CIA ROGUES AND THE KILLING OF THE KENNEDYS : HOW AND WHY US AGENTS CONSPIRED TO ASSASSINATE JFK AND RFK

[watsup]

“A forensic historian and a forensic scientist present research and new findinigs on the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and offer theories that put rogue CIA agents behind the killings.

Table of Contents:

• Richard Helms, the strategist
• The sociopathy test
• James Angleton, the tactician
• Assassinations past
• Lee Harvey Oswald, an unwitting patsy
• November 22, 1963, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
• Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, an involuntary pawn
• June 5, 1968, the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy
• Conclusion.”

Table of Contents: CIA rogues and the killing of the Kennedys : :: Library Catalog Search

library.villanova.edu

Yes, I personally believe that is what happened. None of the assassins really made much sense. Brainwashing and threats and payoffs seem to underlay them. Plus, of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had to be killed quickly because they were afraid he would blab.
There was a right wing element of the CIA who thought that JFK, RFK, and MLK were leading the nation down the road of liberal perdition and because of that, they all had to be eliminated.
And it pretty much worked. Who knows how much better off the nation would be now if they had been able to implement their policies such as JFK pulling us out of Vietnam had he been re-elected and Bobby being able to bring blacks into the fold of the mainstream, given how much they loved him, and MLK being able to also bring blacks into the mainstream in a nonviolent manner.

 

[Tigerace117]

“A forensic historian and a forensic scientist present research and new findings on the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and offer theories that put rogue CIA agents behind the killings.

Table of Contents:

• Richard Helms, the strategist
• The sociopathy test
• James Angleton, the tactician
• Assassinations past
• Lee Harvey Oswald, an unwitting patsy
• November 22, 1963, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
• Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, an involuntary pawn
• June 5, 1968, the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy
• Conclusion.”

Table of Contents: CIA rogues and the killing of the Kennedys : :: Library Catalog Search

library.villanova.edu

Yes, I personally believe that is what happened. None of the assassins really made much sense. Brainwashing and threats and payoffs seem to underlay them. Plus, of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had to be killed quickly because they were afraid he would blab.
There was a right wing element of the CIA who thought that JFK, RFK, and MLK were leading the nation down the road of liberal perdition and because of that, they all had to be eliminated.

Let‘s take a step back and think for a second: what’s more logical, that there was some elaborate “Deep State” conspiracy straight out of a Robert Ludlum novel to assassinate JFK(one of our more overrated presidents, in large part because he was assassinated) and the folks who botched dozens of attempts to kill Fidel Castro magically got it right on their first try......or that a thug with a rifle was in the right place at the right time?

Likewise, there’s zero evidence to suggest that ”the government“ had MLK killed.

Hell, considering how much dirt there was on the Kennedy family this mythical conspiracy wouldn’t have even needed to kill JFK.....he easily could have been blackmailed into doing whatever they wanted.

Yeah, just like all the other conspiracy theories, this one doesn’t pass the smell test.

 

[watsup]

Let‘s take a step back and think for a second: what’s more logical, that there was some elaborate “Deep State” conspiracy straight out of a Robert Ludlum novel to assassinate JFK(one of our more overrated presidents, in large part because he was assassinated) and the folks who botched dozens of attempts to kill Fidel Castro magically got it right on their first try......or that a thug with a rifle was in the right place at the right time?

Likewise, there’s zero evidence to suggest that ”the government“ had MLK killed.

Hell, considering how much dirt there was on the Kennedy family this mythical conspiracy wouldn’t have even needed to kill JFK.....he easily could have been blackmailed into doing whatever they wanted.

Yeah, just like all the other conspiracy theories, this one doesn’t pass the smell test.

You’re right. It makes not a bit of sense that a thug with a rifle just happened to be in the right place at the right time, especially when he had not the slightest bit of motive to kill JFK. Or that a person then killed the thug when that person, again, had not the slightest bit of real motive to do so. He was not this huge fan of the president, he had ZERO reason to assassinate Oswald,. None of it makes the slightest bit of sense. Same with RFK and MLK.
That they were all independently assassinated in such a relatively short time when they were the leading liberal lights of the nation doesn’t pass the smell test in the least.

 

[Tigerace117]

You’re right. It makes not a bit of sense that a thug with a rifle just happened to be in the right place at the right time, especially when he had not the slightest bit of motive to kill JFK. Or that a person then killed the thug when that person, again, had not the slightest bit of real motive to do so. He was not this huge fan of the president, he had ZERO reason to assassinate Oswald,. None of it makes the slightest bit of sense. Same with RFK and MLK.
That they were all independently assassinated in such a relatively short time when they were the leading liberal lights of the nation doesn’t pass the smell test in the least.

