Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Connally Hit?


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

A while ago Gerry Hemming communicated that there was a man shooting at the motorcade, with a broom-handled mauser, from the sixth floor west window of the TSBD, and that he had a "contract" to kill Connally, not Kennedy.

I am sure some were dubious of this claim.

Yesterday I acquired a book titled: "By Way of Deception: An Insider's Devestating Expose of the Mossad" by Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky. I got it simply because it looked interesting, and was cheap.

I was surpised to find a passage about the Kennedy assassination.

The book relates Ostrovsky's training as a Mossad assassin. He writes that: "One particularly intriguing aspect of the course was a movie called 'A President on the Crosshairs', a detailed study of the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Mossad theory was that the killers--Mafia hit men, not Lee Harvey Oswald--actually wanted to murder ... Connally. Oswald was seen as a dupe in the whole thing and Connally as the target of mobsters trying to muscle their way into the oil business." He also writes: "It would have been the perfect cover. If Connally had been killed, everyone would have assumed it was an attempt on JFK."

He also says that the Mossad thought the WC version of the assassination was "pure, unadulterated hokum" and states that the film showed expert Mossad marksmen trying unsuccessfully to accomplish what Oswald was said to have done in a very short time. The Mossad shooters used better, more powerful equipment. The Mossad, Ostrovsky writes, was certain that no one could have duplicated Oswald's so-called feats particularly with his rifle.

Interesting thoughts by the Mossad.

* * * * *

Gerry Hemming states there were several different teams, with different sponsors and different assigmnments, and that the teams were not informed of the other teams.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while ago Gerry Hemming communicated that there was a man shooting at the motorcade, with a broom-handled mauser, from the sixth floor west window of the TSBD, and that he had a "contract" to kill Connally, not Kennedy.

I am sure some were dubious of this claim.

Yesterday I acquired a book titled: "By Way of Deception: An Insider's Devestating Expose of the Mossad" by Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky. I got it simply because it looked interesting, and was cheap.

I was surpised to find a passage about the Kennedy assassination.

The book relates Ostrovsky's training as a Mossad assassin. He writes that: "One particularly intriguing aspect of the course was a movie called 'A President on the Crosshairs', a detailed study of the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Mossad theory was that the killers--Mafia hit men, not Lee Harvey Oswald--actually wanted to murder ... Connally. Oswald was seen as a dupe in the whole thing and Connally as the target of mobsters trying to muscle their way into the oil business." He also writes: "It would have been the perfect cover. If Connally had been killed, everyone would have assumed it was an attempt on JFK."

He also says that the Mossad thought the WC version of the assassination was "pure, unadulterated hokum" and states that the film showed expert Mossad marksmen trying unsuccessfully to accomplish what Oswald was said to have done in a very short time. The Mossad shooters used better, more powerful equipment. The Mossad, Ostrovsky writes, was certain that no one could have duplicated Oswald's so-called feats particularly with his rifle.

Interesting thoughts by the Mossad.

* * * * *

Gerry Hemming states there were several different teams, with different sponsors and different assigmnments, and that the teams were not informed of the other teams.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

"trying unsuccessfully to accomplish what Oswald was said to have done in a very short time."

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

The operative word being "said" !

Were I to "say" that I could fly, would you or anyone be likely to believe it?

Were one to demonstrate the actual shooting sequence, then provide "said" information back to these, as well as virtually every other critic of the shooting, then just perhaps one would get a slightly different opinion as to the "impossibility" of such a feat.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

"He also says that the Mossad thought the WC version of the assassination was "pure, unadulterated hokum"

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Well, considering that "Jethro Bodine" could have figured this one out, it does not necessarily attest to the great competence of the Mossad.

________________________________________________________________________________

________

"actually wanted to murder ... Connally"

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Well, then "ole" LHO was a considerably worse shot than we have given him credit for being.

Since he hit JFK "three out of three", and JBC was only hit because he was "downrange", this theory lacks certain plausibility concepts.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

"The Mossad, Ostrovsky writes, was certain that no one could have duplicated Oswald's so-called feats particularly with his rifle."

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Well, considering that Ayoob Massad long ago managed to duplicate even the "claimed" shots of LHO, perhaps the Mossad should subscibe to American Handgunner Magazine.

Of course, it is not likely that the Mossad is going to admit that someone with the last name "Massad" could out shoot and out perform them

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

"Gerry Hemming states there were several different teams, with different sponsors and different assigmnments, and that the teams were not informed of the other teams."

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

It becomes quite obvious that there were certain "diversionary" activities as well as persons around.

Far too many to be merely coincidence.

And certainly recognizable to the informed.

Tom

P.S. Three out of three is not necessarily that great of an accomplishment for someone who grew up hunting rabbits with a .22 cal rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while ago Gerry Hemming communicated that there was a man shooting at the motorcade, with a broom-handled mauser, from the sixth floor west window of the TSBD, and that he had a "contract" to kill Connally, not Kennedy.

I am sure some were dubious of this claim.

