JFK Assassination

GuanYin · 22-11-2003 10:29pm #1

What with today being the 40th year anniversary, I was wondering about the various theories surrounding JFK's assassination.

What is the current theory on events? Did Oswald fire the "magic" bullet? If it wasn't Oswald, who did it and why? If it was Oswald, was he a lone nut or a pawn in some higher agenda.

And why Ruby, what was his place in this? Why would a nighclub owner gun down a man before he could prove his innocense or have his guilt proved.

Interested in any and all takes.

daveirl · 23-11-2003 1:50am

This post has been deleted.

DapperGent · 23-11-2003 2:53am

I find it impossible to believe that Oswald was alone, whose patsy he was I really have no idea.

If I had to guess I'd say the mob, Giancana was one crazy gangster who didn't get defied.

From the later televised confrontations between Bobby Kennedy and Giancana I think that Bobby believed Giancana was behind it too. There was much more going on there than the little rottweiler's hatred of organised crime methinks.

Webmonkey · 23-11-2003 3:08am

it was all because kennedy didn't agree with bombing their own state and blaming it on cubians. As far as i know anywayz...but definetely something like that

DMT · 23-11-2003 3:25am

Originally posted by daveirl
I don't buy The Magic Bullet theory at all.

First of all the picture of stick-men version of Kennedy and Connolly is wrong:

Kennedy's seat was higher than Connolly's.

Second, there's a documentary at 9pm Sunday night on BBC2 that included the computer animated recontruction of the assasination from this website: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/content.htm

mike65 · 23-11-2003 1:34pm

Who cares? Its happened most important parties involved at any level are dead and there are so many theroies knocking about its unlikely the "real truth", if its ever revealed, will be taken any more seriously than any other version of what happened.

Mike.

Webmonkey · 23-11-2003 1:48pm

Originally posted by mike65
Who cares? Its happened most important parties involved at any level are dead and there are so many theroies knocking about its unlikely the "real truth", if its ever revealed, will be taken any more seriously than any other version of what happened.

Mike.

Yeah, tho History has a habit of repeating itself but I doubt that event will occur again unless of course Georgey boy doesn't get voted back in again and a "nice" president that looks at things from the citizens points of view like JFK will be elected again.

Vader · 23-11-2003 6:02pm

The facts of the matter are:
1) That one person couldn’t have acted alone. This is proved by the magic bullet theory.
2) The American government tried to cover it up. The autopsy was a sham, the warren commission was a sham and huge amounts of evidence has gone missing.
3) The security on the day lacking many standard procedures. There were less agents than usual, the top was taken off the car, the army was stood down and the parade route was very unusual.
4) News papers around the globe were printing stories about Oswald killing the president before he was charged with it.
5) Oswald and Ruby died in mysterious circumstances.
6) Orders JFK made shortly before his death were rescinded.
7) Witnesses reported hearing shots from 3 different directions.

Those are facts, this is speculation.

It is highly unlikely that Oswald could have fired the three shots rushed down two flights of stairs without being seen by the two women on the stairs at that time and being sitting in the employee breakroom all within 90 seconds without being out of breath or sweating.

When Oswald was arrested it was for entering a cinema without paying. Why did 33 police cars converge on the cinema?

Why was the autopsy conducted by the navy, why were its findings erased and how do you lose Kennedy’s Brain?

Why were Kennedy’s orders about splitting up the CIA and distribution of military contracts changed?

Kennedy was signing deals with the Russians to end the cold war and wanted US troops out of Vietnam

Why was a man fired by Kennedy chosen to lead the inquiry into his murder.

The main benefactors from Kennedy’s murder was the CIA, the FBI the military and the arms industry.
The only ppl with the money, power and opportunity to change security procedures, fck up an investigation and destroy evidence are the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI the military and the arms industry.

Maybe rouge elements in one or two of these organizations were bought by the mob and the rest of the benefactors just got lucky or decided for some reason of national security to cover it up or decided “Well he’s dead now, we might as well take advantage of the situation.”

I don’t really know what happened. What is clear is that by definition there was a conspiracy.

