Jump to content
The Education Forum

Castro Figured out the JFK Case in 5 Days


Recommended Posts

This speech is even better than the one he gave on the 23rd.

And it shows that in those days after the assassination, the subject was clearly preoccupying him.

I don't think any of this was reported in the MSM. Probably because it was too sensible. Quite trenchant if you ask me.

http://www.ctka.net/2016/castro-speech/fidel-castro-november-27-1963-speech.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

James,

Thanks so much for this speech, 11-27-63, brief by Fidel standards. I had never seen it before. IMO, the best line in it is, "In fact, he [Jack Ruby] killed a dead man." For LHO surely would have been executed if found guilty in court. In all the millions of words I've read on the subject, I don't believe I've seen that idea, that thought, expressed so simply. Just one aspect of the preposterousness of the whole case.

Castro also lays out the absurdity of Oswald as fanatic, since he didn't take credit as every other fanatical assassin has through history. And the sheer impossibility of the alleged murder weapon, from beginning to end, is beyond belief; as if someone were trying to demonstrate the worst possible rifle for the alleged purpose. And finally, the absurdity of someone who DID plan to escape using his place of employment for the sniper perch?!?! That is; if he were a lone nut or a lone anything. Someone hoping to get away after such a crime would either 1) use somewhere else than where he works, or 2) have some kind of ruse and fairly elaborate help escaping if he did use his workplace.

JFK Facts had a good topic a while ago (wish I could find it easily) about Castro's 11-23 speech. A real stemwinder. I believe it took him four hours to get it all out. That also was VERY prescient, considering what we have found out since. Especially amazing was that Fidel focused on the preposterousness of LHO running a Fair Play for Cuba branch (one member each, LHO!) in both New Orleans and Dallas. The two most improbable cities on Earth for such a club. I can imagine the Cubans saying, "Those Yanquis have an inordinate capacity for swallowing nonsensical waste. The national religion and past-time must be coprophagia."

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting this here so when visitors arrive, they can have the 11-23-63 speech available:

Castro speech 11-23-63

The funny thing is in today's 24/7 media grind, you have talking head "analysts" spewing nonsense about anything and everything. Back then, you had so-called "respected" reporters like Cronkite, Rather, Brinkley, and so on. But what's amazing to me is no one - not a one of them - had it in them to ask these probing, analytical questions in the aftermath and beyond, and on the air to boot. So it took a communist dictator and a small-time lawyer like Mark Lane to figure it out and do the media's work for them.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, how about this one?

If Oswald is supposed to be a sharpshooter-- Stephen King has him actually saying that word as he aims at Kennedy in his stupid mini series--why would he choose a manual bolt action rifle in that situation?

I agree Mike, not only was the American pundit class completely gulled, but did anyone or any network, or media pick up Castro's two speeches?

I am pretty sure they were available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add this also, in addition to his reaction with Jean Daniel, so beautifully captured in his New Republic article, then his speech on the 23rd, and now this one on the 27th, Castro was really not just very acute about what was going to happen, he was very preoccupied with HOW it happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikita K. picked up on the truth right away as well. I believe it was Jack Anderson who tried to convince him that it was a left-wing conspiracy and NK told him 'No, it was the right-wing.' Anderson reported this as soon as he returned to the US.

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read this, the better it gets. Considering he made it on the 27th, its really a remarkably sagacious analysis.

Consider the main points:

the use of a manual bolt action telescopic sighted rifle for a sniper's rifle, which is hard to reaim after firing

You use that kind of rifle for a single shot at a stationary target, not multiple shots at a moving target

the cheapness of the rifle and the sight

firing from the very place you work at

the idea that Oswald was a communist fanatic but did not claim credit for the murder

Jack Ruby's silly excuse about killing Oswald in order to spare Jackie's feelings

How Ruby, with his background, was out of a cheap pulp magazine story

Why would Ruby be sent in if the case against Oswald was solid?

And what can you say about his comments on Mexico City? Except that even four years later when all the books were coming out, no one was even close to being this insightful about that episode. If the speech had been circulated, those books would have been much better. He saw right through that whole dog and pony show. What real communist behaves like Oswald did at the Cuban embassy? And how did the DFS know to arrest Duran? (Castro did not know about Phillips back then. No one did.)

Really, considering this is just five days later? Lane would take about two more weeks for his piece.

