Author Topic: Oswald the CIA trained patsy - Kennedy Murder (Read 2929 times)

Lena · « **on:** February 09, 2011, 08:42:04 PM »


THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas:CIA Admits It Trained Oswald in 1957!!

trained by the C.I.A.

if you can't read the document: the lower yellow marked area reads: Oswald subject was trained by this agency under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence...

Michael Vandeven · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2011, 12:07:36 PM »

i used to believe oswald probably never fired a shot in dallas. i'm not so sure about that any longer. either way, i'm not sure what this document necessarily proves (other than the fact oswald was trained by the cia). nor am i surprised by it in any way. it does add credibility to certain lines of thinking, but it doesn't prove anything.

The General · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2011, 12:33:37 PM »

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Oswald shot Kennedy.

onan · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2011, 04:56:34 PM »

One does have to wonder why some of the records of the assassination are not to be released until 2017, 60 plus years after the fact.

The General · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2011, 05:02:12 PM »

Quote from: onan on February 10, 2011, 04:56:34 PM

One does have to wonder why some of the records of the assassination are not to be released until 2017, 60 plus years after the fact.

Yeah! That may be very enlightening. But my gut tells me that it will be a let down if we are hoping for any tangible new information. To me, Oswald had the motive. He was an avowed marxist Soviet sypmathizer who killed Kennedy for his anti-communist policies.

Lena · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2011, 05:09:22 PM »

Quote from: The General on February 10, 2011, 05:02:12 PM

To me, Oswald had the motive. He was an avowed marxist Soviet sypmathizer who killed Kennedy for his anti-communist policies.

I think you are being a bit naive if you believe that. Oswald was trained by the CIA to spy against the Soviet Union, so his "love" for communism may as well just have been his cover. Oswald may or may not have been a shooter, but certainly not the only one.
Also, did Oswald telepathically make the Secret Service men stand down, and get away from the President's car seconds before the attack? (as you can see in the video):


JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown

Lena · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2011, 05:40:28 PM »


Stabilized Abraham Zapruder Film with Sound Track


The JFK Assassination - the Last Shot

nice analysis of the attack. the stabilized film also shows that Mrs. Kennedy grabbed a part of his brain from behind (and did not try to exit the vehicle). It looks pretty clear that the second shot came from the front, since Kennedy's head snaps back and tissue flies backwards which Mrs. Kennedy then grabs it and cries: 'They've killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand'

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2011, 05:52:34 PM »

Quote from: Lena on February 10, 2011, 05:09:22 PM

I think you are being a bit naive if you believe that. Oswald was trained by the CIA to spy against the Soviet Union, so his "love" for communism may as well just have been his cover. Oswald may or may not have been a shooter, but certainly not the only one.
Also, did Oswald telepathically make the Secret Service men stand down, and get away from the President's car seconds before the attack? (as you can see in the video):

JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but it looks to me like a guy who is having trouble keeping up with a moving car and looking for ride, like the others sitting on the sides of the trailing car. The motions with the arm in particular looks like he is saying "what, no seat for me?"

The Texas Book Depository museum is one of the best in US of A, and I highly, highly recommend a visit. While I think that there MAY be a lot that hasn't been answered about the assassination, for me, a trip there confirmed that it is entirely possible that Oswald was a lone gunman. They have a rifle there, and you can point it out the sixth floor window at cars passing by below. I can make the shot, and I know lots of people who can make the shot, 5 times out of 10. You don't need military training, either - but given that Oswald had fire arms training, there is no doubt that he could have made the shot, probably 8 times out of a 10. I don't know what the distance is exactly, but six stories up is, what 100 feet? Add another 25 to 50 feet for the distance to the middle of the road. 150 feet, with a decent rifle, for someone sitting in a slow moving car? Not as tough as folks make it sound...

Lena · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2011, 06:02:07 PM »

Quote

it looks to me like a guy who is having trouble keeping up with a moving car and looking for ride

the President's car has 2 platforms and grips for security personnel - as you can see in the standdown clip above.

Yes, technically I could make the shot too, but it looks like he was shot from the back and the front, that I sure could not do (alone).

themudking · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2011, 06:40:48 PM »

I think John Titor did it to protect his alternate timeline

aldousburbank · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2011, 07:01:32 PM »

