David S. Brownlee

Serious hooters

OK - we all know that the reasons for killing JFK were...............a bunch. JFK pissed off Generals by not getting into a nuclear war (that some thought we could win with only a few hundred thousand casulties) He also p!ssed off the Ex-Rich Cubans who previously controlled the island. He p!ssed off the Mob because they had it all set up in Cuba to run a wonderful gambling/prostitution/ownership deal He p!ssed off the sugar planters who were making big bucks off nearly slave labor. He also p!ssed off the military who wanted to kick butt in Vietnam. He also p!ssed off the Military Industrial Complex that wanted war so they could get nice paying jobs after they retired (for basically doing nothing other than making a few phone calls.....and of course the MIC wanted much more than that (see Howard Hughes and Bell). He also p!ssed off the mob who thought they would have a fairly free hand but his brother went after them. Then there were the niggers...southern folks hated him for being nice to the niggers (ex-slaves) and were afraid of them. Then there was the oil depreciation allowance that he was going to take away. Then he was a philanderer who acted like a playboy and didn't give any respect to his wife who was trying to raise his kids Lotsa reasons - but I would follow the money.

That's why I am interested in ole Arlen Specter. I think they are afraid of him. The current administration tried to get his opposition out of the race even though they know he is an old coot. Arlen has been taken care of in Penn for a long time by both the RNC and the DNC. Arlen might just be pretty smart and have a deathbed confession. Of course the press won't get anything from his dying words - but he may just have a setup. I wouldn't be surprised.

Yep - money...being a DJ myself I cannot argue with that....seeing as how it's right

Personally I think Bernice is right. The CIA was the primary (or semi-primary) organization that produced the kill (IMO) Obviously the mob was involved or they couldn't have gotten a mob guy to take out Oswald prior to any court proceedings. But let's be realistic here. Oswald was never a goof pushing for "fairness for Cuba". His job for the company was to pass out flyers with phone numbers to call and such and to heard up information on communist sympathizers. He was doing more of the "dirty work" like he did in Russia. He was helping to collect names of Communist sympathizers for the CIA. It's as plain as the nose on your face. I have no idea how deeply involved with the CIA Oswald was - but he was certainly involved. Was he a shooter? I dunno...I would tend to doubt it. It wouldn't make sense to make one of the shooters the scapegoat. I think Oswald was probably on the shooters' side but was exactly right when he said he was a "patsy". Patsy wasn't a word used by normal farming folks - even saying "patsy" kind of was a giveaway that a person was involved in a conspiracy. I seriously doubt that Oswald was innocent (even though he didn't kill Kennedy in the coup). As has been revealed, the kill shot was from the grassy knoll (closest spot) once the driver slowed the car for the execution. Of course this is the reason that Bobby Kennedy refused secret service protection, at least some SS were involved. That's why a professional football player (Rosie Greer) lead the way through that kitchen at the Ambassador. Then again RFK and his fellas didn't anticipate such an advanced plan. Having a psycho shooter out in front to mess em up while the real shooter (Thane Ceaser - local security guard who was previously employed by Lockheed Martin) got the best of them. Ceaser got in the contact wound behind the right ear that killed RFK. I saw a TV show on the History Channel about the Secret Service protecting Presidents and they actually had the gall to say "we lost one" but never again...I almost threw up.

I thank you very much for that Bernice. I have to be honest. I only know a bit about the politics of that time in the USA...but were it not for that bullet (from the grassy knoll) there was a decent chance that 50,000 of the 58,000 soldiers would have not been dead. And many thousands of Vietnamese who didn't care one way or the other. That is primarily why I still follow this...those 50,000 deserve an accountance.