"Were" would indicate past tense. "Are" is more appropriate. Positing a shooter there isn't the detail that's hard to swallow. It's the "contract" to take out Connally that makes the eyes roll. Was it not possible to simply shoot Connally on any Texas street corner during the course of his daily business? Was it really necessary to import a specialist for the job, and time that job to coincide with the "other" job?

Yesterday I acquired a book titled: "By Way of Deception: An Insider's Devestating Expose of the Mossad" by Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky. I got it simply because it looked interesting, and was cheap.

It's cheap for a reason. Claire Hoy was a journo with the Toronto Sun, back when it was the de rigeur daily reading for crypto-fascists. Even they blushed over some of Claire's excesses. Let's just say that Bill O'Reilly is a Claire Hoy wanna-be; that should give non-Canadians an indication of his world view. Once you've finished reading the book, Tim, why don't you post here some of the other nose-stretchers it contains? That might indicate the calibre of credibility on offer, and illustrate your willingness to dredge up stuff - no matter how preposterous, no matter how bankrupt the source - so long as it bolsters the point you're trying to sell.

I was surpised to find a passage about the Kennedy assassination.

The book relates Ostrovsky's training as a Mossad assassin. He writes that: "One particularly intriguing aspect of the course was a movie called 'A President on the Crosshairs', a detailed study of the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Mossad theory was that the killers--Mafia hit men, not Lee Harvey Oswald--actually wanted to murder ... Connally. Oswald was seen as a dupe in the whole thing and Connally as the target of mobsters trying to muscle their way into the oil business." He also writes: "It would have been the perfect cover. If Connally had been killed, everyone would have assumed it was an attempt on JFK."

He also says that the Mossad thought the WC version of the assassination was "pure, unadulterated hokum" and states that the film showed expert Mossad marksmen trying unsuccessfully to accomplish what Oswald was said to have done in a very short time. The Mossad shooters used better, more powerful equipment. The Mossad, Ostrovsky writes, was certain that no one could have duplicated Oswald's so-called feats particularly with his rifle.

Interesting thoughts by the Mossad.

Except these aren't the Mossad's thoughts. These are postulations made by Ostrovsky and attributed by him to Mossad. Big difference, unless you're one of those who believes everything he reads and is told. And if you are, let me tell you what I learned about the JFK assassination during my hush-hush, Top Secret, expendably deniable under-cover years with the RCMP.

* * * * *

Gerry Hemming states there were several different teams, with different sponsors and different assigmnments, and that the teams were not informed of the other teams.

None of which offends one's sense of logic. However, the Connally "contract" is a superfluous piece of embroidery. If it is to be accepted as true, Gerry really should offer some details on who purportedly sponsored it, the rationale for killing him, the reasons for so ostentatious an attempt when a lower-key barbershop hit might have sufficed, and just how Gerry came to learn these details. For a culture in which "real" operators don't talk, my favourite "real" operator musta hung out with a lot of Chatty Cathys to glean as much as he has done. Or been in on it. Or is leading us all down the primrose path for a purpose that won't please us once we twig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the Mossad would have gone to the trouble of reenacting the WC version of events to see if Oswald could have really done what was claimed is ridiculous. The Mossad would know damn well that the JFK hit was a conspiracy and that the WC lone-nut crap was entirely for consumption by the American sheeple. If the Mossad conducted any reenactment of the Oswald fiction, it must have been hard up for something to do, which (based on what I know of the Mossad, CIA, and other intelligence agencies with which the world has been blest) is rather hard to believe.

On Connally being a target on 11/22/63, I recently came across the interesting suggestion (made in an interview of Jim Fetzer on Paranormal News a couple of years ago, which Jim may wish to comment on) that the intended target (in addition to JFK) was not Connally but Yarborough. (Now who might have wanted to get rid of Yarborough in addition to JFK?) LBJ (so the familiar story goes) had tried unsuccessfully to have Connally's and Yarborough's places switched in the motorcade. As a result of this failure, it is suggested, Connally got shot because it was too late to get word to the shooters that the wrong person was in the limo with JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
On Connally being a target on 11/22/63, I recently came across the interesting suggestion (made in an interview of Jim Fetzer on Paranormal News a couple of years ago, which Jim may wish to comment on) that the intended target (in addition to JFK) was not Connally but Yarborough. (Now who might have wanted to get rid of Yarborough in addition to JFK?) LBJ (so the familiar story goes) had tried unsuccessfully to have Connally's and Yarborough's places switched in the motorcade. As a result of this failure, it is suggested, Connally got shot because it was too late to get word to the shooters that the wrong person was in the limo with JFK.

Some form of communications gizmo would have come in quite handy then Ron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some form of communications gizmo would have come in quite handy then Ron.

