JFK Assassination Forum

MTG-

Yes, but in September, Castro threatened the Kennedy brothers.

"At a diplomatic reception on September 7, 1963, Castro told an Associated Press reporter that if the U.S. was involved in plots against Cuban leaders, their own leaders would not be safe, specifically mentioning John and Robert Kennedy: "Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they, too, can be a victim of an attempt that can cause their deaths". This statement gained international attention. The remark occurred amid U.S. covert operations and assassination attempts against Castro. It later contributed to conspiracy theories regarding Cuba's potential role in President Kennedy's assassination in November 1963."

---30---

Then, in November of 1963, the CIA was trying to get Rolanda Cubela to assassinate Castro---problem: Cubela was likely a a false or double-agent. (See Cubela and poison pen stories)

So, likely Castro was aware in November of 1963 that the CIA, under pressure from RFK, was still pondering his assassination. After many previous attempts.

In addition, just as there were elements with the CIA who may have been "rogue," so too in the G2.

Of course, after the JFKA, Castro and G2 would deny involvement. Do you expect Castro to say, "Oh yes, we shot JFK, with a couple of guys and the true Marxist hero LHO!"

The Mexican government report, claiming the Cubans did it, would be an interesting read---why is it not in the public record?

As you know, the WC's mission was to find LHO the lone assassin.

And not a hired or manipulated killer connected to any organization, foreign or domestic.

The Castro-did-it theory makes absolutely no sense. Why would Castro have risked trying to kill JFK when JFK's vice president, LBJ, was known to be more hawkish, and when discovery of Castro's role would have given the U.S. undeniable justification to invade Cuba?

As Castro himself told the HSCA, he would have had to be insane to take such a risk.

It was the evil, evil, evil CIA, right?

Fred, you might to check with your fellow lone-gunman theorists, because they have been trashing the Knott Lab trajectory analysis, but now you're saying it validates Myers' (bogus) analysis. The Knott Lab experts say the opposite. They say their unique, unprecedented trajectory analysis refutes the single-bullet theory. I quote:

Using a 3D laser scanner (Leica RTC360), we conducted 36 laser scans of Dealey Plaza. This laser scanner captures up to two million points per second and HDR imagery, resulting in a point cloud, or digital twin, of the scene. This provides forensic engineers with a scientifically accurate model from which measurements can be taken. The Dealey Plaza point cloud has over 851 million data points.

The next step was to reconstruct the scene to historic accuracy for November 22, 1963. To do so, our visualization experts used historic photographs of the plaza and presidential limousine, as well as the “Zapruder film,” which is widely considered the best video footage of the incident. Using a process called photogrammetry, the visualization team was able to place these images into the point cloud, syncing their locations within the scene. Altogether, 25 historic photographs and 7 frames of the Zapruder film were used for this photogrammetry. . . .

Photogrammetry, camera matching, camera tracking and object matching processes were also used to establish the location of Oswald’s perch, the correct dimensions of the limousine, create the digital models of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and establish their positions, frame by frame, throughout the incident. . . .

For the single bullet theory to be true, the shooting position, bullet exit point on President Kennedy, and entry point on Governor Connally should all be reasonably in line. When drawing this line from the sixth-floor perch of the Texas Book Depository to the positions of the two men and their entry/exit points, we found a significant difference in both distance and angle. (https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-laboratory-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/)

And:

To reconstruct the scene with modern technology, the Knott Laboratory experts conducted a high-definition laser scan of Dealey Plaza to generate a point cloud of up to two million points per second, to accurately measure point-to-point anywhere in the scene. Knott Laboratory also obtained historic photographic evidence from the plaza, the limousine, and the “Zapruder film,” which is widely known as the best video footage of the incident in its entirety.

From this point cloud, the team of forensic engineers was able to match images from the scene and the Zapruder film using a process called photogrammetry. They modeled the presidential limousine using multiple photographs and established the correct dimensions of the vehicle. Through a process called match moving, they synced frames from the Zapruder film into the digital recreation of the scene. The match moving enabled the alignment of the digital models of Kennedy and Connally in the vehicle to establish their positions frame by frame throughout the incident. . . .