The sad thing is...S.S. is and will always be in the hands of the "law". He is IMO untouchable...plus I would imagine he knows that any attempt at reaching beyond the bars (even if he mentally could) would result in a quick "passing away". His current age makes that even more plausible. I will admit that I have thought a few times about contacting S.S. in prison. My thought was to pretend to be an author, doing research for a book on persons who were previously under the death penalty but who were saved by the repeal by the Supreme Court ruling. My thought was to ask 30 inmates across the country who had been spared by that ruling and ask them what they felt about avoiding the gas chamber or electric chair via that ruling and how they have lived and possibly grown in prison all these years since they were not killed. Have they learned anything, are the extra years worth it behind bars? How does a person who expected to die cope with suddenly being able to live (albeit in a prison). Of course S.S. would just be one of 30..and my primary interest would have nothing to do with actually writing a book. I would send letters to the other 29 just to make it look good, and keep up correspondence...but my primary interest would be to establish a relationship with Sirhan Sirhan. I would not ask him specific questions about the RFK murder, but I would read his responses in detail. If I saw an opening I would (subtly) go for it....not a big question though, just a curious one (on his side). Let's face it - he ain't leaving incarceration alive...and he's the primary witness. Of course "no guts no glory"...and I am short of guts. ....besides, lord knows who reads these threads.

Sirhan-Sirhan is the last key in the entire Kennedy assassination plot. Of course the CIA and friends really got their heads after the JFK success and realized they could get away with in-country assassinations. They were all that. They were getting very good at whacking potential JFK talkers. Then RFK came around - a potential killer of them all. If RFK became President he would bring in all his own boys and flush them all - that is - until he put them in jail for life. He would have nailed all of their arses to the wall when he re-opened the JFK assassination probe (with his people). So, of course, they killed him. Makes sense...kill him before he can kill you. Anybody who thinks the JFK assassination was a few folks is'nt paying much attention.l The JFK assassination was a very LARGE conspiracy. The RFK assassination was a very LARGE conspiracy as well. CIA (obviously) and law enforcement. CIA were the big factors in the RFK killing though. They had to set up the patsy and not kill him again - too obvious. The man is still alive. Still saying the same old stuff....or maybe not saying anything.

This only borderline applies to the JFK hit - kind of in reverse. There was no assassin to interview after the JFK hit thanks to Ruby...and Ruby never left Dallas alive. On the other hand the propsed assassin of RFK is still alive and has been for some time. In these following years I have seen many articles and TV shows about killers/assassins but I wonder? We all know that the FBI loves to profile high visibilty crimes...serial killers and bigime assassins and the like. One could only expect that the FBI would profile Sirhan Sirhan. They would question him in detail and knowing that he is susceptible to hypnosis, they would put him through a regimen of hypnosis - they would want to learn EVERYTHING. Of course they would do that to figure out why a fellow like him would write "RFK must Die" over and over. Primarily they would want to see - if he really was a sincere Palestinian sympathyzer - would others do the same against our top politicians. On the other hand, if Sirhan Sirhan has not been profiled by the FBI - I would have to wonder why? I really don't know the answer. It has probably discussed before. I just wondered how much effort has gone into Sirhan and his motive(s).That would be a serious case study for protecting future high profile candidates. If nothing like that has been done I would really wonder why.

Thanks to all for the advice - and to Will-K I apologize if I was a bit terse. I can read a page 10 times and still miss stuff

My (book) copy doesn't say that. 365 says nothing about a call to N.C....it mostly refers to Lee's handling after capture. His hope for the NY attorney and then for an ACLU Lawyer. It may be different since mine is pretty new. Things change over different publishings I suppose. I read page 365 twice and saw no mention of NC phone calls. I'm not sure what you mean....are you trying to catch me in something? Maybe you can - all I know is what I read from an honestly bought book. Page #365 starts out as "4:30 P.M., the Deputy Sheriff looked through the open door at the prisoner". It finishes with "At 10:45PM Mrs. Sweeney took a call from the jail".....................

Thanks B. I'll order it and read it first...sounds like exactly what I am looking for.

