JFK: The Ultimate Explanation -- The Involvement of George Bush Sr.

I'll need to watch that film again several times. Anyone else able to confirm any of this as true or false?

TheBorg

From the testimony by James Files it is clear that Files took the headshot (it was his specialty). The rest (Driver/Connally) is mere speculation.

Think of the risk involved to have someone in the car shoot Kennedy with all those eyes upon the car. It would have been easier to have a remote controlled syringe system built into the back seat, which could be activated by a button somewhere in the car, filling JFK´s body with an untracable poision like curare at the right moment, thus stopping his heart almost instantly.

I seriously doubt that Connally even had a weapon at the time.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by HardToGet]

Hard to get...sorry to burst your bubble here but all this is old, vey old, nealry ancient, indeed very nearly prehistoric history..this all came out of the closet in 1995, theres a James Files confession video available on the JFKMURDERSOLD page..i also read on another site that JAMES FILES was actually debunked by EDWARD JAY EPSTIEN and a private investigator JULES KROLL at the time of the shooting HE WAS IN CHICAGO,another state, THEY KNOW BY ESTABLISHED TEEPHONE RECORDS FILES..and so we have another looser looking to make a few bucks via his old mob connections using one of the saddest pages in american if not world history.


Lets face it...to have the power to change a government in a whisper and shed the blood of only 3 men and in the face of the whole western world takes a lot of planning and a lot of power...

[edit on 26-7-2006 by andy1972]

[edit on 26-7-2006 by andy1972]

...and your point is?

The reason this became newsworthy again was Luis Posada Carilles and why the U.S. Government would protect him, a known terrorist against extradition to Venezuela, unless he has information which could seriously embarass the U.S. Government. The man has a story to tell, and that story could link George H.W. Bush to the JFK Assassination.

Please read the thread.

About Files, if you were head of a covert operation to make sure the truth on the JFK assassination never will come out, wouldn´t you try to debunk James Files every which way you can? Phone records? Even I can falsify those.

Any particular reason for Files to lie you can think of? Especially for someone who is proven to be linked to organized crime? Bit risky don´t you think?

I´ve got it. Maybe so he will get some extra pudding on friday because he´s now a celebrity in the jail where he is serving life. Hey! He can even spend the money he made by his video on some world travel and expensive jewelry! O, I forgot, he´s in JAIL.

Try again my friend.

Originally posted by andy1972
Lets face it...to have the power to change a government in a whisper and shed the blood of only 3 men and in the face of the whole western world takes a lot of planning and a lot of power...

And who do you think has had (and has) the power to do so?

Power and Money are interchangeable. Again, read the thread.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by HardToGet]

Originally posted by HardToGet
And who do you think has had (and has) the power to do so?

Power and Money are interchangeable. Again, read the thread.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by HardToGet]

That question, my friend, is the most important question that has been asked on here in a VERY long time I think. If only someone knew that...

TheBorg

An attempt to answer that question is in this thread: Those with Money & Power.

It certainly wasn´t "just" the Mafia.

JFK Murder solved!!!!!!!!
JFK was shot by a "mouse wish he was girly boy nobody wanna be bitch" named
Lee Harvey Oswald.

Glad I could help...

Vance

Originally posted by vance
JFK Murder solved!!!!!!!!
JFK was shot by a "mouse wish he was girly boy nobody wanna be bitch" named
Lee Harvey Oswald.

Glad I could help...

Vance

Nice way to attempt to derail a thread there. Care to provide more evidence that hasn't been shown previously? No evidence as of yet has shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Oswald was the sole shooter in the assassination. The way Kennedy's head moved during the actual assassination showed that there was more than one shooter. And besides, Oswald wasn't that good with a rifle anyway.

TheBorg

No matter what you say or do, vances will crawl out from under a rock and once and again post nonsensical words like one vance just did.

I wouldn´t bother Borg, but thanks for trying.



[edit on 29-7-2006 by HardToGet]

Originally posted by HardToGet
No matter what you say or do, vances will crawl out from under a rock and once and again post nonsensical words like one vance just did.

I wouldn´t bother Borg, but thanks for trying.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by HardToGet]

I stand by my statements, and formally challenge him/her to prove me wrong. If he/she cannot do so, then they can recess into the corner from whence they came.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
I tend to agree with your statements, but I'm left wondering what the next step could possibly be. I mean, I want change, which is good for all American citizens, but I don't want to even consider a violent solution.