“With the ability to measure distances, locations and angles from the point cloud, we could develop the exact trajectory between Oswald’s shooting position and points on each body,” said Stanley Stoll, CEO & Principal Engineer of Knott Laboratory. “Our team tested bullet trajectories using the two frames from the Zapruder film where the first shots occurred and the known entry and exit points on Kennedy and Connally.”

Stoll continued, “The shooting position, bullet exit point on President Kennedy, and entry point on Governor Connally should all be reasonably in line. When drawing this line from the sixth floor perch of the Texas Book Depository to the positions of the two men and their entry/exit points, we found a significant angle difference. (https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/)

Here's an interview with one of the Knott Lab experts:


I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know the SBT is false because the photographic evidence proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to go through JFK's tie knot and that no such bullet could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge. Not on this planet.

In addition, the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes proves the SBT is impossible, since the holes prove that the back wound was well below the throat wound.

Moreover, we have known since the 1990s, largely thanks to ARRB disclosures, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely established that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point, which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view

Admiral Bradley and Commander Eck of U 852 and Radios

Admiral Bradley and Commander Eck of U 852 have a lot in common. Ordering the killing of survivors in the water from a sunk boat. And using the possibility of the survivors using radios as their justification. They could call in boats that could send down divers to recover the sunken drugs, which probably would probably be no worse from wear of being soaked in salt water for several hours Or maybe they were stored in water proof bags that even high explosives could not cause a leak..

On March 13, 1944, U-852 torpedoed and sank the Greek steamer SS Peleus. Afterwards, U-boat commander Eck ordered the boats and survivors clinging to wreckage to be killed by gunfire. Only 3 of the crew of 35 survived and were later picked up by another ship.

On April 30, 1944, due to damage from air attack, the U-boat had to run aground on the coast of Somalia. The German crew were tracked down by the Somaliland Camel Corps mostly consisting of Somalians commanded by British officers. I wonder if any of their descendants are now threatened by Trump's deportation orders. But I digress.

The British boarded the U-boat wreck and found the Captain's log. This log, along with the 3 survivors, put the captain in serious trouble.

In his trial in Hamburg in November 1945, Commander Eck claimed the attack on the survivors was justified because they might have had a radio that could be used to communicate with others. On this basis, he argued his decision was justified.

The British disagreed and on November 30, 1944 Eck and two accomplices were executed by firing squad. Eck was the only U-boat commander to be executed by the British.

So, the legal precedent is that survivors in the water are not to be killed. Indeed, I strongly suspect that it was this incident with Commander Eck and U 852 which caused our instructions to specifically list killing survivors in the water as a classic example of a war crime.

Even if survivors might have a functioning radio (from a blown up boat?), or an anti-matter device that might be used to blow up the planet, they cannot be attacked. Our instructions to the military list no exceptions.

This kind of defense that Bradley and Eck use is absurd. The German massacres of Russian villages, the My Lai massacres could be justified on what the victims might later do if they are not killed. All military crimes could be justified on this basis. If this defense is accepted then the Nazis did not commit any war crimes during World War II. It is impossible for the military to ever commit a war crime. Even killing children or babies can be justified because you never know what they might do once they grow up. They might even become another Commander Eck or Admiral Bradley.

What Commander Eck and Admiral Bradley have in common is that they ordered the killing of survivors in the water of a boat sinking. And both justified this on the basis that the survivors might have functioning radios. That is a pretty strong resemblance.

Questions:

Why should we have any higher regard for Admiral Bradley than we have for Commander Eck?

Can anyone think of a good reason why Commander Eck and Admiral Bradley's names should not be forever linked?

Should one ever mention one without the other?

And I quote:

"Yes, we have no bananas!"

It's a conspiracy, right?