GuanYin · 23-11-2003 9:33pm

Originally posted by Vader
The facts of the matter are:
1) That one person couldn’t have acted alone. This is proved by the magic bullet theory.
2) The American government tried to cover it up. The autopsy was a sham, the warren commission was a sham and huge amounts of evidence has gone missing.
3) The security on the day lacking many standard procedures. There were less agents than usual, the top was taken off the car, the army was stood down and the parade route was very unusual.
4) News papers around the globe were printing stories about Oswald killing the president before he was charged with it.
5) Oswald and Ruby died in mysterious circumstances.
6) Orders JFK made shortly before his death were rescinded.
7) Witnesses reported hearing shots from 3 different directions.

Those are facts,

I think you ar etaking all your "facts" from the film JFK. Which while highlighting much of the evidence around the assassination, did tend to play it up a little.

Also, Ruby died in prison of cancer. Hardly mysterious.

sanvean · 23-11-2003 9:52pm

I'd have to agree with Mike 65, this discussion should probably be in the history section.

as for trying to figure out who murdered him, it could be anyone. so many areas and groups who benefitted by his assassination. as malcolm X said, it was really just a case of chickens coming home to roost. not really all that surprising.

DMT · 23-11-2003 11:15pm

Originally posted by Vader
The facts of the matter are:
1) That one person couldn’t have acted alone. This is proved by the magic bullet theory.

The magic bullet theory has be proven by Dale Myers using computer animation to be a load of bull.

2) The American government tried to cover it up. The autopsy was a sham, the warren commission was a sham and huge amounts of evidence has gone missing.

What exactly about the autospy or the Warren commission was a sham?
Missing evidence - Kennedy's brain was mostly destroyed by Robert Kennedy.

3) The security on the day lacking many standard procedures. There were less agents than usual, the top was taken off the car, the army was stood down and the parade route was very unusual.

The army were not stood down. Presidents regularly drove around in open-top cars. The reason why they don't today is because Kennedy was shot.

4) News papers around the globe were printing stories about Oswald killing the president before he was charged with it.

It had already been stated that Oswald was a suspect in the killing of Kennedy for hours before he was charged.

5) Oswald and Ruby died in mysterious circumstances.

Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby. Ruby died of cancer. Nothing mysterious there.

7) Witnesses reported hearing shots from 3 different directions.

Most of those witnesses changed their stories on numerous occasions in the years after Kennedy's assasination.

Those are facts, this is speculation.

*cough*

It is highly unlikely that Oswald could have fired the three shots rushed down two flights of stairs without being seen by the two women on the stairs at that time and being sitting in the employee breakroom all within 90 seconds without being out of breath or sweating.

The two women actually walked down after Oswald.
You'd to be extremely unfit to get out of breath walking only two flights of stairs in 90 seconds. I can do that in 30 seconds without being out of breath.

When Oswald was arrested it was for entering a cinema without paying. Why did 33 police cars converge on the cinema?

He was a cop killer and 33 cars is a Jim Garrison/Oliver Stone exaggeration.

Why was the autopsy conducted by the navy, why were its findings erased and how do you lose Kennedy’s Brain?

The Navy didn't do the autopsy. Kennedy's brain was disposed off by Robert Kennedy.

Why were Kennedy’s orders about splitting up the CIA and distribution of military contracts changed?

Because Johnson believed Russian involvement in Kennedy's killing.

Kennedy was signing deals with the Russians to end the cold war and wanted US troops out of Vietnam

Because Johnson believed Russian involvement in Kennedy's killing.

Why was a man fired by Kennedy chosen to lead the inquiry into his murder.

He didn't lead the investigation, he sat on the Warren Commission. He was chosen to sit as he was a former head of the CIA.

What is clear is that by definition there was a conspiracy.

It is is clear by definition that you shouldn't believe the BS and double-talk from Oliver Stone's film - a film that makes claims such as:

The rifle wasn't tested to see if it was fired that day - no such test exists to this day.
Palm prints could have been taken off Oswald in the morgue - it's physically impossible to get a fingerprints from a corpse as fingerprints are caused by perspiration.
Willie O'Keefe - he didn't exist (composite of 4 people).
Mr X - he didn't exist (composite of 2 people).
Garrisson saying Shaw will be charged with perjury - Garrisson wasn't present for either Shaw's cross-examination or the verdict.
Clay Shaw's gay orgy - straight from Stone's imagination.
Smoke on the grassy knoll - no rifle since the 19th century produces visible smoke.
Oswald was at best a medium shot - Oswald reached sharpshooting expertise in the marines
Three shots in 5.6 seconds - it was eight seconds.
Back and to the left - bodies can move back or forth when shots - the front of Kennedy's head was blown out by the bullet entering the rear of his and blowing the front out - that's why in the Zapruder film the blood splatters forward.