Lee Harvey Oswald had more than a few reasons to kill JFK, ranging from ideology— he was a communist, and therefore naturally despised the US— to ego and on. He’d already been planning to “strike a blow” by killing General Walker.

I hate to break it to you but assassins‘ motives don’t have to make sense to you....just them. That doesn’t mean there’s a “conspiracy“.

In case you missed it, the 1960s and 1970s were eras of radicalism. It was hardly surprising that leading political figures would be assassinated.

 

[Fledermaus]

You’re right. It makes not a bit of sense that a thug with a rifle just happened to be in the right place at the right time, especially when he had not the slightest bit of motive to kill JFK. Or that a person then killed the thug when that person, again, had not the slightest bit of real motive to do so. He was not this huge fan of the president, he had ZERO reason to assassinate Oswald,. None of it makes the slightest bit of sense. Same with RFK and MLK.
That they were all independently assassinated in such a relatively short time when they were the leading liberal lights of the nation doesn’t pass the smell test in the least.

The thug with a rifle bought the rifle by mail. Paper trail. Ditto the revolver he used to kill officer Tibbet.

As they would say in Clue: Lee Harvey, with a rifle, in the Texas Depository.

 

[ASHES]

Why is this in History not CT?

 

[Antiwar]

Let‘s take a step back and think for a second: what’s more logical, that there was some elaborate “Deep State” conspiracy

What "elaborate conspiracy"? It doesn't take an elaborate conspiracy to assassinate a president. It's not overly complex. It could involve one person, although a few more would be likely.

 

[Fledermaus]

Why is this in History not CT?

It will likely get there soon.

There were more than one thread that lived a fairly long lives before getting shit canned.

 

[Fledermaus]

Here is a long discussion about the whole Kennedy thing...

Kennedy[W:480]

The photograph establishes that Oswald is matching a rifle that matches the description of one he bought using a known alias and had sent to his PO Box and the description of the rifle found in Oswald's workplace after the JFK shooting. The photograph is a fake. It establishes nothing. The...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Tigerace117]

What "elaborate conspiracy"? It doesn't take an elaborate conspiracy to assassinate a president. It's not overly complex. It could involve one person, although a few more would be likely.

Uh...... yes, it does. Assassinating a President is by definition difficult— and convincing the world that it was someone else for decades would be almost laughably elaborate and complex. And one person can hardly conspire with themselves.

 

[Antiwar]

Uh...... yes, it does. Assassinating a President is by definition difficult— and convincing the world that it was someone else for decades would be almost laughably elaborate and complex. And one person can hardly conspire with themselves.

You believe that Oswald did it by himself, so there's the proof that it's not an elaborate operation.

What convincing? Oswald could have been set up easily enough.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Let‘s take a step back and think for a second: what’s more logical, that there was some elaborate “Deep State” conspiracy straight out of a Robert Ludlum novel to assassinate JFK(one of our more overrated presidents, in large part because he was assassinated) and the folks who botched dozens of attempts to kill Fidel Castro magically got it right on their first try......or that a thug with a rifle was in the right place at the right time?

Likewise, there’s zero evidence to suggest that ”the government“ had MLK killed.

Hell, considering how much dirt there was on the Kennedy family this mythical conspiracy wouldn’t have even needed to kill JFK.....he easily could have been blackmailed into doing whatever they wanted.

Yeah, just like all the other conspiracy theories, this one doesn’t pass the smell test.

Doesn't sound like you have done much research into any of these assassination. The suspicious behavior surrounding all 3 could fill a book. Or better dozens of books.

 

[Tigerace117]

Doesn't sound like you have done much research into any of these assassination. The suspicious behavior surrounding all 3 could fill a book. Or better dozens of books.

And after all those dozens of books and theories.....nobody’s actually proven a thing.

 

[Tigerace117]

You believe that Oswald did it by himself, so there's the proof that it's not an elaborate operation.

What convincing? Oswald could have been set up easily enough.

I know that Oswald did it by himself, because that’s what the evidence and facts show us.

Uh....no, he couldn't have. It’s really hard to set someone up for a crime as major as a presidential assasination, where every factor is gone over in exhaustive detail.

 

[Antiwar]

I know that Oswald did it by himself, because that’s what the evidence and facts show us.

You believe you know.

