

Garcia Bronco
07-08-2013, 06:30 PM
Also, that he fired 3 shots in 7 seconds is nonsense. It was two. He fired the first one, missed hitting a street sign. In fact if the street sign wasn't there he would have hit him before the turn. So it was more like 3 shots in 15 seconds or so.

Rausch
07-08-2013, 06:31 PM
History Channel did a special, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" or some shit like that. Anyway, they used computer generated graphics to debunk the "magic bullet" theory, and the key piece of evidence that most don't consider in arguing to the contrary is that the convertible had "stadium seating" of sorts.

I didn't see that.

What's the short version?

DeezNutz
07-08-2013, 06:36 PM
I didn't see that.

What's the short version?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DSBXW1-VGmM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
07-08-2013, 06:37 PM
I didn't see that.

What's the short version?

Connally was seated in a jump seat, which was below and to the left of JFK. Connally was also turned toward his right when he was hit. If you combine all that, the trajectory of shot two fits perfectly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Sbt2.jpg

DeezNutz
07-08-2013, 06:39 PM
From about 3:00-5:30.

Rausch
07-08-2013, 06:49 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DSBXW1-VGmM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can see most of that. I don't disagree with the 2nd argument.

My issue is mostly with the head shot and the strange facts that surround the event. Three different physicians state they examined the body and it looked like some surgery was performed on the front of the face and that the wound in the back of the head was an exit wound.

Do I know this? No.

I'm just going off info printed or televised after the fact.

Rausch
07-08-2013, 06:50 PM
Connally was seated in a jump seat, which was below and to the left of JFK. Connally was also turned toward his right when he was hit. If you combine all that, the trajectory of shot two fits perfectly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Sbt2.jpg

Thank you for posting that after I watched a fucking 10 minute video...

Ace Gunner
07-08-2013, 06:51 PM
I believe the immaculate bullet theory, myself. Mary hated John.

Donger
07-08-2013, 06:56 PM
Thank you for posting that after I watched a ****ing 10 minute video...

Sorry.

Donger
07-08-2013, 06:57 PM
I believe the immaculate bullet theory, myself. Mary hated John.

It wasn't immaculate. The conspiracy folks only show one of the pictures of it, where it doesn't look deformed.

Sorter
07-08-2013, 07:05 PM
It wasn't immaculate. The conspiracy folks only show one of the pictures of it, where it doesn't look deformed.

While I think the angle is correct and plausible, the truly odd thing is the shape of the recovered bullet. Iirc, it went through Connelly's bones and typically, bullets tend to warp upon contact.

Donger
07-08-2013, 07:09 PM
While I think the angle is correct and plausible, the truly odd thing is the shape of the recovered bullet. Iirc, it went through Connelly's bones and typically, bullets tend to warp upon contact.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg

Throw in the fact that it matches Oswald's rifle perfectly for good measure.

BigRedChief
07-08-2013, 07:12 PM
It wasn't immaculate. The conspiracy folks only show one of the pictures of it, where it doesn't look deformed.No shit. Its a straight line. No magic bullet theory needed.

Sorter
07-08-2013, 07:13 PM
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg

Throw in the fact that it matches Oswald's rifle perfectly for good measure.

Interesting.

Count Zarth
07-08-2013, 07:45 PM
Once again the liberals ruin everything.

We should have crushed Cuba over this and made it #51.

mesmith31
07-08-2013, 08:23 PM
Before you leap to new conclusions about Oswald, I would suggest taking a read of Dr. Mary's Monkey. One of the best researched accounts on the topic I have read in a while with some interesting conclusions about what Oswald was up to.

http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monkey-Cancer-Causing-Assassination/dp/0977795306

tooge
07-08-2013, 08:31 PM
If it doesn't fit, you must go back and to the left. I saw the movie. I knew it

LoneWolf
07-08-2013, 08:39 PM
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg

Throw in the fact that it matches Oswald's rifle perfectly for good measure.