A tour de force

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just putting this here:




This reenactment had to be on some kind of tripod and you can tell too because as the camera operator is trying to hold the target, you can see the small jerks that you only see when on a tripod.


FYI - I've shot over 300 special event videos in my career, including weddings in large cathedrals, using large telephoto lenses and requiring me to zoom in from great distances to get the "million dollar" close up shot for the client.


So imagine seeing this shot through the scope, holding it by hand, and then taking a big a## shot with the kick, using the bolt, and then re-acquiring the target, all the while the car is moving away from you. I'm not saying it can't be done but it really does seem very, very unlikely. And all in 5.5 seconds...sheesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, how about this one?

If Oswald is supposed to be a sharpshooter-- Stephen King has him actually saying that word as he aims at Kennedy in his stupid mini series--why would he choose a manual bolt action rifle in that situation?

I agree Mike, not only was the American pundit class completely gulled, but did anyone or any network, or media pick up Castro's two speeches?

I am pretty sure they were available.

oswald was so great a shot he didn't need good equipment; he could compensate with skill. now before anyone says or thinks anything -- just kidding

the pundit class wasn't ruled they were controlled. they reported; they didn't ever investigate. not kidding on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite over-the-top moment was Lee whistling "Soldier Boy" while preparing to murder JFK for no reason at all. Even they couldn't come up with a motive.

No second season because LHO is dead? No problem. Season 2: "A Tribute to the Warren Commission and J. Edgar Hoover" subtitled "They Got It Right" starring Tom Hanks as the lovable Allen Dulles...

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

First post here.

One would think that Fidel's opinion on the events of 11/22/63 would be of some interest to the MSM at the time, especially so since high profile people like Clare Booth Luce and Edwin Walker, among others, were publicly suggesting that LHO was affiliated with the "Red Menace", i.e., Castro and Khrushchev etc. But that did not happen which, to me, evidences the involvement of the CIA in the operation, especially the cover-up. If there was one critical component of a regime change operation the CIA learned from their operations in Guatemala and Iran etc in the 1950's, it was to control (by way of the mass media) the public's perception of the events that had just taken place. Its applied "Shock Doctrine" but it takes a certain amount of time after the "event" to get all the MSM with the official version. To wit, the rifle found at the TSBD on 11/22/63 is originally identified and then broadcast through the MSM as a Mauser. Less than 24 later this Mauser is magically transformed into a Carcano and the MSM passively accepts this revision without question.

While Castro's speech of 11/27/63 is impressive by way of exposing, so quickly, some of the glaring contradictions of the official version of 11/22/63, I find Joachim Joesten's 1964 pre-Warren Report book "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy" even more impressive. Joesten, who I believe was living in France at the time, went to Dallas in December of 1963 to do his own investigation and came away convinced that the official version was a cover-up. This was 3 weeks after the event! Joesten's book, which I believe, came out in June of '64 in France, lays out the major tenets of the early counter-investigators, namely the choice of shots, the timing of the shots and the suitability of the cheap Carcano rifle for the task. In fact, and this is timely with the passing of Mark Lane, I wonder how much “Rush to Judgment “, published in 1966, was influenced by Joesten’s work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect DeGaulle figured out things pretty quick as well. Three world leaders all in the crosshairs at about the same time. Who would have thought Castro would be the last man standing.

Another world leader in the cross hairs at about the same time:

Ngo Dinh Diem, SVN.

In 1963 the Corsican Mafia a/k/a "the French connection" controlled the world's heroin production while the Sicilian-American Mafia controlled smack distribution in the States.

Pre-Fidel, Havana was the central depot for heroin distribution.

South Vietnam was the gateway to the yet-developed poppy fields of the Golden Triangle Laos/Burma/Thailand.

So the leaders of the USA, France, Cuba and So. Vietnam were all targeted for removal.

Interesting coincidence, eh wot?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW. Steve, you are correct.

In Talbot's book on Dulles, he writes about an interview DeGaulle did after he got back from JFK's funeral.

In it, he says that the whole thing was obviously a set up from the get go.

Kennedy's security forces were likely involved, as were the military and intel.

Then he says this Ruby guy was brought in because it was better to kill off the fall guy than provoke a civil war.

So DeGaulle knew, Castro knew. and Nikita K knew. And we know that many of the Third World leaders Kennedy was trying to help also knew, like Sukarno and Nkrumah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...