What if a violent solution was the only one? Would you rather not consider it and go on living with what you know or believe in? I was born in the United States of America and I'm not afraid to die in the pursuit of fixing it. All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

Originally posted by CyberSEAL
What if a violent solution was the only one? Would you rather not consider it and go on living with what you know or believe in? I was born in the United States of America and I'm not afraid to die in the pursuit of fixing it. All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

I didn't say that I wouldn't act violently if forced. I just said that I didn't want to consider a violent solution to the problem. Things can be fixed in many other ways. To think that the violent solution is always the only one that works is erronous. There are plenty of examples where violence didn't solve anything; take the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict for a perfect example. There's been fighting over there for the past 4500 years, and nothing has changed. Violence hasn't helped them at all.

Why should humans be so eager to spill the blood of others? It all comes back to controlling the masses. If those in power can control the masses, then they don't fear losing their place in power. And how do they control the masses? By fear. Usually this is done in Communist countries, but recently has seen a boom in more civilized quadrants of the world.

Let's look at the 9/11 attack for example. The one thing that really came of 9/11 was the innate fear that the people were in, fearing another attack, and more loss of life. So the People signed away a good portion of their rights to the government in the form of The Patriot Act. This very act makes it legal for the government to search your home for any reason whatsoever, without any provocation. They can arrest you, merely on the suspicion of being a terrorist, and yet they claim to be doing this for "our protection". Is it really for our protection? Or are there other motives to this as well? To make a very pertinent quote, "People should not fear their governments. The Governments should fear their people." This is as true now as when it was said. (Note: I don't remember who said that, although Thomas Jefferson sounds awfully familier here...)

This fear, as deeply ingrained in the psychie of the average American, is what makes this such a dire time for America. We each must ultimately decide what the best way is to combat the rise of a fearful state, but we all must admit that at some point, something drastic needs to happen. Now I don't know what the best solution to this situation is, but I offer at least one peaceful solution. We could write an amendment to the Constitution that allows the people to vote on all legislative business passing through Congress. This would solve the majority of our problems, since it would allow the people to get their word in edge-wise. Now, no plan is foolproof, but it couldn't hurt to try, with the current situation looking so bleak.

I, as a full-blooded patriotic American, am firmly of the belief that America still has a great deal to offer to the world in the form of intellectual understanding, and we can also be a peaceful lot, regardless of what our government tries to project. So far as I can tell, we tend to be less aggressive than most, simply because we're comprised of groups of every major nation on Earth.

I'm directly against any violent conflict. However, if you start one, be decisive, kill everyone you're after, and stop firing. All of the shooting is what causes all of the innocent casualties. With the technology we have now, this shouldn't be a problem.

Well, I'm finding it difficult to organize my thoughts well enough to carry on, so I"ll leave it at this for now. If something prompts a question, feel free to ask. Same goes for anyone else.

Thanks for reading.

TheBorg

Originally posted by zappafan1

REPLY: No guns? NO THANKS! The Founding Fathers argued whether right to own or free speech should be the first "right". Without the 2nd amendment, they can take the rest away. Actually, the right to own is given to "the people" and, when included with our other rights, does not allow the government, except the military, to carry weapons; not the FBI, IRS, etc.

What do you call a security guard with no gun? A witness.
Three million times a year people defend themselves against some type of crime with their guns. Police usually get there in time to take statements from witnesses, if any.
Let "the government", whether local or state or federal, "protect" me? No thanks.

Spoken like a true American

Can you go for anything without your gun?

Edited to remove censor circumvention

[edit on 17-8-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by Ernold Same
Can you go for sh*t without your gun?

Sure can, right to the toilet.

That's where anyone goes without a backbone. If one isn't willing to back up what they say with force sometimes, then they'll be taken advantage of. That's just the way things work in this quirky world. To try and deny that is lunacy.

TheBorg

This thread has presented many theories, common and uncommon. As an avid JFK assasination "researcher", I would like to post a few of my feelings and assertions on the mater, for your consideration.

First, I do not believe that the fatal headshot could have come from the front, unless the Zapruder film really was faked or altered significantly. Just before z-frame 313, when the massive amount of blood and brain matter explode from the head, there is a slight forward motion. I understand that the head moves famously "back and to the left". But this forward motion has not been accounted for by most Grassy Knoll theorists.

When the head DOES explode, and he moves back and to the left...take a good look at the way the head explodes, which area of it is damaged, and which direction the spray moves. It goes up, forward, and towards the camera. A shot from the grassy knoll would NOT have done this. It would have blown the LEFT side of Kennedy's head out, probably very seriously injuring or killing Jackie in the process. The Z-film also clearly shows that the right side of the head was the most likely point of exit, judging by the damage. Remember, the grassy knoll was almost perpendicular to the President at the time of the shot, not far in front as most believe.

Now, to address the "back and to the left" movement, there are two main theories. First, with that amount of brain damage, it may have been an involuntary muscular spasm. This is what I happen to believe. Secondly, there are many videos out there of melons and similar objects being shot with rifles, and being projected TOWARDS the direction of the shot, not backward.

Whichever, you believe, both are reasonable explanations.