Isn't that second photo of the back end of the bullet? Why in the world would the business end of the bullet still look pristine after going through several bones but the back end be warped? That photo begs more questions than it supplies answers.

Brainiac
07-08-2013, 09:02 PM
Absolute horseshit.

Why?

Because it's actually plausible. Killer Clown only believes in conspiracy theories if they are ridiculous.

Donger
07-08-2013, 09:05 PM
Isn't that second photo of the back end of the bullet? Why in the world would the business end of the bullet still look pristine after going through several bones but the back end be warped? That photo begs more questions than it supplies answers.

Yes, it is. Tests have been performed using the same ammunition, rifle and bullet travel through anatomically-similar material and the results (minimal deformation) occurred.

LoneWolf
07-08-2013, 09:08 PM
Yes, it is. Tests have been performed using the same ammunition, rifle and bullet travel through anatomically-similar material and the results (minimal deformation) occurred.

I admittedly haven't researched this topic much. Who conducted these tests? I'd be interested in looking at their published results.

Donger
07-08-2013, 09:18 PM
I admittedly haven't researched this topic much. Who conducted these tests? I'd be interested in looking at their published results.

If memory serves, it was the same Discovery Channel episode shown above. And, the WC performed similar tests with the same results.

DJ's left nut
07-08-2013, 10:08 PM
If they kill a president? That's not an act of war?

We spent a decade on the precipice of full-on nuclear annihilation. An invasion of Cuba would have been tantamount to the full-scale slaughter of millions in the name of avenging a single death.

President or not, the key to the success of American democracy is the fact that the President is still just a man. He's not bigger than the Constitution and he's not the product of divine providence. He's just a cog in much grander machine.

The difference between hawks and doves is that the hawks actually have a clue as to when force is proper and are willing to use it to serve a legitimate end. The doves simply need the proper meaningless symbolism to get behind it. The fact that you'd have guaranteed the death of hundreds of thousands of American citizens on some poorly thought out vendetta drive further demonstrates that fact.

Chocolate Hog
07-08-2013, 10:29 PM
[QUOTE=DJ's left

The difference between hawks and doves is that the hawks actually have a clue as to when force is proper and are willing to use it to serve a legitimate end. The doves simply need the proper meaningless symbolism to get behind it. The fact that you'd have guaranteed the death of hundreds of thousands of American citizens on some poorly thought out vendetta drive further demonstrates that fact.[/QUOTE]



Hawks know when to use force. Great examples Iraq, The Vietnam war, etc. Yup thousands of Americans weren't killed on 9-11 because of hawkish policies in the middle east.

Chocolate Hog
07-08-2013, 10:30 PM
Oh yeah and going to war to defend the murder of a sitting commandor and chief is meaningless symbolism.

Sorter
07-08-2013, 10:50 PM
It's difficult. Do you risk worldwide nuclear war, the deaths of millions, and possibly our extinction for vengeance?

Personally, despite how much vengeance might satisfy my immediate needs, I think it is both arrogant and reckless to risk the destruction of the entire planet for one man.

DJ's left nut
07-09-2013, 02:31 PM
Hawks know when to use force. Great examples Iraq, The Vietnam war, etc. Yup thousands of Americans weren't killed on 9-11 because of hawkish policies in the middle east.

They weren't, half-wit.

Get down to brass-tacks and the 9-11 attacks are more closely related to our continued support of Israel than anything else. The current relationship with the middle-east, including the Iraq invasion, was as a consequence of 9-11, not a cause.

Or are you going to try to tie the 9-11 attacks to the first Persian Gulf conflict? Do you really believe we should've sat idly by during the first gulf war when Hussein invaded a sovereign nation and ally?

As for Vietnam, care to take a look at ideologies leading the nation during the period of initial involvement and further escalation? Pay no attention to Democrats holding the Senate for 20 years and the House for damn near 40 starting in the mid 1950s. Oh yeah, and the fact that Kennedy and Johnson are the guys that put us in the middle of it.

Or are the Democrats a bunch of hawks as well?