I like to post on a sports board and we have a section of that board called "the Lounge"...a place where we talk about different stuff..hottest new Hollywood tart..politics...and JFK. A friend of mine posted "get the motive and you solve the crime". (note - this was a crime - murder). So I thought about it a bit - he was right - what was the motive? Problem is - there are multiple possible motives in this case; ++++++++++++++++++++ LBJ - hated the Kennedys (but it's unlikely he could do it on his own). Texas Oil men (in collusion with LBJ or not) - due to the oil tax rules. LBJ/Texas oil men and the Birchers - combination of the oil thing and JFK's racial stance. Racial hatred - JFK was a "Ni__ger lover... the south hated him. The Cuba deal - JFK didn't go "whole hog" on a potentially world destroying fight against the bad guys. The Cuba deal - even though JFK wanted to get Castro, he had a different agenda. JFK wanted a voting Democracy in Cuba instead of Communism. The mafia saw Communism and Democracy as equally bad things. Democracy/Communism both allow the will of the people. They wanted a Dictator who (when properly bribed) would give them a free hand in Cuba. JFK was a Catholic (something I thought/and still think) was inconsequential - yet people in Brittian and N. Ireland kill each other over. Many folks in the USA were afraid that our President was getting orders from the Vatican. The Vietnam war - Kennedy was against escalation...the MIC was for escalation. The Mafia - JFK had been elected due to some mafia help - yet he wasn't helping on Cuba the way they wanted and his brother (AG) was going after them. ...........perfect storm (and I am missing some stuff) I have always tossed the "lone nut" theory as silly. I did think the local (Texas)l theory was plausible...local Dallas Birchers...but with a previous attempt in Chicago that lays that theory to waste. This was a nationwide (taxpayer funded) hit. JMHO.

I was talkng to my daughter tonight and asked her about how she is getting through her senior year at college. She is an English/Languages major. I always give her a pep talk about doing her best and getting her degree (even though she is an A/B student and that shouldn't be a problem). She studies the classics and other literature far beyond what I ever did. She mentioned that with her course weight she felt bad that she didn't have the time to really digest some writings and was only scanning for the sake of making a grade sometimes. She also mentioned that one of the books was "Libra" and that she was very interested in it. I almost fell out of my chair. We had a nice conversation about the JFK assassination, but I didn't want to go to far and wear her out. I was very pleased that she is interested in the autumn of 1963, yet I didn't want to come across as an expert. Granted, I'm no real expert compared to the knowledge of the folks on this board...but (thanks to reading here) I would be in the top 98% of human beings on the planet on this subject. I'm currently reading "JFK...the Unspeakable", and am tempted to send her my copy after she graduates. Still, it is a long book that tends to repeat points and go off on tangeants. Young folks nowadays like to cut to the chase. They need a primer that is concise and to the point(s). What do you -all think?

Well there was word of a dog...just saying.

He had to figure what Dave? That he was being set up as the Patsy? When did he realize that? BK Exactly...(depending on how deeply he was involved - or not at all)..."when did he realize that" is the question. It's difficult to believe that LHO was a true patsy - what with all his Mil/Intel connections...but at what time did he realize he was being double crossed?

I have no solid evidence...therefore I won't start a thread. The dozens of eye witnesses who saw a "missile-type-thing" going up into the sky and exploding the airplane is just what i have read. ++++++++++++++++++++ The Very Odd Behavior Of The Navy. Unique to this crash was the intense participation of the Navy, which immediately dispatched its best deep salvage vessels to the area, and kicked out the New York Police Department divers, who had legal jurisdiction in the area. While the beaches of Long Island were swept by soldiers in humvees, the Navy bottom-searched an area of the Atlantic half the size of Rhode Island. Most unusually, the Navy searched out 20 miles to either side of the known debris field, even though the 747 could not have glided that distance from its altitude of 13,700 MSL even if left intact. The Navy justified this extensive search by claiming that they could not locate the aircraft flight recorders, the "black boxes", even though numerous private boat owners reported hearing the locator pings on their sonar and fish finders. When the black boxes finally appeared, it was reported that they had been found directly under the Navy's deep salvage vessel. ++++++++ of course Rhode Island ( and Providence Plantations ) is not very big

It must have been a wild time in LHO's brain...he wasn't a stupid man...he had to be figuring it all on the fly.

We always call it the NT-CUB (National Transportation Cover Up Board).... Ooops...a fly went into the captain's coffee....and a..what? Flight 800 blew up over Long Island? Well you know those Boeing 747s...they are always blowing up.

