Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31


  You guys from the Ed Forum have had your "grieving" period. You need to understand that the reason your cite folded was because your areas of interest are limited to a very finite group. You guys continue doing your own version of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975). You're stuck inna "time warp". The contributions and ensuing discussions on this forum break New Ground in an effort to resolve this Unsolved Murder Case. Please keep this in mind.   
32
AI-version:

Investigative journalist and assassination expert Gus Russo maintains that elements of the Cuban intelligence service (known as the G-2, or DGI) likely encouraged Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy in retaliation for continuous U.S. plots to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro.

Russo, along with other researchers, argues that Oswald—a fervent Castro supporter—traveled to Mexico City in September 1963 and made contact with Cuban diplomats and intelligence operatives. According to Russo's investigations (detailed in his book Live by the Sword), members of the Cuban regime were made aware of U.S. attempts to assassinate Castro, and they may have in turn accepted or encouraged Oswald’s offer to eliminate Kennedy.

Russo's research builds on declassified documents and interviews with Cuban defectors. For instance, a controversial 2006 documentary co-authored by Russo (Rendezvous with Death) further alleged that Cuban intelligence contracted Oswald to carry out the assassination.

---30---

Gus Russo's book "Live By the Sword" can be read online here (you'll need a free account for full access): https://archive.org/details/livebyswordsecre00russ

Nowhere in the book does he make any of the claims stated above about G-2/Cuban intelligence meeting Oswald and encouraging him to shoot JFK. Nowhere. Don't trust me, just go to the address above and read it for yourself. You can do a quick search for "G-2" or "Cuban intelligence" and be taken to those sections. You'll see that Russo never says Oswald met with Cuban intelligence and/or they encouraged him to shoot JFK or informed or inflamed him and that led to him shooting JFK.

What Russo does say in the book is that there were numerous rumors and allegations that Oswald may have met with either pro-Castro people or, more important, Castro's agents (note the huge difference between a person who was pro-Castro versus a Cuban agent/officer). And that in these meetings they may, again may, have told him about the covert war on Cuba, the assassination plots, and that the Kennedy Administration may have been readying an invasion of Cuba. Finally, as a result of these supposed meetings Oswald was angered enough to strike back at JFK. However, Russo also admits that Oswald may have learned on his own about some of the above anti-Cuban efforts and then acted on his own without any influence, directly or indirectly, from these pro-Castro people. Most important in all of this is: Russo admits he simply doesn't know.

Russo's complaint is that these rumors or allegations were never fully investigated. That's his main argument. Why? For a number of reasons: fear of a possible war that would follow, fear that the assassination plots would be revealed, fear that intelligence sources and methods would be exposed, fear that the "Camelot myth" of JFK would have been destroyed.

Here's a good summary (page 347) from the book of what he believes may have happened (again, note his qualifiers):



In any case, I gave the link to the book. You can read for yourself what he argues.

33
You go by the least reliable evidence we have, eyewitness accounts, and ignore the best evidence we have, the Z-film. No wonder you're so confused about what happened. If eyewitnesses were reliable, they would tell the same story. Obviously, they don't. If the eyewitnesses are correct, the JFKA happened dozens of ways. It really only happened one way and you will never figure out what that way is as long as you put your faith in eyewitnesses.
Actually, the witnesses are remarkably consistent:



34
What does any of this tell us except that the debate will be endless?

FWIW, Cliff Varnell - he who insists the alignment of the back and throat wounds and holes in the clothing is IMPOSSIBLE! - posted a few days at the Ed Forum this graphic created by him and James Gordon supposedly showing the IMPOSSIBILITY! of it all:



Cliff said: "The HSCA cervical autopsy x-ray — authenticated by Dr. Mantik — notes an air pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 transverse processes.  James had developed this skeletal model, and I asked if he could demonstrate the T1 to C7 trajectory." I have no idea what that means and don't really care, but it sounds pretty dang authoritative. Cliff has some pretty good arguments as to why the LN "bunched clothing" explanation just doesn't work.

Carry on.
35
Do you honestly think that these alleged plotters would have counted on luck to get the motorcade route to pass in front of their chosen shooter's workplace? What reason would they have had to hire Oswald before 11/18/1963. Then we are supposed to believe that after getting extremely lucky with the motorcade route, they decided to press their luck again by letting Oswald leave the TSBD and falli into police custody instead of having a car waiting for him outside the TSBD to drive him to his death.

