Superfreaks/ACRA: Superfreaks Season 3 #1
phippsmartin at hotmail.com
Sat Oct 6 21:55:51 PDT 2007
On Oct 7, 12:12 pm, Tom Russell <milos_par... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> While many were dissatified with him, none of them would have
> killed him for it. The accusations against the CIA and FBI are
> ridiculous on their face-- not only would SOMEONE credible have come
> forward after all this time, but those two bodies would not benefit
> from killing their boss and causing upheaval and uncertainty.
> While Russia and the U.S. were not exactly friends, both Kennedy and
> Kruschev were respectful of one another and did not see the benefit to
> killing the other, which would surely spawn a nuclear war. Both men
> were committed to peace, so much so that Kennedy was percieved as
> being "soft" on communism. While it wasn't exactly Kissinger's
> detente, it was closer to that than 1950s cold war animosity.
I'm not convinced that Oswald was a communist in 1963. He could have
been in league with militant anti-Castro people who could have been
disgruntled with Kennedy for not invading Cuba after the Bay of Pigs
Incident in 1961 or the Cuban Missle Crisis in 1962. Yes, I do
realize that was the theory put forward by the movie JFK.
> What I suggest is that you order a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's
> excellent book RECLAIMING HISTORY, and that you read it, cover-to-
> cover. If you still have any questions after that, or any evidence
> against Oswald acting alone, then say as much at that time. But I
> think the book expertly answers all questions and erradicates the
> notion of conspiracy once and for all.
I see no harm in scepticism and I am willing to be swayed by
evidence. I note that the movie JFK claimed that Oswald was no expert
marksman but, according to Oswald's wikipedia entry, in December of
1956 he was tested for the marine corps and qualified as a
sharpshooter. So he was qualified, at least, to have been the
shooter. That doesn't mean he acted alone, however.
More information about the racc