JFK assassination a Cuba lot

January 4, 2006 10:30 PM

JFK assassination 'was Cuba plot' says a new German documentary Rendezvous with death: Kennedy and Castro (Google translation). New facts have come to light.
posted by stbalbach (39 comments total)

That would explain the hard-on the U.S. has for the peaceful island nation of Cuba. This will be interesting to follow, thanks.
posted by iamck at 10:40 PM on January 4, 2006

Popcorn anyone?
posted by tula at 10:47 PM on January 4, 2006

New shit has come to light

Sure, man, look at it, a young trophy wife, in the parlance of our times, you know, she owes money all over town including to known pornographers ... and that's cool ...
posted by redteam at 10:50 PM on January 4, 2006

Note to self: Self, don't send exploding cigars to Fidel. He apparently reacts badly.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:53 PM on January 4, 2006

All right, I'm sick of tliving this lie of a life. I did it. I killed him. And do you want to know why?

I was jealous of his beauty.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:56 PM on January 4, 2006

It has been my dream to write a broadway musical comedy entitled: Killing Castro.

It'll have everything! Bumbling CIA agents, gorgeous cuban ladies, bearded cigar smoking impersonators killed with reckless abandon... But this, this finally gives me the ending I need!
posted by Freen at 11:11 PM on January 4, 2006

Well, I guess I wasn't privy to all this new shit.
posted by sellout at 11:29 PM on January 4, 2006

I love automatic translation (this one from Google):

Only few trusted friends John F. Kennedys and Lyndon B. Johnsons, who the secret details of the duel, live. Succeeded bringing they to speaking.
. . .
The actual search break-through however is the fact that three former officers of the Cuban secret service G-2 abandon their Insiderwissen over Lee Harvey Oswald: As he was recruited, of whom and why.

Now we know what Yoda's been doing since Lucas pink-slipped him.
posted by rob511 at 11:32 PM on January 4, 2006

Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst was the gunman on the grassy knoll. Jim Garrison knew it, Oliver Stone knew it, and now you know it.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 11:42 PM on January 4, 2006

And where does Seigenthaler fit in all of this?
posted by Goblindegook at 11:48 PM on January 4, 2006

So they recruited Oswald and then infiltrated the local Secret Service office in order to get the motorcade route to go right in front of his workplace? I don't get it.
posted by gubo at 11:59 PM on January 4, 2006

According to Oscar Marino, the Cubans wanted Kennedy dead because he opposed the revolution and allegedly sought to have its leader Fidel Castro killed.

Turn about is fair play, eh? It's a lesson the USA as a nation could really stand to learn.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:17 AM on January 5, 2006

This theory is very similar to the late Jack Anderson's.
Anderson interviewed Johnny Roselli just before he was murdered. On 7th September, 1976, Anderson reported Roselli as saying : "When Oswald was picked up, the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive U.S. crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald."

In 1989 Anderson received information from Joseph Shimon, that he had been at meetings with Sam Giancana and Santo Trafficante where they discussed plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. All these plots failed and Shimon became convinced that Trafficante was working for Castro
posted by hortense at 12:31 AM on January 5, 2006

Knowing what a small-time, bumbling, self-promoting pretender Oswald was, and the way the Cuban embassy in Mexico treated him when he tried to apply for a visa, it is just beyond ridiculous that the Cuban government suddenly decided that this was their man and they were going to invest all their hopes and risk their sovereignty in some bumbling wannabe who they hadn't even heard of just weeks before. Oswald is ROFL in his grave at how much credibility he has been given since he shot Kennedy. It's all he ever strived for his whole life - to be taken seriously.

Did Johnson secretly think Cuba or Russia may have been involved? Quite possibly. Did he want to keep this quiet? Again quite possibly. But irrelevant.

Give the FBI and CIA some credit. The relevant people were interrogated to death about these sorts of issues and it's all on record.
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:39 AM on January 5, 2006

Shouldn't that be RSFUL in his grave?
posted by papakwanz at 12:46 AM on January 5, 2006

First we found out who Anastasia was (or rather wasn't), then we discovered the identity of Deep Throat, and now this. Ah, the satisfaction is excruciating!

Now who killed Marilyn...
posted by sacrilicious at 1:42 AM on January 5, 2006

I guess the movie JFK has forever trashed any pretense at objectivity for me, but I'm having a terrible time seeing LHO as anything other than strategic misdirection. Calling him a "Marine sharpshooter" is a nice bit of unthinking press hyperbole, since it's been alleged elsewhere that his proficiency with a rifle in boot camp was only marginally acceptable and he wasn't further trained as an infantryman. The supposed murder weapon, the notorious Mannlicher-Carcano, has been said to be a piece of junk as rifles go.

