JFK Plus Fifty

Why did Oswald kill Kennedy?

He had no reason to. He spoke admiringly of him. Pro-Russian, he saw him help Krushchev out of a fix in Cuba. A father of two girls, he wanted to see more of them. He did not take a pistol to the Book Depository, he went home for one, after the shooting. He did not skip town, or hide. He went to the pictures.

The limousine was washed of its blood and brains. Film of the President’s autopsy was destroyed. Records of Oswald’s interrogation were destroyed. Jackie heard four shots, not three. Witnesses heard two come from behind them, on the Grassy Knoll. Yet Oswald acted alone.

He was the first assassin with children, a rarity.

He had no motive to do it.

Had he wanted to showcase his beliefs, he would have started to do so in his appearances on television. He didn’t. He said he was innocent.

It is said his motive was a feeling of failure, and disgruntlement with America. This motive would have brought under suspicion Bob Dylan, and twenty million other young men who were unfulfilled shortarses, like him. He had no more motive than them. And he had two daughters.

And no motive, in fifty years, has been supplied.

Other people in Dallas that day, that week, had a motive. Nixon. Johnson. Dulles. Hoover. George HW Bush. Twenty thousand armed racists fearful of black freedom, which Kennedy was helping along. CIA men like George HW Bush, who lived in Texas and feared the CIA would be dismantled. Hoover, whom Kennedy would sack, he swore, in 1965, if he lived.

But no, it was Oswald who did it. Who spoke to his wife and mother, in gaol, only of his girls, and made no mention of Kennedy.

Give me a break.

He had no motive.

Give me a break.

Leave a comment ?


  1. Interesting revelations about this subject in the UNCENSORED Magazine, issue 31 May-June.

  2. The following Youtube clip relates to Bob’s comment about other powerful people in Texas during JFK’s visit and what LBJ said to this woman shortly before Kennedy’s murder. Clip is 5 minutes duration with her relating the specific words of LBJ half way into it:

    “LBJ’s Mistress Blows Whistle On JFK Assassination”


    Moreover, her whole 1 hour interview is fascinating as the woman makes the claim to have had a son by LBJ and far more sinister claims. She was a quiet, plausible sounding person, but we’ll probably not know whether she’s truthful until another 50 years from now when no one really cares who killed JFK except academic historians.

  3. William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States, was assassinated in 1901. What percentage of Americans would you reckon know of this event, let alone the name of McKinley? Not even 10%?

    Significantly, the ascension of McKinley’s Veep, Theodore Roosevelt, to the Presidency resulted in the USA’s first great era of progressive domestic legislation (anti-trust regulation, major national parks expansion), yet also a major growth in American imperialism (mainly the military takeover of former colonies from Spain) following its recently completed “manifest destiny” with the defeat of the few remaining independent American Indian nations.

  4. Well, yeah. He didn’t fit the profile of the lone ideological assassin to be sure. From that starting point all the anomalous facts look significant.

    I’ve always been fascinated by the parallels and mirror images to the Lincoln assassination; and they can hardly be the result of a conspiracy. (Can they?) Weird shit, the whole business.

    • Instead of pondering years after the event who killed whom, maybe the Americans would be better off prohibiting gun ownership before more Presidents and/or schoolkids or shoppers are killed.
      They even shoot innocent joggers over there just because they are BORED… :cry:

      I fear for Obama.

  5. Quite right, Bob.

    I am still ploughing through the evidence presented to the Warren Commission. There are thousands of pages dedicated to interrogation of every person we ever knew Lee Harvey Oswald, all questioned with an inbuilt bias towards the conclusion they want to draw, namely “That Oswald did it, acting alone.”

    Contradictory evidence abounds even in their own records, but the Commission did not let the inconvenient facts get in the way of their conclusions.

    No doubt we will hear far more about this topic as the 50th anniversary approaches.


  6. Is there any conspiracy you dont believe?

    • Don’t know about Bob, but 9/11 is one I don’t buy. A fuck up and a cover up, for certain; but it was al Qaeda which succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

    • And Bob rejects the Paul/Faul McCartney conspiracy as do I.

