JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on June 10, 2018, 06:46:35 AM
-
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51fizHdfMoL._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Conclusion of No Conspiracy
By now it has to be more than obvious to the reader of this book that Oswald acted alone in killing the president. Not only does all of his conduct speak unerringly only to this conclusion, but also, as I believe I have demonstrated, the various conspiracy theories are utterly vapid and bankrupt. Does what you have read prove beyond all doubt that there was no conspiracy in Kennedy?s assassination? Probably not, if only because such a degree of proof will perhaps always be unattainable. Why? Because, first, Oswald is dead (and absent a confession from a conspirator, only Oswald could tell us if he acted in concert with anyone), and second, it?s normally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive. However, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, the world?s leading skeptic that Oswald acted alone?that there was no conspiracy. That Oswald, a lone nut, killed Kennedy and was thereafter killed by another lone nut, Ruby. Two small men who wanted to become big, and succeeded. Or, to ennoble their ignoble deeds, as author David Lubin says, ?the lethal tussle in the basement of city hall was a fight between two would-be paladins. Each regarded himself as a knight on a mission to avenge wrong and restore right.?
If, as is the situation with the conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence to support your allegation, from a legal standpoint you?re out of court. But even if you?re out of court, if you can at least argue that ?well, there?s no evidence of this, but logic and common sense tell you it is so,? you still have talking rights and you can still play the game, as it were. But when you not only have no evidence, but logic and common sense tell you it isn?t so, it?s time to fold your tent.
No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. If they were to accept the evidence of no conspiracy, those whose lives have been heavily immersed in the assassination for years would also have to accept that they have ?wasted? the last twenty or thirty (or however many) years of their lives on something that has no merit. And consciously or subconsciously, it is difficult for anyone to do this. So they are prime candidates for being ?in denial? and impervious to the points being made. It should be added that if these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That?s why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it. In fact, if Oswald himself appeared in front of them and said, ?Hey, guys, knock off all this silliness. I killed Kennedy and acted alone,? they?d probably tell him, ?Look, we know a heck of a lot more about this case than you do, so go back to wherever you came from.?
It?s essentially become a religious belief with the theorists that there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy?s death, and with religious beliefs, the believer knows the truth, so there has to be an explanation for everything that seems to contradict that truth. Their reasoning, then, is to start the debate assuming the very point that has to be proved (Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy), and anything that is at odds with this belief has to have an explanation, no matter how ridiculous and far-out it may be. Nothing you tell the conspiracy theorists can shake their belief in a conspiracy. In situations where even they can?t come up with an explanation, they shield themselves from the evidence by either distorting or ignoring it. This type of intellectual carpentry by the buffs allows them to proceed forward with their fantasy, unfazed by the inconvenient interposition of reality.
The example I am about to give illustrates the religious obsession and startling illogic of conspiracy theorists. A very prominent and well-respected medical doctor who is a sincere and eloquent member of the new wave in the conspiracy community wrote me (on August 30, 2001) that ?for nearly ten years now, I have slept, jogged, eaten, gone to the bathroom, and dreamed about this case.? This doctor went on to tell me, unbelievably, that it was terribly illogical of me to say that one shouldn?t reject the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to first read the Warren Report. Such a reading was unnecessary, he said. The profound passion and equally profound irrationality reflected in that way of thinking are the norm, not the exception, in the ethos of the hard-core conspiracy community. The arguments that follow are not just for the conspiracy community, but mostly for the millions of Americans who, not knowing the facts, have been duped by the conspiracy theorists into buying their drivel, misinformation, and flat-out fabrications.*
As with the evidence of Oswald?s guilt, which has already been presented in very abbreviated, summary form, here?s the evidence of no conspiracy. As you are reading this list, I would ask you to take a moment to ask yourself whether the individual point you are reading, all alone and by itself, clearly shows there was no conspiracy. I believe you will find this to be the case with many of the points.