Oliver Stone has a lot to answer for....

bonkey · 23-11-2003 11:39pm

Originally posted by DMT

[*]Palm prints could have been taken off Oswald in the morgue - it's physically impossible to get a fingerprints from a corpse as fingerprints are caused by perspiration.

You're mistaking the fact that fingerprints are left behind by perspiration and how fingerprints are taken from people - using ink-pads which allows straight-forward "transfer printing" of the ridges.

There is nothing technical preventing the taking of fingerprints from a corpse.

Other than that....I'm on your side.

jc

mike65 · 23-11-2003 11:42pm

Just watched the BBC2 programme on the assasination
and it makes a very convincing case for no conspiracy theory. Certainly punched plenty of holes again, in Stones' idiotic JFK movie.

Mike.

ps I've changed my mind it does matter a bit. Recent history should not be mis-represented by tossers for the sake of making a film more dramatic.

DMT · 24-11-2003 1:20am

Originally posted by bonkey
There is nothing technical preventing the taking of fingerprints from a corpse.

I'm not saying it's impossible to take fingerprints from a corpse (that can be done with ink-pads) - I'm saying that's it's impossible for a corpse to *leave* fingerprints on an object because fingerprints are caused by perspiration. Therefore it is impossible to plant a palm print on a rifle using a body in a morgue - dead hands don't sweat and can't leave prints on things...

[Deleted User] · 24-11-2003 1:50am

Originally posted by mike65
Just watched the BBC2 programme on the assasination
and it makes a very convincing case for no conspiracy theory. Certainly punched plenty of holes again, in Stones' idiotic JFK movie.

Mike.

ps I've changed my mind it does matter a bit. Recent history should not be mis-represented by tossers for the sake of making a film more dramatic.

Yes I also caught this program and I found it to be the anti-jfk(jfk the film that is) so to speak...

They didn't ask any questions as to why Oswald would learn Russian, or HOW he was able to not only defect to the Soviet Union, but come back to America with his (russian)wife and to recieve *welfare*.
I don't buy that Ruby just wanted to be a "hero" either...

While JFK(the film) focused on the conspiracy theory, the BBC doc seemed to blatently avoid some of the evidence.

I don't think we'll ever really know what happened.

DMT · 24-11-2003 2:14am

Originally posted by utility_
the BBC doc seemed to blatently avoid some of the evidence.

Such as....?

[Deleted User] · 24-11-2003 2:17am

Originally posted by DMT
Such as....?

Originally posted by utility_
They didn't ask any questions as to why Oswald would learn Russian, or HOW he was able to not only defect to the Soviet Union, but come back to America with his (russian)wife and to recieve *welfare*.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

shotamoose · 24-11-2003 10:40am

Originally posted by utility_

They didn't ask any questions as to why Oswald would learn Russian, or HOW he was able to not only defect to the Soviet Union, but come back to America with his (russian)wife and to recieve *welfare*.
I don't buy that Ruby just wanted to be a "hero" either...

They said that Oswald was an alienated loner who got into Marxism as a teenager and described himself as a communist. He learnt Russian so that he could go to Russia, which he did. He received welfare when he got back to America because that's the kind of place America was.

But it did seem slightly one-sided alright. They interviewed some doddery old guy who was a mate of Jack Ruby's when they were kids, and he said "Jack wasn't involved in the mob, I tells ya". Only later did they slip in that Ruby had mob ties galore.

sovtek · 24-11-2003 11:49am

Originally posted by mike65
Just watched the BBC2 programme on the assasination
and it makes a very convincing case for no conspiracy theory. Certainly punched plenty of holes again, in Stones' idiotic JFK movie.

It was a one sided doccy in my opinion. It seemed to mainly debunk Stone's movie, which was done when it came out.
It didn't even tell you that alot of files regarding the assassination are still classified. It didn't say anything about the Joint Cheifs of Staff drawing up a plan to kill American civilians and military so as to justify an invasion of Cuba.
So even if Oswald did shoot Kennedy it doesn't mean that their wasn't a conspiracy.
It's narrative was very condescending and presented every point as that was the only possible explanation.

ps I've changed my mind it does matter a bit. Recent history should not be mis-represented by tossers for the sake of making a film more dramatic.