    • Don’t believe in the Roswell cover-up. Don’t believe Bush and Cheney conspired 9/11. Do believe they conspired the WMD. Don’t believe Joe Kennedy ordered the shooting of his son. Don’t believe the Kennedys killed Monroe. Don’t believe Obama was/is a Kenyan illegal. Do believe Howard delayed the rescue of SIEV-X. Don’t believe he ordered it sunk. Don’t believe Gillard conspired for months the overthrow of Rudd. Do believe Rudd, Hawker, Albo, Fitzgibbon, Bowen conspired for months the overthrow of Gillard.

      Do believe Abe Lincoln was killed by conspirators. And Caesar, Christ, and Socrates. And Philip of Macedon. And Alexander the Great. And John F. Kennedy. And Bobby. And Martin Luther King.

      How about you?

  7. What do you think of the theory put forward by Colin McLaren, recently on Richard Fidler’s program, that JFK was accidentally killed by a secret service agent that was traveling in the car behind?

  8. Doug, listen to the McLaren podcast on Fidler or watch the show on SBS on, I think the 3rd November, and consider the evidence. Then, get back to me. I reckon you will not find his theory bollocks. What McLaren puts forward is plausible.

  9. Sounds to me like your mind is not open to new ideas. If you have studied the assassination for years, good on you - all power to you. :roll:

    • New ideas? That one is 50 years old, just like all the others. They get dusted off and trotted out again, over and over.

      Just what new evidence is there? Unless the real autopsy results turn up from a vault somewhere in the Pentagon, there is no possibility of anything “new”.

      Almost every witness is dead; many died rather prematurely. The team of assassins are probably holding up a bridge somewhere in South America. The ones who ordered it are all dead, and probably died happy in the knowledge that hundreds did not die in the Bay of Pigs unavenged.

    • I followed your link to the interview. I must say, I didn’t buy the argument that secret service men following behind Kennedy accidentally shot the president from behind after Oswald fired his weapon and missed the crucial head shot.

      I wasted a couple of hours on Youtube watching a few conspiracy videos on this topic today. My favourite one was the guy who suggested the president was shot from hole in the storm water drain where it met the grassy knoll. Seemed reasonable to me. Even the secret service men mentioned the smell of gunfire in the air. Right angle for a head shot too from the low angle and matched the Zapruder film of the skull popping open.

      • I agree with this. If he was shot from behind, his head would have gone forward, not back.

        If there was a shot from the Depository, it was not by Oswald. He would have had a pistol with him, as well as a rifle. He went home for his pistol, after the shooting.

        This to me is conclusive.

        • A lot of time has been wasted talking about the ‘recoil’ of Kennedy’s head. This mainly to justify theories of being hit from different angles. It is clear on viewing the highly disturbing footage that it was a low angle shot from the side More than one gunman - certainly.

      • yes, the angled all matched up

    • OK, I’ll get back to you. Like nearly all the theories put forward it is plausible.

      Hickey had an AR-15 that was well known. The huge leap of faith - no other way to describe it - is that in the instants after the first shot he raised it, flicked off the safety and fired a shot at ground level. At ground level and within 20 metres of hundreds of people. I don’t know if you have ever heard an Armalite rifle fired, but it would be deafening to those nearby and blindingly obvious to all the agents, motorcycle cops and bystanders.

      Very few of the witnesses gave any support to the hypothesis of the 1992 book and this program.

      On selective evidence put forward in such programs it looks plausible but in the totality it does not.

      That the shot came from behind and from the left was possible, in a triangulation of fire. Dealey Plaza reverberated and caused confusion of direction. Several police and bystanders ran up the grassy knoll, perceiving a shot from that direction. Are they to be totally ignored, as they were in this hypothesis?

      I do not have any sort of closed mind, but I do want better evidence than was presented here to change my mind.

      Next . . .

  10. @ Doug Quixote October 31, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Explain the thermite residues, the rivers of molten steel, the NYFD evidence of basement explosions prior to the collapses, the cut lines through the girders that required thermite combustion temperatures of around 2300 C, cf kerosene open-air combustion at 350 C, the lateral projection of materials 10- 20 floors below the collapsing upper structures, the fall of WT7 and Silverstein’s gaffe that he ordered its demolition, the lack of commercial aircraft debris at either the Pentagon or Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the unprecedented standdown of military aircraft from guarding of USA airspace, (those lucky arabs picked a good day, yes?), the Jewish thread that has been corroborated again and again re. the level of infiltration into many mission critical areas of the overall 9/11 operation, the detailed foreknowledge of the event as told by Nick Rockefeller to Aaron Russo 11 months before the event, and what was preordained as a consequence, and so on.