RHVB
(http://www.latimes.com/resizer/R2Q6tKuwaJ67WB7EmImXOAGJTXY=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/WC6RL2FSZJAMDCE6Z2FZJUDZZA.jpg)
JohnM
-
1. Perhaps the most powerful single piece of evidence that there was no conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy is simply the fact that after all these years there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any of the persons or groups suspected by conspiracy theorists (e.g., organized crime, CIA, KGB, FBI, military-industrial complex, Castro, LBJ, etc.) or anyone else conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy. And when there is no evidence of something, although not conclusive, this itself is very, very persuasive evidence that the alleged ?something? does not exist. Particularly here where the search for the ?something? (conspiracy) has been the greatest and most comprehensive search for anything in American, perhaps world, history.
I mean, way back in 1965, before over forty additional years of microscopic investigation of the case by governmental groups and thousands of researchers, Dwight Macdonald wrote, ?I can?t believe that among the many hundreds of detectives, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Secret Service agents, and [counsel] for the Warren Commission?not one would be bright or lucky enough to discover or stumble across some clue [of a conspiracy] if there were any there.?2 But not one clue of a conspiracy has ever surfaced. And this is so despite the fact that the two people the conspirators would have had to rely on the most not to leave a clue, Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, were notoriously unreliable.
A conspiracy is nothing more than a criminal partnership. And although conspiracies obviously aren?t proved by the transcript of a stenographer who typed up a conversation between the partners agreeing to commit the crime, there has to be some substantive evidence of the conspiracy or partnership?s existence. And in the conspiracy prosecutions I have conducted, I have always been able to present direct evidence of the co-conspirators acting in concert before, during, or after the crime, and/or circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of concert or meeting of the minds could be made. In the Oswald case, if, for instance, Oswald had disappeared for a few days before the assassination without adequate explanation, or within these few days he was seen in the company of a stranger, or there was evidence he had come into some serious money, or he had made any statement to anyone, such as Marina, suggesting, even vaguely, a conspiratorial relationship, or someone had called him at the Paine residence and he left the room and took the call in another room, or he was seen getting in a car after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, or any of a hundred other possible events or circumstances had occurred, that would be one thing. But here, there is nothing, nothing. Just completely foundationless speculation and conjecture.
Traditionally, the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence. So the evidence is the foundation on which all inferences and conclusions are based. Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions. As an example, they assume, without any evidence, that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that Oswald was an unwitting participant. They then proceed to assume, again without any evidence, that Oswald became aware of this conspiracy at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and believe that he was being set up to take the fall for the assassination, and this is why he fled the Book Depository Building. But where is there any evidence to support either of these two assumptions?*
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, ?I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn?t.? The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof. To say that those alleging a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination have not met their burden of proof would be the understatement of the millennium. Here, the absence of any credible evidence of a conspiracy is bad enough for the conspiracy theorists, but, as demonstrated on these pages, there is much, much evidence pointing irresistibly in the direction of no conspiracy.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions.
RHVB
JohnM
I liken their approach to engineers on the planet Bizarro in the late 1920s. When designing the bizarro Sydney Harbour Bridge they decided to commence construction from the middle of the bridge and then extend from there to each side on the banks of the harbour. When asked what will support the central sections above the waters during the period when there were no other sections in place they replied "we'll deal with that when the time comes." Of course they ran out of sky hooks and everytime they made a start the material fell into the harbour and sank to the bottom.
CTers need a solid foundation on which to build but that's where they come unstuck. They should keep this image in mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge#/media/File:Early_construction,_Sydney_Harbour_Bridge.jpg
-
The Warren Commission only said there was no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic - and laid out the case against Saint Oz.
Bugliosi goes a step further and mocks the kooks for mindlessly insisting there had to be a conspiracy, even though there's still no evidence of one 50 years later.
He not only hangs their hero, he rubs their snouts in their own feces.
No wonder they hate him.
-
The Warren Commission only said there was no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic - and laid out the case against Saint Oz.
Bugliosi goes a step further and mocks the kooks for mindlessly insisting there had to be a conspiracy, even though there's still no evidence of one 50 years later.
He not only hangs their hero, he rubs their snouts in their own feces.
No wonder they hate him.
Yes VB certainly ripped them a new one. He was intolerant of stupidity and saw no need to use diplomatic language when calling them out especially the obvious liars and attention seekers who deserved to be hit right between the eyes.
