Nonsense.

I meant the stuff about Ruby acted on behalf of others is nonsense.  Remember, people literally worshipped JFK, and Ruby was one of them, nothing more.

We have far different opinions of JFK.  To me, he was the first of the
"Royal Presidents".  His youth, money, beautiful and classy wife, perfect children, brother as attorney general all made for a storybook era.  Remember how people referred to it as the Age of Camelot?
The one thing he did that I appreciated was standing up to the Cuban missile crisis.  Of course, being a WW II veteran, he understood military matters.  As Bush I was the last president of the WW II generation, we'll never see that again.
In domestic affairs, he was a pro-business conservative - he instituted the Investment Tax Credit for businesses, a very wise move that we need today and if we'd had it in 2008 and 09, the recession would have been far milder.

Midnightrider wrote on 05/28/13 at 21:08:12:


I only conditionally agree with this.

In the absence of a constitutional democracy it is true. In a constitutional democracy it looks like a way to anarchy.

Now dont tell me anarchy is great. Though a true anarchy would favor the masses and topple the rich. Its hard to realize it. We wont get true anarchy, we'll get pseudo anarchy.
Cool.
Srinath.

Yea, & Bobby was busily attacking the mafia. The mafia had helped get JFK elected & just may have been more than a little unhappy. Also, JFK was in the process of bringing our guys home from Nam, IIRC, & if thats true, then the MIC was unhappy, too. He also had stated he intended to "Cast the CIA to the wind"
If youll watch the event youll see the SS guys called away from their positions at the rear of the car. One turns & offers a look of absolute amazement. A minute later he is dead.
There are others who had motive & more opportunity. REmember the 3 "bums" who were arrested? One was a DC insider involved in black ops. His name escapes me now,

If youve got nothing to hide, why all the secrecy?

Isnt that what they ask us?

Now, as to JOG's comment about the Mafia, I could buy into Mafia involvement in JFK's death, IF there were any direct proof, but there isn't.  Only innuendo and the fact that Bobby crossed them.  That provides a motive, but lots of people always have a motive for wanted to do in a president.  Of course, Bobby was killed by another "nobody", who could have been recruited by organized crime.  Proof that, connect it with JFK's murder, and then I'll buy into the theory of Mafia involvement.  We all know what happens to Mafia snitches and double crossers.
Only IF these connections can be made do we then see Mafia involvement, and that whole speculative theory makes far more sense to me than some wildly cooked up story of some gov't agency wanting JFK dead enough to actually do it.  
Maybe it's because of my professional training, but I do believe in the necessity of direct proof, not just innuendo and motive, before I come to a judgment on such matters.

Midnight -
I respect your opinion about this, but the subject is far deeper than either you or I comprehend.  I am not a finance major - just a history major.
But again, what are the facts, the real facts?  Not rumor, nor speculation, nor innuendo, but the facts.
One of my best buddies is a finance major, and he is a gazillionaire from real estate, gold, and silver trading.  He says all of this is bunk.  While he has millions in hard precious metals, he also has millions of paper dollars in banks.  I've seen the safes, and I've seen the bank statements.
My son-in-law is a double major, finance and economics from the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University.  While his tone is softer than my high school buddy uses, he too says this is fear mongering by those with an agenda.
Just reading a book or two, written by someone with an agenda and a motive to sell his book to make money, and a few articles of the same ilk don't make us sufficiently informed to come to a real judgment, I'm afraid.