One would think so, so again Jim Fetzer may wish to comment. Here's what he said about the Yarborough suggestion, made by interviewer Jim Richardson:

"I now believe you are right to suggest to me that the person who was supposed to be sitting in that seat was Ralph Yarborough, LBJ’s liberal political enemy, which explains not only why they were shooting at him but also why LBJ put up such a huge fuss over who should ride with JFK. When Jack insisted that the Chief Executive of the state should ride with the Chief Executive of the United States that morning, it must have

been too late to change the arrangements that were in place. I am in debt to you, Jim, for this observation, which is simply brilliant!"

http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?articleId=569

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the Mossad would have gone to the trouble of reenacting the WC version of events to see if Oswald could have really done what was claimed is ridiculous. The Mossad would know damn well that the JFK hit was a conspiracy and that the WC lone-nut crap was entirely for consumption by the American sheeple. If the Mossad conducted any reenactment of the Oswald fiction, it must have been hard up for something to do, which (based on what I know of the Mossad, CIA, and other intelligence agencies with which the world has been blest) is rather hard to believe.

On Connally being a target on 11/22/63, I recently came across the interesting suggestion (made in an interview of Jim Fetzer on Paranormal News a couple of years ago, which Jim may wish to comment on) that the intended target (in addition to JFK) was not Connally but Yarborough. (Now who might have wanted to get rid of Yarborough in addition to JFK?) LBJ (so the familiar story goes) had tried unsuccessfully to have Connally's and Yarborough's places switched in the motorcade. As a result of this failure, it is suggested, Connally got shot because it was too late to get word to the shooters that the wrong person was in the limo with JFK.

________________________________________________________________________________

________

"Now who might have wanted to get rid of Yarborough "

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Obviously, you are not familiar with Yarborough's Win/Win/Win record against Magnolia Oil!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Once you've finished reading the book, Tim, why don't you post here some of the other nose-stretchers it contains? That might indicate the calibre of credibility on offer, and illustrate your willingness to dredge up stuff - no matter how preposterous, no matter how bankrupt the source - so long as it bolsters the point you're trying to sell.

Robert, the mere fact that I post something does not necessarily mean that I am personally vouching for its veracity. You seem to condemn the book by claiming that its co-author was a "crypto-fascist". It is my understanding that Hoy was assisting the ex-Mossad agent in writing his "memoirs" so I am not quite sure what Hoy's politics has to do with anything.

What do you find so preposterous about the ex-agent's claim that the Mossad had carefully studied, and even tried to re-enact, the assassination? If I remember correctly the KGB also claimed to have done so. Since one objective of any intelligence organization is to prevent the assassination of its country's leaders, one would think it expedient for such organization to carefully study all assassinations and assassination attempts.

In the book the ex-agent claims that the Mossad thought the assassination was in fact a hit on Connally. You seem to say this was only the view of the agent. Why do you think that?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Once you've finished reading the book, Tim, why don't you post here some of the other nose-stretchers it contains? That might indicate the calibre of credibility on offer, and illustrate your willingness to dredge up stuff - no matter how preposterous, no matter how bankrupt the source - so long as it bolsters the point you're trying to sell.

Robert, the mere fact that I post something does not necessarily mean that I am personally vouching for its veracity.

Actually, Tim, that's precisely what you were doing, by asserting that it confirmed something said by Gerry Hemming. If you think it untrue, why would you post it? Surely, you don't make it a habit to post data you know or suspect to be false, do you? And if you don't think the book is accurate on this point, then presumably neither is Hemming?

You seem to condemn the book by claiming that its co-author was a "crypto-fascist". It is my understanding that Hoy was assisting the ex-Mossad agent in writing his "memoirs" so I am not quite sure what Hoy's politics has to do with anything.

Too coy by half, dear boy. If you think a book ghost-written by Matt Drudge would be identical to the same book ghost-written by Maureen Dowd, you're delusional.

What do you find so preposterous about the ex-agent's claim that the Mossad had carefully studied, and even tried to re-enact, the assassination? If I remember correctly the KGB also claimed to have done so.

Another misstatement. It has been claimed by others that KGB did this; there has been no such revelation by anyone in the KGB's hierarchy that this was so. As I've already pointed out, if I make certain claims based upon my undercover years with the RCMP, does that make it a fact, or merely an allegation? In order for it to qualify as an acknowledged "fact," shouldn't someone near the top of the RCMP hierarchy confirm it as "fact?"

Since one objective of any intelligence organization is to prevent the assassination of its country's leaders, one would think it expedient for such organization to carefully study all assassinations and assassination attempts.

It must have been all that study that kept Yitzhak Rabin so safe.

In the book the ex-agent claims that the Mossad thought the assassination was in fact a hit on Connally. You seem to say this was only the view of the agent. Why do you think that?

Gee, if a former CIA agent writes a book stating that the Agency killed JFK, then I must assume it to be true. After all, it's in a book. Do get a grip, dear boy. When MOSSAD discloses what it thought about the Kennedy assassination, we'll know what it thought. Until then, we're left with a book that various Israeli parties attempted [with some success] to prevent from being published. One might conclude that those attempts at censorship enhance the book's credibility. Or, one might conclude that the ex-agent in question was considered a loose cannon by the Israelis. Neither seems to factor into your equation. The book contains an observation that dovetails with something Gerry Hemming said, so you take it at face value. Perhaps once you've read the other portions - including how the MOSSAD conned the US into blaming Libya for a number of horrific acts - you'll face having to accept and acknowledge one of two facts: either that the book is inaccurate on a number of key details, or your nation is run by fools.

Please do let us know which of these options you find more compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...