I have a gut feeling that some CTers believe Oswald was the shooter on 11/22 but because VB "rubs their snouts in their own feces" they will never admit it. They react by trying to trash the WC and Bug's contribution in RH. Those especially scorned are the conspiracy authors who have undertaken decades of 'work' in their respective area of 'expertise' and their life's work will be seen as meaningless if they fold up their tent and depart the scene.
-
Anybody know about whether anyone has challenged Bugloisi to a debate other than Wecht?
-
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-thompson
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
Written by Josiah Thompson
Epic book resurrects finding that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK
Bugliosi picks only the evidence that backs his argument
"Former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi claims to be "Reclaiming History" from the riffraff of conspiracy theorists in his massive new book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The term "conspiracy theorist" is practically married to the assassination, tossed about the way the House Un-American Activities Committee used to throw around "Communist sympathizer." One size fits all!
But according to Bugliosi, conspiracy theorists are the reason more than 75 percent of Americans don't believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission, established by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the crimes. Bugliosi's intent is to expose its critics as "fraudulent" on the way to resurrecting the conclusion of that panel, which found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
The first question to Bugliosi must be, "Who cares?"
For more than 40 years, every wingnut outside the city limits of Roswell, N.M., has gravitated to the Kennedy case, and Bugliosi attempts to list them all.
For instance, in a footnote, he skewers someone named Nord Davis Jr, who apparently believes 21 bullets were fired in Dallas' Dealey Plaza and that Parkland Hospital doctors confused police officer J.D. Tippit's body with that of Kennedy.
Or take the case of James Fetzer, Ph.D., who, Bugliosi points out, has been on a crusade for the past decade to prove that the Zapruder film "is a complete fabrication" put together by some shadowy intelligence agency.
Many historical events draw wacky theories. The proper response is to ignore them; it is not to write a 1,660-page book exposing their wackiness.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the Kennedy case is remarkable in that the growth of conspiracy theories has come to obscure the basic evidence. It is as if opinions and wacky theories have grown like a Fergus into the basic pattern of facts.
From the outset, this growth threatened serious research into what actually happened in Dealey Plaza. Bugliosi has performed a useful function by scrubbing away a number of nutty theories that have surfaced since Nov. 22, 1963.
But what about Bugliosi's more serious intent -- to resuscitate a variant of the Warren Commission's account of the assassination?
In 1993, another lawyer, Gerald Posner, tried the same thing in his book Case Closed. Yet Bugliosi cites numerous examples of Posner's "distortion" and "misrepresentation." He quotes approvingly a Washington Post review of Posner's book, which criticized him for presenting "only the evidence that supports the case he's trying to build, framing the evidence in a way that misleads readers."
But this is exactly what Bugliosi does. Like any experienced prosecutor, he highlights the evidence that furthers his case while ignoring or confusing contrary evidence. Examples of this approach can be found almost everywhere in the book.
Take his spirited defense of Warren Commission junior counsel Arlen Specter's "single-bullet theory." Bugliosi agrees that this theory -- that Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally were hit by the same bullet -- is necessary to conclude that Oswald acted alone. He also acknowledges that the theory was developed by Specter and other commission staff members in the spring of 1964 to save the single-assassin conclusion. He also notes that when the time came to approve it, the commission split down the middle.
To his credit, he tells us Connally denied from first to last that he was hit by the same bullet that hit Kennedy. His wife, Nellie, testified that she heard a shot and saw the president react to being hit. Only then did she see and hear a second shot crash into her husband's back.
Bugliosi tells us Nellie Connally was "confused" and that her husband relied upon her confusion. However, you will find nowhere in Bugliosi's book the fact that no witness in Dealey Plaza could attest to both men being hit by the same shot or that the FBI's review of the Zapruder film led them to conclude Connally and Kennedy were hit separately.
He tells us that Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but he neglects to tell us that wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size.
Even more egregious is his handling of the trajectory through JFK's back and neck. A face-sheet on which notes were taken during the autopsy shows the supposed exit wound in the throat to be higher than the entry wound in the back.