Posner is a company man. By that I don't mean CIA especially...I grew up in a unionized coal community...everybody knew about "company men"...kinda like scabs.

IMO Dealey Plaza was a perfect setup - the perfect storm. They had it all set up. Everybody knew that an assassin could take out a president (or anybody) with one shot from a sniper/hunting gun. Telescopic scopes - dialed in ahead of time - piece of cake. Truth is (and I think this was discussed in the after action/lessons learned meeting)....they were VERY close to total failure. Had JFK gone for the seat instead of keeping his head up high while wondering about his breathing problems - they would have FAILED. They couldn't have just shot through the car and hoped. Besides, an honest SS man was already almost on the car and he was armed. Maybe Greer or Kellerman could have killed him and maybe not. It would have been a gunfight that I doubt the driver would have been of much help. The driver was a "snicker-snicker" kind of guy - I doubt if he could shoot it out with JFKs man. Actually I think this is why the CIA went away from that kind of killing when it came to RFK. They then understood that contact wounds (sure things) - behind the ear were more effective. You see a .22 isn't always deadly in the frontal portion of the brain...but behind the ear with a contact wound does the deal (no missing)...the CIA took the Mob's advice. You see, as we all know, the brain stem controls all motors in the body - once the brain stem is killed (or brain parts around it)...a person dies. watch your back....................... A quick quote from the Salina (Kansas) Journal about the RFK assassination: (quote June 6, 1968 Note: I have the Salina Journal from that day - I would put it online but I'm not very good at scanning (all help appreciated). You wouldn't believe the picture. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Barbarians" Russians Shout...when they here of the murder of Robert F. Kennedy "What a frightening country" Muscovites exclaimed..."All you Americans can do is shoot one another" "Muscovites approached in the streets and parks (yes they have parks) expressed a belief that the shooting of Senator Robert F. Kennedy was another development of a broad right wing political conspiracy that...in their view..was behind the assassination of president Kennedy in 1963. "Someone does not want Senator Kennedy to carry on the policies of his brother" said a 40 year old man from Leningrad strolling in the square with friends. ""President Kennedy was admired in the Soviet Union...particularly in the last months of his life following his American university speech in the summer of 1963 urging friendly relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Many Russians cried when they learned of his murder."

Well John lets think about this a minute..honestly..did they want to kill at all cost? Meaning, take a chance on shooting Jacqueline too? Honestly I cannot answer that question. Any shot from the records Bldg would have a more dangerous angle .

This is kind of a reply to a previous post - but I thought it might generate some agrees/notes of interest - not solving anything of course. I grew up in the Midwest of the USA (Southern Illinois)..a rural area with small towns. I remember I was about kindergarten age when I sat playing with some toys while Mom ironed our Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes in front of our black and white TV. I think I was playing with a toy truck and some smaller cars - I remember that because (at that snapshot in time) the cars were too small for the truck. My Mom, a Democrat (all of our people were) exclaimed "Oh my God". They were all good Baptists so Mom might not have said "God"...but words to that effect. President John F. Kennedy had been shot in Dallas and Walter Cronkite was telling us about it. I had watched Walter Cronkite before (waiting on the good shows) so I knew he was an authority figure - kind of like my Dad (Dad always followed the evening news). Mom was flabbergasted...crying. I had no clue what to do, nor could I do anything - I was newly 5 years old. We got through the day watching the releases. We did have a telephone and I think Mom was able to talk to Dad. Dad came home and of course and he and Mom did some talking beyond my ears. Dad was the president of the union of machinists at the factory he worked for - and second in command for the district. I didn't know it at the time of course - I was playing with toys. I grew up in Williamson County Illinois, a place I later found out was a hotbed of union vs owner violence (do a quick google search on "bloody williamson"or "Herrin Massacre"- wiki will tell you all you need to know). Anyways, as I said - I was only 5 at the time....I've learned some since then.