    Why did PNAC (the Project for a New American Century) call for a catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbour to acclerate their plans, and what to make of the testimony of a former IDF soldier and veteran of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, who stated that in October 2000, while visiting the Jewish Gomel Chesed Cemetery in Newark, New Jersey, he overheard a conversation spoken in Hebrew between three men, one of whom said, “The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.”

    And as the discussion continued, concern was expressed over the possible impact on the plan by the upcoming US presidential election between Bush and Gore, and the questioner was told, “Don’t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.”

    And what to make of the 5 Jewish men who set up video cameras aimed at the WTC prior to its destruction, filmed it, and were then seen congratulating each other and dancing and jumping for joy in Liberty State Park? And that subsequent FBI enquiries concluded the ostensible employer of these 5 Israelis, a company called Urban Moving Systems, was in fact a Mossad front?

    Or the dozens of documented instances of Israeli penetration into US government institutions, including the military, the DEA, FBI, US Customs, IRS, EPA, Interior Dept, US MArshal’s Service, and the revelations that when questioned, the majority of these were ex IDF people who had served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept or explosive ordinance units?

    Or the curious fact that two Odigo (an Israeli instant messaging service) employees based in Israel received advance warning of the impending attack 2 hrs prior, and that despite the US headquarters being only two blocks from the WTC, did not pass on the warnings to New York authorities?

    And that’s barely scratching the surface. There’s a ton of corroborative material that implicates Israel, or its agencies and in particular Mossad, and none of it points at the mythic bin Laden directing ops out of a cave in the hills of Afghanistan.

    Just say know, Doug. If you invested as much time in this story as you have in the de Vere one, you may just gain a different perspective. :roll:

    • Spot on. Remember there was a third building that also collapsed that wasn’t hit by those planes.

      A few smouldering fires brought it down? Gimme a break!

      Dammit I have to agree with Canguro! He is correct of course.

      They spun us an illusion. A magicians trick. Many or most of us bought it. People don’t want to be outside their comfort zone - hence most will accept what the majority will tell them what to think…

    • Oh No! Not you too? Poor WTC7.

      All the firefighters were dead that day. What happened to WTC7 is what happens when a large city building is allowed to burn without any attempt at firefighting. Steel softens, loses strength and the building collapses.

      Not a recommended demolition strategy, but effective. Thermite? Yes, the FBI had a weapons impound in the basement of the building.

      • Note to self: Must keep in mind that while DQ may have fine legal skills, they don’t extend to his grasp of the physics, thermodynamics and structural engineering aspects as applied to this event, nor do they take into account the tricky questions of presence or absence of physical evidence.

        ‘Steel softens, loses strength and the building collapses.’


        ‘What happened to WTC7 is what happens when a large city building is allowed to burn without any attempt at firefighting.’

        If you can write that tripe, you’ve clearly drunk the Kool-Aid, DQ. :roll:

        • No, there is sound engineering evidence. I recall two weeks or so on the Drum arguing this very issue, and examining the available evidence.

          I am not an engineer but I do know how to read an expert’s report. Several of them.

          I might dig them out, if you like. (If the conspiracy theorists haven’t buried them under tons of debris) :lol:

          • Sorry Doug, but if you’re going to refer me to a discredited and fraudulent report such as the NIST one, an impressive snow job performed by bought individuals, then we have a seriously curtailed discussion.

            NIST did not attempt to explain how, once the collapses initiated, the upper sections of these 110-story skyscrapers would continue falling downward through the path of greatest resistance, instead simply asserting that, once each building was destabilized, “global collapse ensued.”

            NIST explicitly ruled out the use of thermite in a controlled demolition sense, despite the video evidence of sub-floor explosions below the collapsing upper levels, despite numerous witnesses attesting to explosions, despite numerous instances of lateral projection of materials from lower floors as the demolition was occurring, despite USGS and EPA evidence of this material in air and dust samples

            I am reluctant to engage with closed minds on this topic.

            The NIST report, which I’ve been aware of for many years, has been comprehensively discredited and from a standpoint of evidence analysis has more omissions than inclusions and more holes than the proverbial swiss cheese.