This strikes me as another entertaining rabbit hole to go down, but I don't feel like it's any kind of breakthrough.
posted by alumshubby at 2:57 AM on January 5, 2006

Back and to the left.
posted by sacrilicious at 3:42 AM on January 5, 2006

Cuba Gooding killed JFK?
posted by psmealey at 4:07 AM on January 5, 2006

stabilized zapruder film
posted by mr.marx at 4:14 AM on January 5, 2006

The shots were taken at ranges below 300 feet with a scoped rifle. The target was moving, but slowly and parallel to the line of fire. In other words, relatively easy shots, even for someone with, for the sake of argument, just basic shooting skills and a sub-par rifle.
posted by fred_ashmore at 4:27 AM on January 5, 2006

For the sake of argument, indeed: Have you done much rifle shooting? At moving targets, even slowly moving ones? I've been able to get on paper at 800 yards with iron sights a few times. Even so, I've found shooting at immobile paper at 300 yards on a calm day to be reasonably challenging with a good rifle.

It's been a long time since I cared enough to stay current with the details of what was known vs. theorized, but I do remember walking around Dealey Plaza, visiting the museum, and concluding that the geometry of the site and the Zapruder film appeared to argue pretty powerfully against the likelihood of LHO being the assassin.
posted by alumshubby at 4:53 AM on January 5, 2006

Wow, mr.marx, that's quite a job they did on that film. I hadn't seen that before.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:10 AM on January 5, 2006

I've done about as much shooting as Lee Harvey Oswald had done in the military, I suppose. Shooting at immobile head sized targets popping up for a couple of seconds at 150 meters (165 yds) with iron (diopter) sights and similar but larger popping up targets at 300 m (330yds). The longer distance is a lot harder, but at 150 meters even I could hit the target fairly consistently. I've only really shot at moving targets with paintball and airsoft guns, of course even an airsoft gun can be used to shoot at a target as close as JFK was to the supposed firing place, so I suppose those experiences are not that much off. It's not really that much harder to hit someone who is moving directly away from you than it is to hit a stationary target.

I've been able to get on paper at 800 yards with iron sights a few times. Even so, I've found shooting at immobile paper at 300 yards on a calm day to be reasonably challenging with a good rifle.

The (alleged) shots we're talking about were taken at ranges of 180-280 feet. 300 yards might be reasonably difficult, but it's also 3 to 5 times the distance. At those ranges, wind doesn't come into it either.

I haven't really studied the zapruder film but as far as I can tell it shows a shot to the head from behind. Granted, I can only compare it to photography of shots taken at inanimate objects, but as far as I can tell it's consistent with that.
posted by fred_ashmore at 7:16 AM on January 5, 2006

I just don't know about that infamous "back and to the left" head shot. I've seen it asserted that JFK's body is moving in response to a neuromuscular spasm rather than the impact of the round hitting him. I always thought the bullet comes from right-to-left (Kennedy's front), but I can see where somebody can draw the opposite conclusion.

Here's my favorite wacky theory: South Vietnamese agents zapped Kennedy in retaliation for the Ngo Dinh Diem coup.
posted by alumshubby at 7:32 AM on January 5, 2006

A rifle round does not have enough momentum to move a person like Kennedy moves backwards. Simultaneously with the blood spatter forwards you can see a his head jerk forward a little bit. That's about how much momentum a rifle bullet has.
posted by fred_ashmore at 7:43 AM on January 5, 2006

Anyways, I do find it credible that there is something more behind the assassination, but as far as I can tell, it's fairly obvious that Oswald was the one firing the actual shots.
posted by fred_ashmore at 7:44 AM on January 5, 2006

All this talk about what sort of shooter LHO was, the range, etc. Once in a while a novice golfer gets a hole in one. If the 1000-sided dice didn't land on "bingo" that day "Who was Oswald?" would earn less money than "Who was Fromme?" in a "Failed assassination attempts" Jeopardy category and there would be no talk at all about some joint mafia/Cuban/Hollywood/Sinatra/ Kang and Kodos/Jim Henson plot to kill Kennedy.

Oswald got lucky and killed JFK by himself, there are human footprints on the moon, Walt's head is not in a freezer, etc.

Though I must say, conspiracy theorists sure are entertaining for those of us who know everything.
posted by bondcliff at 8:33 AM on January 5, 2006

Hmm..this goes against everything I've read. The "conventional" wisdom that it was some conglomeration of "rouge" CIA operatives, the Mafia and some anti-Castro Cubans (angry about the Bay of Pigs). I don't see anything here that has any more credibility than previous sources, however if Trafficante was actually in bed with Castro as well as the mob it might not be altering the previous "facts" by much.
posted by doctor_negative at 8:40 AM on January 5, 2006

Cuba has been a ter'rist nation since it's Commie Rev'lushun and Castro is a dictater that must be removed to ensure the safety of Amer'kans around the world. We have a new member to the Axis of Evil! The Germans have proved it!
posted by Revvy at 9:24 AM on January 5, 2006

Freen: You do realize I'll have to steal that idea, right?
posted by brundlefly at 9:45 AM on January 5, 2006

Here is the Warren Commission report extract of the interview with the Cuban consulate official in Mexico who dealt with Oswald when he tried to obtain a visa.