I agree and have alwaysgotten pissed off when movies distort history 'cause some jumped up director or producer think their version is better or will make them more money. (Titanic had me in fits)

oscarBravo · 24-11-2003 12:48pm

I saw some of the BBC documentary, and I also was unimpressed by the slightly patronising tone, and the way some of the points seemed to be glossed over or ignored.

Originally posted by DMT

The rifle wasn't tested to see if it was fired that day - no such exists to this day.

No such what?

Oswald was at best a medium shot - Oswald reached sharpshooting expertise in the marines

Shooting at static targets, in a rifle-range environment, surely. Also, looking at his scorecards, the high scores seemed to have been earned by hitting a profile target anywhere in the upper torso or head.

Three shots in 5.6 seconds - it was eight seconds.

They had a guy simulating the shots in seven seconds - not that hard to do when dry-firing a rifle without a moving target. It would be a different proposition with recoil and a constantly shifting angle of fire.

Back and to the left - bodies can move back or forth when shots - the front of Kennedy's head was blown out by the bullet entering the rear of his and blowing the front out - that's why in the Zapruder film the blood splatters forward.

A couple of issues with this: granted, bodies can move in strange ways when hit, but we're talking about the movement of a man's head relative to his body. The BBC program mentioned this briefly, while showing an obscure slow-mo of what looked like a bullet passing through ballistic soap - it didn't actually seem to demonstrate anything - why not shoot a dummy in the head and see which way it moves? It seems to me, intuitively, that a high-velocity rifle bullet hitting a head will transfer a good deal of its momentum into the head, and the head will most likely move in the direction of the bullet.

As to the front of his head being blown out by the shot: his face looks surprisingly intact in the autopsy photographs. Given the alleged angle of fire and the supposed bullet entry point, how could he have a face left at all?

Coupled with that, several witnesses interviewed in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (as screened on Discovery a while back) vehemently maintain that they saw a huge hole in the back of Kennedy's head, consistent with an exit wound. That hole seems to have somehow disappeared somewhere between Dallas and Bethesda.

Finally, in all the times I've seen the Zapruder film, it still seems to me that the blood spatter is behind and to the left of his head.

sovtek · 24-11-2003 1:20pm

I was reading thisabout a doccy on JFk that aired in America on ABC. It sounds like the same BBC doccy but with Peter Jennings doing narration.

Lex_Diamonds · 24-11-2003 1:33pm

:ninja:

henbane · 24-11-2003 1:41pm

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Shooting at static targets, in a rifle-range environment, surely. Also, looking at his scorecards, the high scores seemed to have been earned by hitting a profile target anywhere in the upper torso or head.

They had a guy simulating the shots in seven seconds - not that hard to do when dry-firing a rifle without a moving target. It would be a different proposition with recoil and a constantly shifting angle of fire.

It's amazing how everyone becomes an expert on ballistics and riflery whenever the Kennedy assassination is discussed. He was a trained by the U.S. marines with a rifle, a bad shot by marine standards should still be able to hit a moving target at that distance. He missed one of the three shots he fired. Why does everyone choose to disbelieve expert testimony when it doesn't fit their version of the facts. The old guy may have been dry-firing, but he was also not rushing.

why not shoot a dummy in the head and see which way it moves? It seems to me, intuitively, that a high-velocity rifle bullet hitting a head will transfer a good deal of its momentum into the head, and the head will most likely move in the direction of the bullet.

A dummy doesn't have any muscles and is made of a uniformly dense substance which makes test-firing into dummies of relatively little use. Something seeming intuitively to you (or anybody), doesn't make it so.

As to the front of his head being blown out by the shot: his face looks surprisingly intact in the autopsy photographs. Given the alleged angle of fire and the supposed bullet entry point, how could he have a face left at all?

The bullets used by the shooter were designed to move intact through a body. Granted should have a larger exit than entrance wound but not necessarily going to take his whole face with them.

Coupled with that, several witnesses interviewed in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (as screened on Discovery a while back) vehemently maintain that they saw a huge hole in the back of Kennedy's head, consistent with an exit wound. That hole seems to have somehow disappeared somewhere between Dallas and Bethesda.