Aside from not trying to identify who pulled the actual trigger(s), I find Judith Vary's account of the complex interests involved in JFK's early removal from office to be amongst the most informative. http://meandlee.com/
Oswald, most probably serving as RFK's inside man to the Marcello/Mafia/Hoover/FBI operations in New Orleans, was the perfect patsy for putting Camelot in checkmate. For RFK to investigate the soon to be deceased Oswald... would have exposed the connections, kind of making it look like Bobby, albeit inadvertently, enabled the nut who took out his own brother. Nice chess move J. Edgar. I am personally convinced, as much as is possible with the bits of data available to us commoner, no-pro sleuths and late-night thinkers, that LHO was indeed working to keep his president alive, rather than the the lone nut reverse story. A romantically unexpected turnabout scenario which was nonetheless an initially disturbing notion to me, once it dawned, as I am also one of the socially conditioned, trained from an early age to see Oswald as a heinous dink. This, IMHO, is one of the better examples we have of successful "perception management"

Lena · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2011, 07:51:06 PM »

funny things happens: George H.W. Bush reported a guy who wants to kill the President.
Bush wasn't even CIA, but an "oil tycoon" back then, at least that's the official story.
George Herbert Walker Bush is one of the very few Americans who does not recall where he was when JFK was killed. Yet, the document, recently declassified, places him very close to Dallas within 2 hours of JFK's assassination:
what a COINCIDENCE.

But who says the Bush telephone call really came from Tyler, Texas? To his own admission, this document places Bush IN Dallas for the remainder of the day and night of November 22, 1963. He is implicating a political activist (James Parrott) in the process. Why did Bush want to keep his telephone call confidential? And why does he not remember it? Why did he give his warning AFTER the assassination, if he thought Parrott was a serious threat for Kennedy in Houston? Kennedy had just visited Houston the day before ! And why are the sources of this hearsay information unknown? Who told him this, if anyone? Or is this just a document to furnish Bush with an alibi and plausible denial? Thirty years later the same James Parrott that Bush was accusing is working on Bush's presidential campaign against Bill Clinton.

"Figure that one out; if someone had tried to finger me for killing President Kennedy, that person would have been my worst enemy. See volume one and ten for damning evidence. The FBI agent that took Bush's call was Graham Kitchel, whose brother George Kitchel knew both de Mohrenschildt (Oswald's best friend in Dallas) and Bush. (NOTE: Graham was a favourite of FBI Director, J. E. Hoover who was briefing Bush of the CIA on November 23, 1963). On October 13, 1999, Adamson called Kenneth B. Jackson the FBI agent who investigated Parrott and received Bush's complaint. Mr. Jackson, refused to return Adamson's phone call. why? "
Source: Bruce Adamson

Bush or Bush's doppelgänger?

very nice website about this, if the topic interests you: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:47:56 PM »

My gosh, you're right. And the conspiracy goes way back! A quick google search found many instances where the Secret Service was "stood down".

No secret service in sight here:

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:48:49 PM »

Complete strangers pawing at him here:

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:49:46 PM »

Just local cops here:

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:51:15 PM »

And it was much, much worse when he was campaigning! One lousy cop, and a bunch of nut jobs running along beside the car:

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:53:52 PM »

And very early in the campaign, they even let armed children at him, WITH NO SECURITY AT ALL!

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2011, 08:55:35 PM »

To Mike V: Sorry for the multiple posts, but had problems with the active x control for posting images!

Lena · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2011, 09:05:49 PM »

realcool daddy, you're a real smart guy!

no KGB agents here too... just a weird tourist with a camera

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2011, 09:33:39 PM »

Upon further analysis, I expect these photos are examples of "dry runs" conducted by the conspirators to test the efficacy of their plan. All good black ops/covert ops/terrorist plots involve significant amounts of training and resources, and a number of dry runs are conducted to test the targets defenses.

Given that the security around JFK was signifacantly lax, for a period spanning several years, including when he was campaigning (as the pictures I posted have conclusively proven), we can safely conclude that the conspiracy included members of the CIA, the Secret Service, state and local police, and texas oil tycoons/covert operatives (thanks for that piece of the puzzle, Lena!)

I also suspect that the conspiracy included national and regional media, both print and broadcast. Given the ample photographic evidence - some of these pictures are from Life magazine, for crying out loud - it is beyond belief that not one editorial, magazine article, or broadcast questioned the piss poor security around candidate, and later president, Kennedy. It would seem from the evidence that he was left at the mercy of the masses frequently and regularly, that this fact was captured by countless media outlets, and yet no one raised the alarm. So we have to assume that ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the major wire services, newspapers, and news magazines of the day were in on the plot. Even LIFE magazine.

So this vast, multi-year conspiracy involving hundreds, even thousands of CIA operatives, or people in their employ, find the perfect patsy (Oswald), to commit a horrible crime on that fateful day. Their influence is so wide reaching that they are able to change the planned route of the motorcade at the last minute! It was truly the most well organised, far reaching, and comprehensive assassination plot ever.

