View Single Post
Old 21st August 2015, 02:18 PM   #25
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
It was just a "coincidence" that Ruby was connecting with Marcello's boys immediately before and after the assassination, just like it was a "coincidence" that he was rubbing elbows with Jim Braden the night before, and with a guy in Chicago who called by David Ferrie.

If this were any other crime in history, we would be laughing at the concept that all this was a coincidence.
And yet there is no proof. Thousands of hours of FBI wire-taps, hundreds of mafioso who turned state's evidence, and nobody is on the record.

Traffcante denied having anything to do with the assassination in front of the HSCA.

Giancana never admitted anything.

Ralph Salerno is a good resource for Mafia history, and this is what he said on this matter:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131460

Highlight:

Quote:
ABCNEWS: What about the idea that the Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana was behind the Kennedy assassination. What do the surveillance tapes of Giancana suggest about this theory?

Salerno: The FBI had very extensive coverage on the leaders of organized crime in Chicago, with Sam Giancana and others. They tape recorded him in the Armory Lounge, which he sort of made his own personal headquarters. Sam Giancana doesn't show any foreknowledge at all. After the fact, in a discussion, he's talking with one of his accomplices about Oswald, and they said "What kind of guy was he?" And Sam says "I don't know what kind of guy he was, but he was a pretty good marksman." Now that doesn't sound like the comment of a man who had retained the man he was surprised to find was such a good marksman.
The big problem with your thesis is the same on all JFK CTs have:

You haven't effectively removed Oswald from the picture, in fact you largely ignore him. It was his gun, two of his three bullets that made the kill. Oswald's actions before the shooting, such as stalking the area around the plaza for a better shooting angle, and then his actions after the killing (running, shooting Tippet, and almost killing a second cop during his arrest) should be enough to put this subject to rest.

Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963, nor have you been able to suggest a specific weapon that could have been silenced and still did the damage to the President and the Governor. I am familiar with MACV SOG's small arsenal of silenced weapons, and although they were used a few years later most were of WWII vintage. This suggests that silencer technology was limited to weapon type and short range. Since MACV SOG worked with the CIA they would have had access to the latest and greatest (and did have some amazing stuff), yet their silencers were 20 year-old tech.

So while you're arguing non-existent sound evidence you compound the problem with a weapon feature that would have been problematic in 1963.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top