When the autopsy photos were finally produced in the 1970s, a medical panel concluded that the course of the bullet through Kennedy was at an upward angle (the accepted number is 11 degrees). So how does Kennedy get shot from the sixth floor of a building when the bullet takes an upward path through his body?
The Warren Commission took the simplest course. The staff let the autopsy doctor instruct a medical illustrator to raise the back wound from the back to the neck. Commission member U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford then corrected a final draft of the panel's report to read "neck wound" rather than "back wound." Voila, a "back wound" had become a "neck wound."
Faced with that 11 degree upward angle, the House Select Committee on Assassinations took a more inventive approach in its 1978-79 investigation. It just leaned Kennedy forward at the time he was shot.
And Connally, who took a shot at a 27-degree downward angle? His body position was leaned back a sufficient amount. Voila, an 11-degree upward angle through one body had become a 27-degree downward angle through a second body, thus a straight line had been maintained.
Like any good prosecutor, Bugliosi admits it was "upward" but never tells us how much. Then he publishes a diagram from the House's report showing Kennedy bent forward. He says in a caption that the diagram shows "his head tilted forward slightly more than it actually was as shown in the Zapruder film."
That's quite an understatement since the Zapruder film never shows Kennedy bending forward at all. He's sitting erect in the back seat waving to the crowd. Then when the limousine travels behind a sign and emerges three-quarters of a second later, he's sitting erect but wounded.
The Zapruder frames contained in Bugliosi's book show Kennedy never took the position he had to take for the Warren Commission's single-bullet theory to work. Bugliosi gets it to work by telling his readers only part of the story and by using a diagram even he admits is inaccurate. This prosecutorial approach infects the whole book and makes it unreliable as a guide to the evidence. Little light shed
Does Bugliosi offer anything new? Not much.
Three explanations -- Bugliosi, the Warren Commission and the House committee -- claim Kennedy was shot in the head at Zapruder frame 313. Bugliosi and the commission say Kennedy and Connally were hit simultaneously while the car is behind the sign, frames 207-224.
The committee moves this single-bullet, double hit earlier to frame 190. It also cites four shots in all with two additional misses fired from the grassy knoll at frame 290 and the sniper's nest in the book depository at frame 160.
The commission found that a third shot missed but cannot determine when it was fired or where it hit. Bugliosi has a first shot fired at frame 160, which misses the limousine entirely.
None of these reconstructions makes much sense. All three require that a large body of evidence indicating JFK was hit in the head from the right front be simply disregarded. All three face the fatal objections to which the single-bullet theory has been subject from the very beginning.
The House Select Committee's reconstruction requires the putative gunman in the book depository to have fired blindly into a tree when he would have had a clean shot only a second and a half later.
Bugliosi's minor change to the commission's reconstruction makes less sense than the original. One would expect the first shot from a sniper to be the most accurate. Why would a shooter miss the limousine entirely on his first shot when it was right below him and Kennedy was large in his sight, then hit Kennedy twice with his next two shots at greater ranges?
As the commission noted, most Dealey Plaza witnesses placed the first shot significantly later. Phil Willis, for example, said the first shot jarred his finger on the shutter of his camera and produced a photo taken at frame 202.
The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.
What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened.
From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.
The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.
What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.
What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution."
-
Vincent Bugliosi's conclusion of no conspiracy should make you want to look at the JFK Assassination and dig in to the case . Reclaiming History and the Warren Report should be both in the Fiction section of the library. Now Dr. Cyril Wecht already told us that the Warren Report should be in the Fiction area of the Library and I think it is safe to say that Reclaiming History belongs in the fiction area also. I don't think there is one page in Vincent's book that does not refer to some disclaimer of conspiracy. I have the book & I have to make myself go back and pick up where I left off and read some more and then just set it down because it's a broken record . Have any of you tried to read this book? It's a mile long just like the Warren "26 volume" Report that Dr. Wecht says does not have an index.