            Like I said at the outset, just say know. Change your mind. The ability to do that is what good science is about, testing hypotheses and tossing them if they don’t fit with the evidence. We have no idea what pressures were applied to the NIST report writers, but under the prevailing climate of fear and suspicion and shock following 9/11, and the need to rationalise and massage the evidence to fit the political agenda, they were completely compromised.

            • Ok, show me where the report has been discredited. Give me the best sources for its discrediting.

              • I suspect this dog won’t fly, but here you go.

                You could read David Ray Griffin’s contributions to the debate, or Kevin Ryan’s, or the
                AE911Truth.org people, architects and engineers for 911 truth.

                A link here to Kevin Ryan’s succint report, ‘Why the NIST Report on the World Trade Center Towers is False

                Ryan elaborated the term ‘Bush science’ - arguments that employ the political method with almost no evidence to support them — predetermined conclusions containing fabricated and practically non-existent evidence — or even contradictory evidence. They can be used to invent new “scientific realities” where known laws of physics are inconvenient and therefore ignored. Outrageous theories — theories contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.

                • Yes, they raise some interesting points. I suppose the only way to satisfactorily debunk the myths is to build a WTC skyscraper and fly a jet loaded with avgas into it, and see what happens.

                  Mythbusters might be just the men to do it. Write them a letter. :roll:

                  • I’ll let Ben Swann have the final word on this. The vid includes an NIST liar, (not in the included transcript below).

                    • “Not completely satisfied” is a wide field of doubts. Of course there are doubts.

                      No other building ever collapsed that way? Bullshit. Tower 1 and Tower 2 both collapsed that way. WTC7 was totally without firefighting attempts, and is probably unique in world history for that reason.

                      They will have to do better than that.

                • Hello again, canguro flaco. This site might be of interest. Those determined to promote the WTC7 conspiracy are fond of selective quotes.

                  Here they are more fully quoted:


                  • You can’t call Canguro a flacco.

                    No way is he flakey.

                    Even I will defend him - even if I hate his guts. Canguro is like me - he can see the bleeding obvious and has the guts to say so.

                    I respect that. I honour him tonight. Tomorrow, I might kick him in the guts… :razz:

            • Canguro,

              I’ve placed something in the drop box.

      • Doug, ask yourself this question.

        What temperature does steel melt? Can a fire do that? If so, no high rise building on the planet is safe.

        • As I understand it it does not have to melt. Apparently heat causes it to lose structural strength.

          • Never Enough Ellis

            I am glad to join you on this one, Doug. And glad we wont draw swords on JFK again (budget cutbacks at HQ).

            Any displacement between the significance of an act and its perpetrator(s) creates a natural vacuum for conspiracy to fill.

            Not suggesting all is always as presented, but the risk v reward equation for 911 would in itself be cause to scare even the most malevolent of governments.

          • Just a general question Doug - where was the downed passenger aircraft headed - was the attempted destination certified?

            • White House, Capitol? Who knows? See my satire below, presently at the end (Nov 2 9.53pm)

              (BTW Barney was Dubya’s dog)

            • Ask an expert, chris. DQ’s a satirist, nothing wrong with that but you wouldn’t generally pick a comedian as a first point information source in relation to the tedious assemblage of causal connection and outcome re the 9/11 crime perpetrated by the Jewish cabal. DQ’s insubstantial attempts at humourous deflection are embarrassing offerings from a so-called intelligent adult, but he’s entitled to his own views, as are we all. He’s not an expert, clearly, and well out of his depth on the topic.

              • Thanks Canguro, it won’t load. Phishing warnings, refusals to load, when I press recent comments - straight to gravatar as in DQ’s case - timeouts, emails dissapeared etc. It appears more and more of us are experiencing these (bizarre) problems. Love Laurie Anderson. javascript:grin(‘:lol:’)

              • Bloody brilliant, Canguro.

                GO is always raging at the trucks on roads with MEAT SOLUTIONS and LOGISTICS painted on their never-ending sides.

              • Not as far out of my depth as you clearly are, flaco canguro!


                • It’s canguro flaco, DQ. Get it right. Spanish syntax places the adjectives after objects, does it not? As in ‘la casa grande’, or ‘la niña’ hermosa.