What troubles me, though, is that given the truly EPIC scale of this plot, and incalcuable resources brought to bear, how they could have made two simple mistakes:

1) why did they not sweep the ONE CITY BLOCK where the hit was to go down to make sure that their weren't any tourists with cameras (or, heaven forbid, super 8 cameras)? Cause I would think that people taking pictures of a presidential motorcade was pretty common, and a detail that a multi year conspiracy would not overlook.

and 2) why did they not tell the key players, like texas oil tycoon/operatives, that it would be a pretty dumb fucking idea to be there the day of the hit, and dumber still to get photographed.

I guess the devil is in the details....

Lena · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2011, 09:53:02 PM »


JFK II - Full Version

pretty good film about the JFK murder, for people who are not dumbed down by the official US mainstream media lies.

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:10:12 PM »

It looks like the media conspiracy that began 50 years ago is still alive and well! In 2008, the Discovery Channel (my god, who can we trust?) used silly things like ballistics, and tests, and stuff, to disprove the second shooter theory and uphold the veracity of the lone gunman lies.

JFK: Inside the Target Car - Grassy Knoll Field Test (The video's owner prevents external embedding)

For those that want to save time, the synopsis of the analysis (from wikipedia):

In 2008, The Discovery Channel produced a documentary that played out several different versions of the Kennedy Assassination on a dummy that had been specifically designed for ballistics tests, recreating the elevation, wind speed and distance at a Californian shooting range. Their forensic analysis, backed by computer models, showed that it was most likely that the shot that killed President Kennedy came from the Texas School Book Depository. They also concluded that a shot from the grassy knoll would have completely obliterated Kennedy's skull, contrary to what is seen in the Zapruder Film. However, in this conclusion they assumed that an assassin on the grassy knoll would have used hollow point ammunition, which expands on impact to maximize damage. Thereafter, they attempted a second shot from the grassy knoll position, using a solid round. Analysis revealed that this bullet would have passed through Kennedy's skull from right-to-left, causing an exit wound on the left-hand side of the skull that did not match any postmortem reports. They also suggested that the bullet trajectory from this shot would have struck and likely killed Mrs. Kennedy.

The General · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:19:06 PM »

The guy that really changed my mind about the JFK assassination was Vincent Bugliosi with his book Reclaiming History. Brilliant guy, brilliant book, but almost unreadable because of his delving into every tiny little minute detail about everything. It's over 1500 pages, and he spent over 20 years writing it.

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:33:17 PM »

Quote from: The General on February 10, 2011, 10:19:06 PM

The guy that really changed my mind about the JFK assassination was Vincent Bugliosi with his book Reclaiming History. Brilliant guy, brilliant book, but almost unreadable because of his delving into every tiny little minute detail about everything. It's over 1500 pages, and he spent over 20 years writing it.

Wow, don't know if I have the time for that kind of reading, but did love his book on the OJ trial, and, of course, Helter Skelter. I might have to check it out though, thanks for the tip , General.

Found this quote (once again on wikipedia, my favourite site today) about the book:

The title of Reclaiming History derived from Bugliosi's belief that the history of the Kennedy assassination has been hijacked by conspiracy theories, the popularity of which, he asserts, has a pernicious and ongoing effect on American thought:
"Unless this fraud is finally exposed, the word believe will be forgotten by future generations and John F. Kennedy will have unquestionably become the victim of a conspiracy. Belief will have become unchallenged fact, and the faith of the American people in their institutions further eroded. If that is allowed to happen, Lee Harvey Oswald, a man who hated his country and everything for which it stands, will have triumphed even beyond his intent on that fateful day in November." - Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p.1011. Pretty much sums it up...

Lena · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:37:50 PM »

I understand that people don't like to see that the guys who killed Kennedy got to run the USA afterwards.
Nixon, LBJ, the Bush criminals...
Might shatter their false reality of "the great USA".
The truth is too ugly for most people to handle.

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2011, 10:49:25 PM »

Quote from: Lena on February 10, 2011, 10:37:50 PM

I understand that people don't like to see that the guys who killed Kennedy got to run the USA afterwards.
Nixon, LBJ, the Bush criminals...
Might shatter their false reality of "the great USA".
The truth is too ugly for most people to handle.

Well, I'm a Canadian, so it doesn't tug at my sense of patriotism if you want to call every republican since Lincoln a criminal (plus democrat LBJ thrown in to the conspiracy mix - nicely done).

So let me see - both the Republican Party, and the Democrats, were in on the conspiracy, and presumably still are. LBJ, who architected the Great Society, was part of this?

Lena, is Obama, a tried and true democrat, the heir to this vast criminal network posing as a democracy, the culmination of the wicked plan? Can we trust anyone? Anyone at all?

Lena · « **Reply #26 on:** February 10, 2011, 11:02:17 PM »

just watch the JFK movie I linked above. it's quite good.
I _hope_ you don't expect a reply to those halfwit comments about the repulican party etc.