-
Vincent Bugliosi's conclusion of no conspiracy should make you want to look at the JFK Assassination and dig in to the case . Reclaiming History and the Warren Report should be both in the Fiction section of the library. Now Dr. Cyril Wecht already told us that the Warren Report should be in the Fiction area of the Library and I think it is safe to say that Reclaiming History belongs in the fiction area also. I don't think there is one page in Vincent's book that does not refer to some disclaimer of conspiracy. I have the book & I have to make myself go back and pick up where I left off and read some more and then just set it down because it's a broken record . Have any of you tried to read this book? It's a mile long just like the Warren "26 volume" Report that Dr. Wecht says does not have an index.
After 55 years still no credible replacement for Dirty Harvey as prime suspect. What, too soon?
-
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51fizHdfMoL._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Conclusion of No Conspiracy
By now it has to be more than obvious to the reader of this book that Oswald acted alone in killing the president. Not only does all of his conduct speak unerringly only to this conclusion, but also, as I believe I have demonstrated, the various conspiracy theories are utterly vapid and bankrupt. Does what you have read prove beyond all doubt that there was no conspiracy in Kennedy?s assassination? Probably not, if only because such a degree of proof will perhaps always be unattainable. Why? Because, first, Oswald is dead (and absent a confession from a conspirator, only Oswald could tell us if he acted in concert with anyone), and second, it?s normally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive. However, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, the world?s leading skeptic that Oswald acted alone?that there was no conspiracy. That Oswald, a lone nut, killed Kennedy and was thereafter killed by another lone nut, Ruby. Two small men who wanted to become big, and succeeded. Or, to ennoble their ignoble deeds, as author David Lubin says, ?the lethal tussle in the basement of city hall was a fight between two would-be paladins. Each regarded himself as a knight on a mission to avenge wrong and restore right.?
If, as is the situation with the conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence to support your allegation, from a legal standpoint you?re out of court. But even if you?re out of court, if you can at least argue that ?well, there?s no evidence of this, but logic and common sense tell you it is so,? you still have talking rights and you can still play the game, as it were. But when you not only have no evidence, but logic and common sense tell you it isn?t so, it?s time to fold your tent.
No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. If they were to accept the evidence of no conspiracy, those whose lives have been heavily immersed in the assassination for years would also have to accept that they have ?wasted? the last twenty or thirty (or however many) years of their lives on something that has no merit. And consciously or subconsciously, it is difficult for anyone to do this. So they are prime candidates for being ?in denial? and impervious to the points being made. It should be added that if these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That?s why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it. In fact, if Oswald himself appeared in front of them and said, ?Hey, guys, knock off all this silliness. I killed Kennedy and acted alone,? they?d probably tell him, ?Look, we know a heck of a lot more about this case than you do, so go back to wherever you came from.?
It?s essentially become a religious belief with the theorists that there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy?s death, and with religious beliefs, the believer knows the truth, so there has to be an explanation for everything that seems to contradict that truth. Their reasoning, then, is to start the debate assuming the very point that has to be proved (Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy), and anything that is at odds with this belief has to have an explanation, no matter how ridiculous and far-out it may be. Nothing you tell the conspiracy theorists can shake their belief in a conspiracy. In situations where even they can?t come up with an explanation, they shield themselves from the evidence by either distorting or ignoring it. This type of intellectual carpentry by the buffs allows them to proceed forward with their fantasy, unfazed by the inconvenient interposition of reality.
The example I am about to give illustrates the religious obsession and startling illogic of conspiracy theorists. A very prominent and well-respected medical doctor who is a sincere and eloquent member of the new wave in the conspiracy community wrote me (on August 30, 2001) that ?for nearly ten years now, I have slept, jogged, eaten, gone to the bathroom, and dreamed about this case.? This doctor went on to tell me, unbelievably, that it was terribly illogical of me to say that one shouldn?t reject the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to first read the Warren Report. Such a reading was unnecessary, he said. The profound passion and equally profound irrationality reflected in that way of thinking are the norm, not the exception, in the ethos of the hard-core conspiracy community. The arguments that follow are not just for the conspiracy community, but mostly for the millions of Americans who, not knowing the facts, have been duped by the conspiracy theorists into buying their drivel, misinformation, and flat-out fabrications.*
As with the evidence of Oswald?s guilt, which has already been presented in very abbreviated, summary form, here?s the evidence of no conspiracy. As you are reading this list, I would ask you to take a moment to ask yourself whether the individual point you are reading, all alone and by itself, clearly shows there was no conspiracy. I believe you will find this to be the case with many of the points.