Now, of course, all that is assuming that you believe the z-film is genuine. If you do, it is very obvious that the headshot did not originate from the grassy knoll. If one DID, it was, as Cyril Wecht has postulated, almost simultaneous as a shot from the rear, the rear shot doing all of the damage that we see in the z-film.

I point all of this out because I feel that there is far more compelling evidence for a conspiracy than people claiming that the z-film shows a headshot from the grassy knoll. It isnt true, and I feel that it causes a distraction from REAL evidence for conspiracy.

CONTINUED:

All of this is not to say that Bush was not involved, simply that it is unlikely that Files was involved, though at times the story can be fairly convincing. I simply do not feel that there is ANY evidence from a shot from the knoll., either from witness testimony, autopsy photos, photos from the scene (no, I dont believe badgeman is a real shooter) or movies.

I also dont believe that the organization that was smart enough to arrange the assasination of the President of the USA would have shot him from the front and tried to pretend it was from the rear.

Consider this - Lee Harvey Oswald was likely not a CIA asset, but an FBI ASSET. There was a memo from J Edgar Hoover in 1960 (I believe) about someone else using the name Lee Oswald. Why was this of such concern, unless the FBI ws already using LHO? This wasnt simply a field agent, this was J. Edgar Hoover HIMSELF who was paying attention to the name Lee Oswald....

Now, the CIA was already steaming mad at Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs invasion - for failing to support them. Though he publically took the blame, he did fire some very NASTY individuals, the kinds of individuals who would have the power to DO this and to COVER IT UP.

Kennedy ordered Hoover to locate and close down CIA training camps that the CIA wanted to keep open. Now, exactly how Hoover did this remains open for speculation. But it happened.

Now, lets say, lets just speculate for a minute, that the CIA decides they have had quite enough of Kennedy. They want to kill Kennedy, and ALSO send a message to Hoover that he better not open his trap about it or he would be next. What better way than to set up Oswald as the fall guy for it? "I'm just a patsy!" right? Maybe true.

Lets also speculate that the CIA arranged to have Oswald at the Book Depository. Probably not to fire shots at the President, just be there, so they can set him up. Now, on the Dal-Tex building (where I feel it was more likely the shots came from) there is a shooter on the roof, out of site. Possibly one on the TSBD, too...they do the job, get out unseesn (remember, there were people caprtured on the z-film that day that STILL have not been identified...though not suspicious, just proves someone COULD get away unidentified).

Much like Oliver Stone's scenario, Oswald knows somethng BAD is happening, psossibly even that he is being set up...so he hightails it out of there, and the rest is history.

Now, it didnt need to happen EXACTLY like that, but it lines up really well...it sends the message to Hoover that they took out his boss and framed one of his own guy, so he certainly isnt immune and could be next if he doesnt keep his mouth shut.

As far as Bush/Republican involvement...thats an interesting thought, which I feel lines up even better. Jack Ruby worked for Richard Nixon in the late 1940s, I believe it was. Interesting Coincidence?

Then of course, theres the whole Watergate thing, which was going to "blow the lid off the whole bay of pigs thing" if it went public. Yes, thats what they said they were worried about..thats why they broke in there, to keep the "bay of pigs thing" from going public. Well, the bay of pigs thing already WAS public...so what were they hiding? Well, what is the most obvious RESULT of the "bay of pigs thing" acording to my scenario? Yup....JFK's assasination.

I could ramble forever, but I'm almost out of room on this post. Maybe it made sense to someone here.

That makes a LOT of sense, and thanks for posting it. It does kind of help to visualize the video again, since I don't have a ready copy on me (lost my last videotaped documentary).

Anyway, I find it inconcievable that anyone could possibly believe that this wasn't anything BUT a government job. There's way too much circumstantial evidence to support that theory, and that's saying a lot for the researchers that have spent many an hour pouring through thousands of documents, looking for the ONE piece that will "crack the case wide open". What would be even MORE interesting is if someone could provide some serious proof that these things are true.

But I guess that if the CIA and FBI are involved, there's not much chance of there being a papertrail, now is there?

TheBorg

I also forgot to mention that 1) Oswald had his own FBI informant number and 2) there was a 30.06 shell casing found on the roof of the Dal-Tex buuilding that has never been explained.

That´s not supposed to happen.

Uploaded the copy I had locally again

Cannot stop the truth my intelligence friends (wherever you are)

hi sorry for bumping this thread but i just watched the kennedy TV series(1983) in the history channel.I checked the websites which hardtogetprovided(too bad he is banned).
My problem is that can any of you guys seed the documentary "I shot jkf".it has no seeders and 3 leeches.i think p2p is legal here.its 1hr 50mins long.any input plz(does it have conspiracy theory or it is just boring documentary)
thanks