What do RFK and Rabin have in common?

(Crossposted from my Real History blog)

Both were shot by bullets that couldn’t have come from their alleged assassins’ positions.

In the case of RFK, he was shot from behind at near-contact range, while Sirhan Sirhan was in front of him a few feet away. In the case of Rabin, he too was shot at near contact range, but one of the shots came from the front, while the alleged assassin Yigal Amir was behind Rabin.

According to an article in the UK’s Telegraph today:

Pnina Guy, the original prosecutor, was discussing the 10th anniversary of Rabin’s death when she expressed surprise that the assassin had managed to get so close as to press his gun to Rabin’s body and fire at point blank range – closer than Amir ever came.

“It’s still a mystery to me how he managed to shoot three bullets and at the same time even approach Rabin, and, according to the ballistic evidence, actually touch Rabin’s jacket for the third bullet,” she said on an Israeli radio station this week.

In the RFK case, the LAPD named several people as the “best” witnesses to the events in the pantry. But all of the people the LAPD picked said Sirhan’s gun muzzle was at the closest, a foot away, with the majority putting the muzzle closer to three feet from Robert Kennedy. Yet Robert was shot at almost point blank range – at a distance of not more than 3 inches. Coroner Thomas Noguchi determined this by firing at pigs ears from a range starting at point blank range, and backing out a quarter of an inch with each successive shot until the stipling pattern of gunpowder on the ears matched the amount of powder on the back of Kennedy’s head.

In the RFK case, I’ve written at length on what I think happened, in Probe Magazine and in my book. Probe also published a piece by Barry Chamish on the Rabin assassination with his speculations. These appear as remarkably parallel operations, and as Allen Dulles used to teach all CIA recruits, there are no coincidences. I’m not saying the same people killed both, mind you! What I’m saying is once a successful template is established, it’s bound to be used again and again until the template itself is exposed.

That’s why it’s important to study political assassinations. In my previous post, I mentioned that people should study the John Kennedy assasssination for a couple of years. But really, it’s about studying all the assassinations of the sixties. By studying two or more, you start to see patterns that repeat. Multiple people sharing the same name show up in the cases of both Oswald and James Earl Ray. Shooters that couldn’t have fired the fatal shots are nonetheless jailed as assassins (Sirhan and Amir).

It’s equally important to seek the true assassins, and not to be satisfied when the patsy, or only part of the conspiracy (as in the Malcolm X case) is jailed. If we ever once prosecuted the responsible parties, or even just one or two of them, from ANY of these cases, we’d be securing our future and those of fellow nations. But so long as people bury their heads in the sand and refuse to cry out, the wrong people will go to jail and the sickness will reappear, like a dormant virus come back to life, over and over again.

I worry a lot for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It’s as if he’s trying to get killed. I hope he lives. I hope assassinations are not part of the future of our world. But until we get savvy and start finding the real killers, and stop settling for the expedient or politically necessary solution (are you listening, UN, re Syria?) then we’ll be stuck having our vote stolen in yet another way – by assassination.

Speaking of stolen elections, I have to note that more and more people are saying Kerry knows the 2004 election was stolen. Great. Glad he finally gets it. But what is he going to DO about it? Is he going to act like a presidential candidate and play it safe, or act like a president and lead forcefully on safeguarding future elections?

Author: Real History Lisa

I'm a guerrilla informationist, dedicated to telling the truth about REAL history, as opposed to the propaganda version that often passes, unchallenged, into history books.