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. A lot of people will always believe the version they think they saw and you can show them exactly what did happen and they will still tell you it didn't happen like that.

Finally, in all the times I've seen the Zapruder film, it still seems to me that the blood spatter is behind and to the left of his head.

A different Zapruder film from the one I have seen given that the left hand side of his head is not really visible in the film. But I think this just goes towards proving my point about eye-witness accounts.

sovtek · 24-11-2003 3:08pm

Originally posted by henbane
It's amazing how everyone becomes an expert on ballistics and riflery whenever the Kennedy assassination is discussed. He was a trained by the U.S. marines with a rifle, a bad shot by marine standards should still be able to hit a moving target at that distance. He missed one of the three shots he fired. Why does everyone choose to disbelieve expert testimony when it doesn't fit their version of the facts. The old guy may have been dry-firing, but he was also not rushing.

But why would someone even risk it when they could have had more time and opportunity when the motorcade was coming TOWARDS the Schoolbook Depository on Houston Street (working in the Dallas County Court building across the street in '99 I got loads of tourists asking where the "schoolbook suppository" was located

).
A shot that would have been partially obscured by the tree (depending also if the leaves had fallen off which is somewhat possible in Texas in Nov.).

henbane · 24-11-2003 3:13pm

Originally posted by sovtek
But why would someone even risk it when they could have had more time and opportunity when the motorcade was coming TOWARDS the Schoolbook Depository (working in the Dallas County Court building across the street in '99 I got loads of tourists asking where the "schoolbook suppository" was located).
A shot that would have been partially obscured by the tree (depending also if the leaves had fallen off which is somewhat possible in Texas in Nov.).

On the other hand, why stick the barrel of a rifle out a window when the drivers, secret service and police motorcycle riders are all coming towards you as a higher proportion will be facing you at that time. This debate has legs because of questions like this.

I think I "schoolbook suppository" would be fairly uncomfortable :eek:

bonkey · 24-11-2003 5:38pm

Originally posted by DMT
I'm not saying it's impossible to take fingerprints from a corpse (that can be done with ink-pads) - I'm saying that's it's impossible for a corpse to *leave* fingerprints on an object because fingerprints are caused by perspiration.

As long as no-one is DNA-testing the print-deposits, there is no reason whatsoever that you couldn't fake it.

I wipe my sweaty palm across a dead-guy's hand. I then take dead-guy's hand and press it against something.

Voila - instant, "impossible" palmprints from a dead-guy.

Indeed, even without the dead guy, you could probably manage it with a decent enough palm-print from somewhere else, a good modeller to create a dummy print-laying device (lets call it a fake hand), and I could repeat the process described above without the dead guy.

Modern technology may be able to tell you that such prints were faked, and/or that the oils etc. making up the print were not from the person the print appears to be from, but we're not discussing modern technology.

jc

[Deleted User] · 24-11-2003 6:00pm

Originally posted by shotamoose
They said that Oswald was an alienated loner who got into Marxism as a teenager and described himself as a communist. He learnt Russian so that he could go to Russia, which he did. He received welfare when he got back to America because that's the kind of place America was.

No...this was NEVER the type of place that America was. A man who defected to the Soviets only to hook up with the KGB would be executed(at the least imprisoned for many years) on his return to America. NOT given welfare...Only American citizens get welfare.

Also, how did he get his wife in? Any explanation would be nice...as opposed to "that's what America's like" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

oscarBravo · 24-11-2003 8:06pm

Originally posted by henbane
It's amazing how everyone becomes an expert on ballistics and riflery whenever the Kennedy assassination is discussed. He was a trained by the U.S. marines with a rifle, a bad shot by marine standards should still be able to hit a moving target at that distance. He missed one of the three shots he fired. Why does everyone choose to disbelieve expert testimony when it doesn't fit their version of the facts. The old guy may have been dry-firing, but he was also not rushing.

Actually, my point spoke more to the quality of the refutation. If you want to prove that it's possible for a fairly good marksman to hit a head-sized moving target from a tricky angle, it's a little more convincing if you at least simulate the circumstances, rather than just have some guy dry-firing a rifle at nothing.

A dummy doesn't have any muscles and is made of a uniformly dense substance which makes test-firing into dummies of relatively little use. Something seeming intuitively to you (or anybody), doesn't make it so.