Oh yeah and going to war to defend the murder of a sitting commandor and chief is meaningless symbolism.

He's just a man. Our entire system of governance is built around the central premise that the President isn't an emperor, isn't a King and isn't given any kind of divine right - he's just a man.

I know you fellas love treating them like they're deities (provided there's a D after their names) but that's simply not the case. They're the chief Administrator of our nation's laws and the man that has final say over our armed forces (and ultimately very little know-how in how to implement any of said decisions).

Getting your dander up and risking a global war over the death of a single man, someone that won't be in charge of anything within the next 8 years, is asinine.

Chocolate Hog
07-09-2013, 02:44 PM
'Get down to brass-tacks and the 9-11 attacks are more closely related to our continued support of Israel than anything else. The current relationship with the middle-east, including the Iraq invasion, was as a consequence of 9-11, not a cause."


It was in response to putting troops in the holy land. It was also your beloved hawks who are so intellectually superior they thought it was a great idea to arm and train OBL and other Muslim radicals


"Or are you going to try to tie the 9-11 attacks to the first Persian Gulf conflict? Do you really believe we should've sat idly by during the first gulf war when Hussein invaded a sovereign nation and ally? "

Invaded a sovereign nation and used weapons we gave him. Another great idea from your wing of the party.

"As for Vietnam, care to take a look at ideologies leading the nation during the period of initial involvement and further escalation? Pay no attention to Democrats holding the Senate for 20 years and the House for damn near 40 starting in the mid 1950s. Oh yeah, and the fact that Kennedy and Johnson are the guys that put us in the middle of it.

Or are the Democrats a bunch of hawks as well?"

Yes there's a large portion of Democrats that are hawks. Republicans used to get elected to end wars.



"He's just a man. Our entire system of governance is built around the central premise that the President isn't an emperor, isn't a King and isn't given any kind of divine right - he's just a man.

I know you fellas love treating them like they're deities (provided there's a D after their names) but that's simply not the case. They're the chief Administrator of our nation's laws and the man that has final say over our armed forces (and ultimately very little know-how in how to implement any of said decisions).

Getting your dander up and risking a global war over the death of a single man, someone that won't be in charge of anything within the next 8 years, is asinine."

I think you have me confused. I'm not a democrat. Life long Republican. Paleo-conservative to be exact.

The murder of a president is an act of war. We had already got involved with Cuba once and fought many proxy wars against the soviets.

DJ's left nut
07-09-2013, 02:55 PM
The murder of a president is an act of war. We had already got involved with Cuba once and fought many proxy wars against the soviets.

You'd have been A-Okay with a full-scale global war on account of the death of a single man?

Even the historians that know full well that WWI wasn't really just about the death of an Austrian Arch-Duke know that Ferdinand's assassination likely touched it off and the resulting carnage and economic collapses throughout Europe were the key catalysis for WWII as well. Why? Because some pissed off, wrong-headed Austrian noblemen gave Serbia the middle finger instead of looking for a diplomatic resolution. Seriously, look up the 'apology' that Austria-Hungary demanded from Serbia; it was akin to a diplomatic invasion, if not an outright military one.

It's a very very easy leap to make from the Austria-Hungarian response to the death of a Prince to the atrocities of WWI and even WWII. WWII does not happen without WWI and the resulting outcomes.

But hey - kill a leader and to hell with the consequences; gotta go get your pound of flesh, right?

The parallels are actually pretty interesting when I think about them. Europe was something of a powder-keg looking for a catalyst. At the same time, so was USA/USSR, especially during the period of the Kennedy Assassination. Cooler heads prevailed and that catalyst never came. You can bet your ass that invading Cuba would've been just such a spark.

How different is the world today if Austria-Hungary makes a similar decision? I think an extremely compelling argument could be made that we'd be looking at a vastly different history of the 20th century.

Easy 6
07-09-2013, 02:57 PM
He didnt do anything with that piece of shit rifle, this is just more mud for the water.