RealCool Daddio · « **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2011, 11:31:34 PM »

Quote from: Lena on February 10, 2011, 11:02:17 PM

just watch the JFK movie I linked above. it's quite good.
I _hope_ you don't expect a reply to those halfwit comments about the repulican party etc.

I'll try to, but it's almost two hours long. In scanning through it I saw something about Hoover being a "queer bastard", so my wingnut detector is blinking pretty strongly.

And yeah, I was kinda hoping for a response, becasue I am having a hard time finding the boundaries of the conspiracy tapestry you are weaving. LBJ took over the presidency from JFK after the assassination. He had run for the job in 1960, as a democrat, and JFK asked him to be his running mate when he won the nomination for the democratic party. The main reason Kennedy needed LBJ on the ticket was to appeal to the old school, more left of center democrats - as Kennedy was seen as a moderate, middle of the road candidate.
LBJ was president until 1969 (if my memory is correct), and used his time in office to bring in medicare, medicaid, numerous social justice reforms, continued the democrat party's support for civil rights, etc. He was a "progressive", and the architect of the Great Society. You could say that he was the godfather of the modern democrat party, and certainly would be considered left of centre compared to nixon, reagan, bush, etc. By today's standards, he was practically a socialist - cripes, he could have been Canadian!

In fact, the Republicans are still trying to undo the things he brought into place almost fifty years ago - like public broadcasting.

So, if you could, explain to me again how offing a moderate like JFK, and replacing him with 6 years of progressive LBJ, was part of some vast right wing conspiracy (eg: nixon and bush, the people who killed JFK, ruling america, as you put it). Because it honestly doesn't add up to me.

Michael Vandeven · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2011, 12:32:42 AM »

Quote from: The General on February 10, 2011, 05:02:12 PM

To me, Oswald had the motive. He was an avowed marxist Soviet sypmathizer who killed Kennedy for his anti-communist policies.

the problem with this contention is that it simply has too many holes for me to buy it. it sounds like something somebody (conspirators?) would WANT me to believe about oswald.

first off, if the document lena posted is genuine (and i have no immediate reason to doubt its authenticity), oswald had a documented, irrefutable history of cia affiliation. as far as the government's intelligence infrastructure was concerned, oswald was a known quantity (and asset) well prior to november 22, 1963. if he weren't, he'd never had made it to russia (and back).

second, when oswald was handing out communist literature in new orleans (the purpose of which seems suspicious AT BEST considering his past cia affiliations), his leaflets contained the address of a building entrance that led to the offices of guy banister, a career fbi man, private investigator, and unabashed anti-communist with documented, irrefutable mafia ties and a lengthy history within the intelligence community. was oswald "sheep dipping" as a communist in new orleans under the guidance/sponsorship of banister and/or others? he'd almost have to be, it seems to me. due to his past cia affiliations and his physical proximity to the new orleans intelligence community (and guy banister himself) while handing out the leaflets, i'm nearly incapable of being convinced he was acting on his own or doing so as a result of any genuine convictions he held.

furthermore, according to the warren report, oswald met with an anti-castro leader days before handing out the leaflets, and oswald offered to join his group. when this anti castro leader saw oswald handing out the leaflets, he came unglued and went after oswald physically. a scuffle ensued. oswald obviously set the guy up, and the "fight" was engineered to draw further attention to oswald's activities and lend credibility to his actions. numerous people on the scene suggested oswald's body language suggested he was neither surprised nor disappointed by the circumstances of the confrontation. if i'm not mistaken, there is film footage out there somewhere of this very incident.

finally, i'd like to say god bless jim garrison. a true american hero. i don't give a shit what anyone has to say about that man.

i hope i articulated these points in a coherent, worthwhile manner. i'm very fatigued.

Michael Vandeven · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2011, 12:43:22 AM »

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on February 10, 2011, 11:31:34 PM

In fact, the Republicans are still trying to undo the things he brought into place almost fifty years ago - like public broadcasting.

and i say good riddance to NPR if the republicans ever succeed.

i'm not interested in the preservation of any organization that would fire a man (juan williams) for saying he gets nervous when muslims wearing djellabas board the plane. anyone who says he's crazy for thinking that way is a dishonest shit.

people are always complaining about jesse jackson and al sharpton and the threat they pose to free speech in america, but the fact is, it's usually cowardly, guilty, white, corporate assholes who limit what you can say and about whom you can say it... guilty white assholes like this one:

Nice pantsuit, dummy.

my saudi friends laugh at the silliness of white american thinking. no sense of humor or sense of self preservation (at least, none that can be publicly expressed).

this morning i dropped aziz off at the airport. just before he walked into the terminal, i placed my hand on his shoulder and said, "aziz, i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask that you not blow up the plane." we had a good laugh, nobody was fired, and no investigation was initiated.

fuck 2011 america.