                  As for being out of depth, my piss-take is a response to your willingness to ignore the concerns of, to take the obvious example, the many engineers who are on board in terms of their comprehension of the implausibility / impossibility of the official version of the factors behind the felling of the three towers or the lack of physical evidence of commercial aircraft at either Shanksville or the Pentagon and so on. That these critical evidentiary matters are clearly of no concern to you puts you, im my view, firmly in the land of the one-eyed blind. That’s fine, no problema. You’re enjoying the company of plenty of like-minded individuals who’ve similarly swallowed the Kool-Aid in this regard.

                  • “It’s canguro flaco, DQ. Get it right. Spanish syntax places the adjectives after objects, does it not? As in ‘la casa grande’, or ‘la niña’ hermosa.”

                    Yes, but there are some exceptions:
                    un nuevo trabajo,
                    graves problemas,
                    un profesor frances,un bien amigo, mal tiempo, just to mention a few…

                    Most languages have exception to the rules…

                  • Not a lot of bits and pieces of planes left in the two towers either. The plane in Pennsylvania was driven into the ground at around 500 knots; the voice recorder was found 8 metres beneath the 3 metre deep crater.

                    Now what was next?

        • On this occasion Doug is correct. That’s why we wrap steel in concrete in Australia and that’s why I admire stone as a building material. As I write from inside my snug stone house in the Luberon I can see the perfect guest house for Judd should he ever care to visit.


  11. testingjavascript:grin(‘:?:’)

  12. Wow, Cangouro. Interesting stuff - some of it new, most of it old.

    But if Israel was behind it, what on earth was the motive, other than fulfilling a biblical-scale fantasy destruction death-wish re-enactment?

    The US was/is their staunchest, most adamant ally, against all the odds. Why jeopardise that?

  13. My problem with conspiracies being at the heart of these events (JFK, 9/11, Moon landing etc.) is that to bring them off, the scale of them would have to be so complex and vast, so internecine, that there’s every probability that one fringe conspirator - just one - would break their silence and blab to the world’s press and bring the plot undone. You can’t kill ‘em all.

    Having said that, Oswald couldn’t have acted alone. Go figure.

    • There were a few who tried blabbing over JFK. Oswald was one of the first silenced, but certainly not the last.

    • The Moon Landing faked is the funniest in my view. It would have to depend on the USA’s greatest enemy, Soviet Russia, the Communist Chinese and anyone with a decent telescope saying nothing.

      The eyes of the world were on it, and not merely on the TV screens.

      :lol: :lol: :lol:

      • The Kennedy assassination needed only the three hit-men, the beneficiaries Johnson, Hoover, Trafficante and Bush Senior, and a Johnson colleague who fixed the auto route, knowing beforehand, and two coppers, threatened, who destroyed the interrogation notes, knowing after. That is eight people, about the same number as Caesar’s assassins, or Lincoln’s. Why would any of them confess, even to their children, or their wives?

        Once you factor in Johnson and Hoover, it is obvious they had Bobby hit too, and Teddy, probably, framed.

        • I don’t subscribe to LBJ having anything to do with it. Evidence of those who were near him was that he was white as a sheet and deeply affected. He was very fond of Jacki and attentive to her welfare.

          The cover-up was another matter; Johnson was keen to lay blame on the “lone nutter”, safely dead, lest it be found that the Soviets or the Castro Cubans had done the deed.

          The American people would have demanded War - nuclear war - had it been sheeted home to the Communist governments.

          Defaming a dead man was a small price to pay for (relative) peace.

  14. Couldn’t agree more, DQ - and I’ve listened (politely) to scores of people who think the Moon Landing was faked. They all probably vote Liberal and think climate change is crap ….

      • Why doesn’t some bastard turn Hubble around to face the moon and snap off a few proof picture of all the paraphernalia left behind? I want to see the flags, coke bottles, moon buggy’s, garbage the yanks left behind from all those moon landings without mishap? Or did the Americans take all their crap with them?

        Has anyone looked at early footage of Armstrong attempting to fly the lunar module on Earth?

        Check it out:


        Parachutes are not much use on the moon… :mrgreen:

        Glow Worm, You might be able to fool the Greens and Labor people - but you can’t pull a swifty over Tony Abbott and me. We’re like that! We know crap when we see it! :cool:

        If Jesus Christ came back, I’d be examining his palms for nail holes.