Uh....no, he couldn't have. It’s really hard to set someone up for a crime as major as a presidential assasination, where every factor is gone over in exhaustive detail.

Something that is "really hard" isn't impossible.

Why do you have the need to use absolute words?

 

[Tigerace117]

You believe you know.


Something that is "really hard" isn't impossible.

Why do you have the need to use absolute words?

No.....I know. And so does everyone else.

I hate to break it to you, but claiming something “isn’t impossible” isn’t actually proof that it happened.

 

[Antiwar]

No.....I know. And so does everyone else.

Wow, billions of people agree and know.

I hate to break it to you, but claiming something “isn’t impossible” isn’t actually proof that it happened.

You mixed up some sentences.

 

[Tigerace117]

Wow, billions of people agree and know.


You mixed up some sentences.

Gee bud, I don’t think that billions of people have an opinion on the Kennedy assassination, but the folks who aren’t conspiracy nuts know full well what happened.

Do you have an actual point, or are you just sniveling because your feelings are hurt again?

 

[Antiwar]

Gee bud, I don’t think that billions of people have an opinion on the Kennedy assassination, but the folks who aren’t conspiracy nuts know full well what happened.

Do you have an actual point, or are you just sniveling because your feelings are hurt again?

Your commentary is weak: absolute terms, contradictions, straw man arguments, you mix up clauses of sentences, hyperbole, hostility (for no reason), assigning emotions to text, false accusations, etc, etc.

I enjoy pointing this out because of your hostility.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your commentary is weak: absolute terms, straw man arguments, you mix up clauses of sentences, hyperbole, hostility (for no reason), assigning emotions to text, false accusations, etc, etc.

Yawn. I hate to break it to you bud but nobody cares that your feelings are hurt that I pointed out how laughable your favorite fairy tales are.

Go cry some more about the ISIS fighters whose rights you think were violated because they got killed before they could carry out their genocidal fantasies.

 

[Antiwar]

Yawn. I hate to break it to you bud but nobody cares that your feelings are hurt that I pointed out how laughable your favorite fairy tales are.

Go cry some more about the ISIS fighters whose rights you think were violated because they got killed before they could carry out their genocidal fantasies.

Your hostility also likely explains why you're a warmongering chickenhawk. Work on solving your hostility.

Or are you too young to be in the military?

 

[Tigerace117]

Your hostility also likely explains why you're a warmongering chickenhawk. Work on solving your hostility.

Only someone as laughably clueless as you are would describe defending our allies are “warmongering”. But hey, way to prove you have absolutely nothing to say about the thread and are just here because your feelings are hurt.

 

[Antiwar]

Only someone as laughably clueless as you are would describe defending our allies are “warmongering”. But hey, way to prove you have absolutely nothing to say about the thread and are just here because your feelings are hurt.

A stupid straw man argument sentence and a hostile hyperbole sentence.

 

[Tigerace117]

A stupid straw man argument sentence and a hostile hyperbole sentence.

And still nothing about the actual thread.....as usual from you.

You are aware that there’s an area on this website for you to snivel about how badly your feelings are hurt....right?

 

[Robertinfremont]

“A forensic historian and a forensic scientist present research and new findinigs on the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and offer theories that put rogue CIA agents behind the killings.

Table of Contents:

• Richard Helms, the strategist
• The sociopathy test
• James Angleton, the tactician
• Assassinations past
• Lee Harvey Oswald, an unwitting patsy
• November 22, 1963, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
• Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, an involuntary pawn
• June 5, 1968, the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy
• Conclusion.”

Table of Contents: CIA rogues and the killing of the Kennedys : :: Library Catalog Search

library.villanova.edu

Yes, I personally believe that is what happened. None of the assassins really made much sense. Brainwashing and threats and payoffs seem to underlay them. Plus, of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had to be killed quickly because they were afraid he would blab.
There was a right wing element of the CIA who thought that JFK, RFK, and MLK were leading the nation down the road of liberal perdition and because of that, they all had to be eliminated.
And it pretty much worked. Who knows how much better off the nation would be now if they had been able to implement their policies such as JFK pulling us out of Vietnam had he been re-elected and Bobby being able to bring blacks into the fold of the mainstream, given how much they loved him, and MLK being able to also bring blacks into the mainstream in a nonviolent manner.

JFK never promised us he would pull us out of Vietnam. This rewashing of actual history.

Oswald was proven to have killed Kennedy. I had just turned off TV for the night when Robert Kennedy whom I planned to vote for was killed by Sirhan.

At that time Race was not even an issue.