I really don't understand your obstinancy on this. Oswald was a very visible Pro-Castro Guy in the hotbed of New Orleans long before the JFKA.  We don't know what contacts he may have made in the pro-Castro community or the anti-Castro-posing-as-pro-Castro community. JFK's trip to Dallas was announced even before he went to MC. In MC he reportedly said some wild-and-crazy things. We don't know what contacts he may have made there. It is not at all implausible that he would have been on the radar screen of anyone, up to and including Marcello's guys, long in advance of the JFKA. There was going to be a hit on JFKA in Dallas, and Oswald was one of Their Guys, either as a participant or a dupe. Possible locations in Dallas were scouted before the motorcade route was finalized - hence Oswald's inquiry at the Allright Parking Garage a week before. If he was a dupe in a Mafia or anti-Castro conspiracy, the conspirators would not have cared whether he was killed in the TSBD or lived to stand trial because anything he knew - or thought he knew - pointed exactly where they wanted it to point.

There is nothing inherently implausible about this scenario. The issue is, what evidence supports it? Gus Russo is clearly a Grade A researcher of the JFKA. I only wish he hadn't dropped from the scene and had been a little more forthcoming about his contacts with the G2 folks.

Your logic seems to flow backwards. You start with the unlikelihood that JFK's motorcade would pass at 11 mph directly in front of Oswald's perch - which is equally unlikely regardless of whether there was any conspiracy - and then declare it impossible that conspirators would have known this in advance. They DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW this long in advance. Once the motorcade route was announced, they realized they had indeed got extremely lucky. (We could go off on the tangent that the turn onto Elm was "arranged," but I am trying to keep this as realistic and plausible as possible.)

The Mafia and G2 are two of the scenarios that can't simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand. They may be 100% incorrect, but they can't just be dismissed.
36
I was astounded to find myself mentioned twice on the Ed Forum in recent days. Cory Santos, who seems like a very decent guy (even though he's a lawyer!) said he "enjoyed debating" me. Niederwacky said I had been "driven from the forum," along with other "government salesmen" like Fred Litwin and MTG, by the sage conspiratorial muck of characters like DiEugenio. I am aghast at being mentioned in the same sentence with MTG, but I never thought I was anything more than a pimple on the bloated fanny of the Ed Forum. I am truly surprised that anyone remembers I ever existed over there. I do know that some people who would probably surprise you detest Jimbo, because they sent me PMs thanking me for irking the hell out of him, which I mostly did by refusing to take him as seriously as he thinks he should be taken.
37
JBC is reacting to the shot that JFK is reacting to.   But according to the evidence that is the first shot and he is reacting to hearing it and recognizing it as a rifle shot and realizing that JFK was the likely target.  So he is reacting to it by turning around to look at JFK.  That is not a theory.  That is just going by the evidence. The “theory” is that the evidence is all wrong.

You go by the least reliable evidence we have, eyewitness accounts, and ignore the best evidence we have, the Z-film. No wonder you're so confused about what happened. If eyewitnesses were reliable, they would tell the same story. Obviously, they don't. If the eyewitnesses are correct, the JFKA happened dozens of ways. It really only happened one way and you will never figure out what that way is as long as you put your faith in eyewitnesses.
38
Why not base your analysis on the evidence?  Do you really know that JFK is not already reacting in z224?:



How does the bullet miss his hands?  Why do witnesses on Elm St. put it earlier (before the VP security car finished the turn; Linda Willis: while JFK was in her sightline to the Stemmons sign;just before Phil Willis took his z202 photo, as JFK approached the Thornton Freeway sign)?

I see you're still allowing eyewitnesses to confuse you about what really happened.
39
According to Dr. W. over at the Ed Forum, he’s suddenly unable to log in here. Pity. We could certainly use the extra academic rigor.

That's correct, Mark.

Mr Niederhut stated publicly of this Forum that he wasn't going to post on this Forum again.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4827.msg175519.html#msg175519

For security purposes his password has been terminated, as is the case with every member who publicly announces cessation of posting, or who is known to have become deceased.

If he wishes to rejoin, he can do so.

40
According to Dr. W. over at the Ed Forum, he’s suddenly unable to log in here. Pity. We could certainly use the extra academic rigor.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10