        • What are you talking about Frank, Glow Worm is a Liberal, Glow Worm can’t fool me either..

          • Helvi. Is he a Liberal? Smart guy. My apology Glow Worm. Just as well Helvi has your back and watches your every move. We don’t tolerate turn coats here. Stand up and be counted my new friend. Phill is now a newly minted Liberal and won’t come back! I turned him! He now hands out how to vote cards in WA… :smile:

            I always knew he was a kindred soul.

            Won’t be long before Canguro the conspiracy theory expert here will be on my team too. I’m deadly after a couple of wines… :wink:

  15. Actually, Helvi, I’m one of Abbott’s virgin daughters.

  16. Clive James implicated H.L Hunt the oil man and others say that E. Howard Hunt was seen in Dallas dressed as a bum in the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll.

    I wonder if Hunter Thompson met the patsy when they were both in the armed forces - Oswald was assigned to the U2 base at Atsugi Japan where Francis Gary Powers refuled before the sabotage of Eisenhowers peace plans. Thompson was at the Elgin base in Florida where the Bay of Pigs invasion air support was sent out. Both must have been closely observed by the stupid fascist intelligence robots.

    Can you say Nugan Hand my heroin to Mo Karzai by Ai Weiwei who is innocent but someone must pay for Jardine and Matheson opium wars.

    Who is making sure the trombones in the Wackenhut Band for the November 22 parade are made to sound like angles hark.

    Doctor Bronner and Seargent Pepper spray away all day and we must clean up after the kerosene.

    Chomsky says Kennedy expanded the war in Vietnam in 1961 when he sent the US airforce in with agent orange.

    Are we really supposed to believe that kennedy had no prior knowledge of the plan to murder Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngô Đình Nhu on November 2, 1963 and that there is no connection to Dallas or to Dag Hammershold and Patrice Lumumba?


    • Kennedy was all too happy to use the weapon of assassination against other countries’ leaders. Many attempts were made on Castro (obviously without success) and rather more success against Diem in Vietnam stand out, but other similar efforts were made against Lumumba in the Congo; Iraq leadership (often); Dominican Republic; Iran’s leadership (often); others less obvious.

      A two-edged sword. And as the US discovered, a leader of a democracy is harder to protect than a paranoid dictator.

  17. Noam Chomsky in this vid sums up very nicely the absurdity of the fuss over the Kennedy assassination (and 9/11).

    He makes these points:

    1 a large-scale conspiracy would leak - this is the commen-sense answer to most of the theories;

    2 any event, even a carefully set up scientific experiment, will have endless odd attributes, unexplained details, which can be worked up into all sorts of patterns by anyone who tries;

    3 what actually happened does not really matter (given the elimination of high-level conspiracy)

    4 there are many issues that *do* matter that better merit our attention, from which this rubbish is a distraction

    Especially from 4min 50sec

    • to clarify: he is initially talking about 11/9, but what he says applies to Kennedy, and he specifically refers to Dallas at the end

      • I’m pleased to be in a very small corner with Chomsky - what has always baffled me is the proposition that you can pull off a large-scale conspiracy (several!) and nothing would leak.

        Thanks for the link.

    • Yes, Chomsky is right. The more people who are in on the secret expands the risk of exposure exponentially.

      What we had in Dallas was a very limited conspiracy; aided and abetted by an incompetent Secret Service effort, an unprotectable President, and a government cover-up ex post facto. Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, the CIA, the Warren Commission and the US government in general were desperate to sheet home the blame to a lone nutter, fearing the upshot of finding a conspiracy.

      For what it is worth, I think the right wing Cubans ordered the hit as revenge for the Bay of Pigs where Kennedy left hundreds of anti-Castro Cubans to die, without the support he had promised.

      • I have a sneaking suspicion it was the Mafia - payback, not for Bobby and Jimmy Hoffa, but for old Joe Kennedy and old scores going back to Prohibition. Plot for a movie, hey?

  18. In a room in the Pentagon :

    General D. Root : “Dubya wants an excuse to go to war with Saddam Hussein.”

    Consultant : “Shouldn’t be too hard; how about an incident in the Persian Gulf, with an American warship, or another invasion of Kuwait?”

    Root : “No, not big enough.”

    Con : “How about we get 5 Arab crews of 5 hijackers, get them to take 5 airliners and crash them into the World Trade Centre?”