Again, there has to be a more convincing way of refuting the conspiracy theorists than by saying "well, it could have happened this way, therefore your assertion that it didn't is false."

The bullets used by the shooter were designed to move intact through a body. Granted should have a larger exit than entrance wound but not necessarily going to take his whole face with them.

I'm going from memory, but I don't remember any of the autopsy photographs showing any significant exit wounds in the face. The bullet may have remained intact, but I've seen what a high-velocity metal-jacketed bullet can do to a liquid-filled target.

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. A lot of people will always believe the version they think they saw and you can show them exactly what did happen and they will still tell you it didn't happen like that.

You don't think you saw a six-inch hole in a man's skull with 20-25% of the brain missing.

A different Zapruder film from the one I have seen given that the left hand side of his head is not really visible in the film. But I think this just goes towards proving my point about eye-witness accounts.

That's typical of the style of refutation I'm talking about. I didn't say I saw the left side of his head, I said that the blood spray appears to be behind and to the left of his head. The "behind" is the more significant part of that direction.

Giblet · 24-11-2003 8:16pm

Very easy to load and shoot that gun three times in 6 seconds.

Very hard to load it, aim it, shoot three times in 6 seconds, especially with such a crap aim, crap angle, and with any hint of nervousness and the recoil. The muzzle shot of the gun would also throw you off aim.
Reloading it too fast would jam the mechanism, and no matter what anywhere else tells you, films, internet, whatever, he was not a good shot with that gun.

bonkey · 24-11-2003 8:59pm

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I said that the blood spray appears to be behind and to the left of his head. The "behind" is the more significant part of that direction.

Which is entirely consistent anything I've ever read/seen about trauma (i.e. impact), assuming he was shot from behind.

There are a number of factors at play, but at the very simplest, a bullet moving at high velocity generates an awful lot of pressure. As soon as it enters the skull, there is a massive increase in pressure inside the skull, and there is also a convenient nearby exit-point to relieve said pressure - namely the hole that the bullet just created on its way in. Hence, you get a "blowback" effect - which will cause a spray of blood to come from the entry-point. So a spray of blood to the rear of the target could easily be consistent with being shot from behind.

How the exit-point will behave is far more complex to determine (assuming there even is an exit-point), so I'm not even gonna attempt that one

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have seen slo-mo shots of various objects being shot, and invariably you will get a "blowback" out the entry-point.

I would point out, incidentally, that the possible lack of existence of additional shooters does not in and of itself imply that there was no conspiracy. It simply calls into doubt many of the theories. As for "needing a good argument", I would suggest that the same applies for the multiple-shooter theories. Other than saying "I don't think that one person could do what he was supposed to have done" - which is highly debated and debateable on both sides - there doesn't seem to be much of a convincing argument for multiple shooters other than the "magic bullet" argument which - as DMT linked to - would also appear not as implausible as many insist.

Also, I would ask people to stop insisting that things "are" or "are not" unless they are going to supply evidence. As someone pointed out, everyone seems to turn into a marksmanship/ballistics expert when discussing this subject. If its an educated opinion, or an informed one, please show that it is appropriately. If its an uneducated opinion, do everyone the courtesy of pointing it out.
jc

shotamoose · 24-11-2003 10:33pm

Originally posted by utility_
Only American citizens get welfare.

He was an American citizen. He wanted to renounce his citizenship but didn't go through with it. And he never got Soviet citizenship.

Also, how did he get his wife in? Any explanation would be nice...as opposed to "that's what America's like" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A bare minimum of effort from you would be nice. If you're so worried about it, try getting up off your arse and actually reading something yourself.

I'm guessing that might be a strain, so to make things easier for you I found details of Oswald's return to the US in this short biography. It's from the Warren Commission report (cue cries of 'the whole things fabricated', etc etc) but the point is that the process of extricating themselves from the USSR and getting visas to return to the US took months. If the USA/USSR were smuggling the man back in in order to assassinate the Prez, they sure weren't doing it the fast way. And presumably they fabricated the dozens of letters and other records of his efforts to renounce US citizenship, get Soviet citizenship and then get bored and try to escape the USSR. Quite a conspiracy.

Hey look, I can do this too: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . What fun.

JFK Assassination

Comments