I realize this post doesn't add anything factual to the discussion...just conjecture...but It sounds to me like their is a pretty logical reason for Powell to be at both Love field and then at DP. If there had been failed previous attempt(s) at a setup (or even if not actually), an observer would be needed at the motorcade starting point to report back that things were going according to plan. Obviously they couldn't just set up shop in DP and hope that the motorcade came through in a certain order/with the right driver/etc. They probably had spotters along the route as well. If Powell were actually at Love to take pictures, wouldn't he have a camera setup with long range zoom to get the good shots? On the other hand, any camera helps a person fit in with the crowd. Once the motorcade was successfully underway - Powell would know he could beat it to DP and be there to verify the end-game. He may not have even been directly involved in the plan - other spotters may have been there for the operational part. He may have been there to report back to his boss (and then up the chain). He would have had plenty of time to stop along the way at a phone booth to call in to his boss that things looked to be going as planned from the airport, get to DP, verify the shooting took place, and call in the results. He probably wasn't 100% sure of the final success (target was terminated) though. Just my humble guess.

I’ve posted parts of this before in responses, but I thought I would add this to be more thorough. First some background: I lived in Denver some years back where my wife has many relatives. Most of the guys were into hunting and I was invited to participate. I had never hunted in the mountains before. I got to be good friends with my Uncle-in-law who had been paralyzed in an accident, but who had been a very avid and notoriously successful Elk/Deer hunter in his day. He kind of took me under his wing and loaned me his rifle so I didn’t have to buy one right off the bat. It was a 1954 model .270 Winchester with a fixed 4-power Weaver scope. It was an older gun but in great condition and shot just as good as new. I liked to talk to Uncle Chuck and he liked to tell old hunting stories. I figured by listening I could pick up some good tidbits of information that could be useful in the field. He told me that the .270 he was loaning me had a very high muzzle velocity (nearly 3000 fps) and was a very flat shooting gun. Chuck said that he always dialed the rifle scope in at 2 inches high at 100 yards. That would mean it would drop to 2 inches low at 200 yards, and he never shot over 200 yards. He said everybody loved to talk about the 400 to 500 yard shots but they really weren’t realistic (due to other factors like wind), and he didn’t want to wound an animal and have to traipse around the mountains all day following a 5 mile blood trail. I figured it best to take his advice. Another thing he told me was “it doesn’t seem to make sense (counter-intuitive), but most people tend to miss low when shooting downhill and miss high when shooting uphill”. He said the best thing to do was to shoot the same on uphill or downhill shots as I would on level ground (that’s what he always did). Apparently most people naturally think (and I even had an experienced hunter tell me this) that when shooting steeply downhill, the bullet is already going downhill so it will not drop like a level shot. This isn’t the case. If you think about it, the only shot you can make where the bullet won’t drop in relation to where you are aiming would be if you were on the edge of a cliff and shooting straight down. Downhill shots might not drop (due to gravity) quite as much as a level shot…but the bullet will still drop. So thinking about this in relation to the JFK assassination, the first shot at Dealey Plaza actually makes perfect sense. First of all, if the shooter was indeed shooting the Manlicher Carcano (or something similar), that type of gun only has about a 2000 fps muzzle velocity (semi-high powered). Therefore the bullet will drop faster due to gravity that uncle Chuck’s .270. Secondly, the shooter in the TSB (whoever it was) was probably a very expert marksman – but was used to level shots. I've never found a shooting range that has steep elevation changes. So, the shooter could have actually made the perfect shot (or so he thought), but he didn’t count on the bullet still dropping on a downhill shot. Add to that the fact that the Limo was making a very slow sweeping turn to the left at that point and one would expect the shot to miss a few inches low and an inch or so to the right….which is exactly what happened. Taking all this into consideration, I think the assassination team truly expected this to be a one shot kill. The grassy knoll shooter was a “fail-safe”. The umbrella man was there to signal to the knoll shooter whether it was going to be necessary for him to shoot or not. The driver was likely in on it too. Once all realized that the TSBD shot was not fatal, the car crept into the knoll shooter’s kill zone and a final shot had to be taken to finish the job. Having a backup shooter on the grassy knoll also explains why the TSBD shooter didn’t take the shot when the Limo was coming straight at him. Just my humble opinion...it does nothing to help establish motive or identify a killer...but it does seem to fit the known physical facts of the actual shoot.