    Root : “No, still not big enough. Who cares about a few buildings?

    Con : “Get one to crash into the Pentagon as well?”

    Root : “As long as I’m not here at the time. But still not big enough.”

    Con : “How about if we got one to target the White House?”

    Root : “Wouldn’t that upset Dubya? I mean even if he wasn’t home, Barney would be there!”

    Con : “A small price to pay for a big war, surely!”

    Root : “Hmm. I still don’t think even killing Barney and few hundred Interns would get enough bang for our buck.”

    Con : “Going back to the WTC, why don’t we wire up all three main buildings with tons of thermite so they’ll all collapse in and kill thousands of New Yorkers?”

    Root : “Wow, that might work! I never liked those damn buildings and New Yorkers are up themselves!”

    Con : “Yeah, let’s do it. I’d reckon an hour or so after the planes hit ‘em would do it, blow the charges and blow ‘em all to hell!”

    And the rest is history. :roll:

    • A Game of Crap

      The ghost of McVeigh: Why did I have to be first cab off the rank? I’m sick of losing.

      The ghost of Bin Laden: Roll the dice, lets get on with the game.

      The ghost of Saddam: The same old crap, can’t we find another hobby.

      The ghost of Harold Holt: Suck it up sheep shagger.

      The ghost of JFK: Why the hell isn’t Fidel at the table?

      The ghost of Bobby K: You can talk bro.

      The ghost of Marilyn: Where’s Jimmy Dean, I haven’t had a good root for ages.

      The ghost of Koresh: Don’t deal me in, the big boy frowns on gambling. I’ll watch.

      The ghost of Che: My cards are forming a pattern, all good.

      The ghost of Allende: I thought Noriega would have turned up by now.

      The ghost of Ian Fleming: You can only die once. Throw the dice Timothy.

  19. Pat Buoncristiani

    The explanation that made the most sense to me was that his body guard was made up of inexperienced men and one of them misfired a weapon behind JFK. Banal explanation I know, but often they are the real ones.It was simply a mistake, and covered up.

    • Like nearly all the theories put forward it sounds plausible.

      Hickey had an AR-15, that was well known. The huge leap of faith – no other way to describe it – is that in the instants after the first shot he raised it, flicked off the safety and fired a shot at ground level. At ground level and within 20 metres of hundreds of people. I don’t know if you have ever heard an Armalite rifle fired, but it would be deafening to those nearby and blindingly obvious to all the agents, motorcycle cops and bystanders.

      Very few of the witnesses gave any support to the hypothesis of the 1992 book and this program. A shot from behind and left would seem to be likely on the ballistics, no doubt about that. But from the car behind?

      On selective evidence such as is put forward in such programs it looks plausible but in the totality it does not.

      The Secret Service and the government had their own agenda in the cover-up. A dead assassin is much more convenient than “person or persons unknown” still at large, and perhaps in the pay of a foreign government.

      • We had the personal choice of Amalite or SLR - that is the Australian, manufactured (under licence), SLR. Our Armalite’s may have been an update (1968/69), I’m not sure, but we called them the “plastic fantastic.” They had a high cyclic rate of fire but were prone to jamming and consequently we all stuck with the ever reliable SLR - I think Swedish desined on memory.
        The great advantage of the Armalite being that it weighed bugger all, but, as just mentioned, less reliable, and that, in a war zone, is everything.

        • With a tweak by the armourer, the SLR could be turned into automatics but the barrels ran red hot in no time. Personalising weapons was not uncommon, especially by the Maori soldiers, who took to the whole soldier thing like ducks to water. The North Vietnamese regular soldiers were under strict orders to avoid contact with NZ forces, especially the “brown” ones. That from D445 captured documents. To the Maori’s it was just another form of pig hunting - “long pig.”

      • Yes, DQ - there is a bit of a gap in the theory, and that is the lack of any witness who saw the shot, which, as you say, would have been deafening. Smell of cordite and the sound of a rifle doesn’t quite cover what a shot from Hickey would have produced. Cover-up? Certainly.

  20. Quick question for DQ - has anyone mapped the possible scope of trajectory for the third bullet? Which broader direction it might have come from, all other thing being equal? The re-construction of the row of cars in the cavalcade make it seem unlikely that Hickey got off a tragically accurate shot without hitting anything else.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>