It's clear they didn't take him seriously and had never heard of him before.

Oswald was a desparate wannabe who is so easy to build conspiracy theories around - because he spent his life talking to a range of contrarian characters trying to be accepted but never was. The assassination was the final attempt at being taken seriously.
posted by DirtyCreature at 10:20 AM on January 5, 2006

I could have made that shot if the timing commonly attibuted to the Zapruder film is wrong (there’s some debate). That said if I was going to assassinate the President (that’s a really BIG BIG ‘IF’ to all our secret service readers) I wouldn’t use only one mechanic.
Of course, John Wilkes Booth pulled off his part of the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, so given the right opportunity...

But I think focusing on the bits and pieces one at a time is misleading. Taken in the aggregate - that is all the events and bits combined (losing Kennedy’s brain comes to mind) adds up to make it look like something very fishy was going on.

I always wondered why Jackie wound up with Onassis and not that other guy (brain is not on today). Why the Kennedy family didn’t get more involved and high profile in the assassination hearings. Lots of unsolved threads there.

I tend to look at who benefited from the killing and work backward. If it’s the butler that’s named in the will - as cliché as it is - the butler probably did it.
‘Course Oswald seems to have gotten the infamy he wanted.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:29 AM on January 5, 2006

Finally! Proof that Oswald was simply there filming while Zapruder fired the fatal shots!!!
posted by squalor at 2:25 PM on January 5, 2006

Without any sound you might make the easy mistake of thinking that Oswald could have actually made the shots. The fact of the matter is, two of the three agreed upon shots were almost on top of each other; there's no way he could have manually reloaded a bolt-action rifle and aimed in the tiny sliver of time he had.

The other (larger) problem is that many, many eyewitnesses reported four shots. Then there's the "magic bullet" that supposedly went through three different parts of Kennedy, then into the Texas Gov., only to be "found" later on a gurney carrying Connolley--just sitting right there on the gurney (it must have done falled out!) in pristine condition.

I don't think so.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:57 PM on January 5, 2006

Well, I do find a Cuba-Russia alliance more credible than a Cuba-mob-CIA alliance, for what that's worth. Occam's Razor and all. I also find it highly credible that regardless of other intent, the KGB would have been curious about LHO's activities on his return to the US.

I put considerably less reliance on "eyewitness" testimony such as the number of shots, as well, knowing what we know today about the reliability and malleability of witness memory. I've done a fair number of crime reports in my neighborhood, and I've experienced people being shot at about 100 feet away from me, and the amount of detail that I could remember was astonishingly low. Two shots? Three shots? I wasn't sure 90 seconds later. Adrenaline is good for getting you to seek cover, but you really have to train yourself to remember visual and auditory details. As many 911 calls as I've made I'm still getting basic stuff vague.

Ultimately, it seems to me that it's empirically impossible to prove that Oswald could not have done it, except perhaps if new photographic evidence should emerge, or he were somehow proven to have been elsewhere. Proving a negative and all that. I've seen many arguments that the facts as we know them are not explained by the long-gunman theory, but I've seen few arguments that successfully offer plausible counter-explanations.

That would explain the hard-on the U.S. has for the peaceful island nation of Cuba.

Well, that was in place well before the assassination. The web of American interests in Cuba, and Cuban interests in America, dates back to the 19th century. Cuban independence from Spain was the major object of the Spanish-American War, and the Platt Amendment explicitly guaranteed a US military interest in Cuba from that date. Until the Castro revolution, Cuba was effectively a US protectorate, just outside the legal definition of a colony.

But the political nature of US policy toward Cuba owes much not to specific history but to the influence of the Cuban-American lobby, which is -- perhaps understandably -- virulently anti-Communist.
posted by dhartung at 6:41 PM on January 5, 2006

C_D: indeed. look at the driver. he just got an urge to turn 360 the moment before the shot?
posted by mr.marx at 9:21 PM on January 5, 2006

Well, having only seen that video and read some internet pages, it still seems fairly obvious to me what happens. 10 seconds in to the stabilized video as Kennedy is correcting his tie or whatever, you can see how Connallly who has been watching backwards turning into a no particular position. Exactly simultaneously, Jackie starts to move closer to JFK as if to check out what is wrong. The people in the front seat who were already starting to turn forwards took a little longer to realize that something has happened and only then turn backwards to look what has happened, yes right before the third shot, but also right after the second one. 12 seconds into the stabilized film you can then see the headshot jerking Kennedy's head forwards for one frame. There is enough time between these two shots for a reloading maneuver of a bolt-action rifle.

But I'm sure I won't convince anyone of anything.
posted by fred_ashmore at 1:07 AM on January 6, 2006

Kennedy is correcting his tie or whatever

Where "or whatever" == "clawing at his throat because a bullet just went through it."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:34 AM on January 6, 2006