RHVB
(http://www.latimes.com/resizer/R2Q6tKuwaJ67WB7EmImXOAGJTXY=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/WC6RL2FSZJAMDCE6Z2FZJUDZZA.jpg)
JohnM
Jim Garrison dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates.
His first question is obvious.
God replies that Oswald killed Kennedy, and did it alone.
Garrison exclaims "Wow! I had no idea that the conspiracy went this high!
-
A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion. It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.
The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job. Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started. Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward. It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.
As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)
-
A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion. It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.
The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job. Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started. Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward. It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.
As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)
The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the WC until the Weiss/Aschkenasy report came out. The problem is, the W/A report is wrong. Steve Barber's discovery of the "hold everything" message created two fatal problems for WA study. The first is timing: we know from the context of the message itself that it came after the last shot was fired. The second is a little more esoteric. The 95% probability that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated for the GK shot was based on an assumption that the "impulses" on the DPD recording could either be shots or just random noise. The crosstalk sits on top of the "shots" and introduces a possibility that WA didn't consider, that the "shots" are part of the Decker crosstalk. That alone invalidates the WA 95% number. Without a valid acoustic study to support a GK gunman, the HSCA report simply amplifies on the WC.
-
The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the WC until the Weiss/Aschkenasy report came out. The problem is, the W/A report is wrong. Steve Barber's discovery of the "hold everything" message created two fatal problems for WA study. The first is timing: we know from the context of the message itself that it came after the last shot was fired. The second is a little more esoteric. The 95% probability that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated for the GK shot was based on an assumption that the "impulses" on the DPD recording could either be shots or just random noise. The crosstalk sits on top of the "shots" and introduces a possibility that WA didn't consider, that the "shots" are part of the Decker crosstalk. That alone invalidates the WA 95% number. Without a valid acoustic study to support a GK gunman, the HSCA report simply amplifies on the WC.
I think I understand that, without the dictabelt which is proven faulty, HSCA and WR are very similar.
-
Go by your own eyes please. I have an extremely graphic video that I could share with you on here that shows two men, taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head and NEITHER of them are slinged backward. Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo (jet effect, acoustics, etc.) this is more than enough proof - at least for me - to me that someone taking a shot from the rear does not suddenly be slinged backward. It doesn't make sense and if you're honest with yourself after seeing it, it should put doubt into even the most rabid LNer.
I would post it for educational purposes only here but I do not know if the admins would allow it and I don't know who to ask. When I posted it many months ago on EF, some people were shocked but nothing was reported. Then months later a member there, Stancak, got pissed because I kept rebutting his stupid PM long-leg theory. When he came across the video, he suddenly became ultra-sensitive ("oh my goodness") and reported it. Then, irony of ironies, he posts Kennedy's graphic autopsy photos.
If you want to see for yourself, email me.
-
A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion. It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.
The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job. Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started. Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward. It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.
As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)
Please explain what conspiracy the "'78 conclusion" uncovered.
-
Go by your own eyes please. I have an extremely graphic video that I could share with you on here that shows two men, taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head and NEITHER of them are slinged backward. Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo (jet effect, acoustics, etc.) this is more than enough proof - at least for me - to me that someone taking a shot from the rear does not suddenly be slinged backward. It doesn't make sense and if you're honest with yourself after seeing it, it should put doubt into even the most rabid LNer.
I would post it for educational purposes only here but I do not know if the admins would allow it and I don't know who to ask. When I posted it many months ago on EF, some people were shocked but nothing was reported. Then months later a member there, Stancak, got xxxxxx because I kept rebutting his stupid PM long-leg theory. When he came across the video, he suddenly became ultra-sensitive ("oh my goodness") and reported it. Then, irony of ironies, he posts Kennedy's graphic autopsy photos.
If you want to see for yourself, email me.
A bullet striking the head from the right-front would not throw the body back and to the left.
-
Please explain what conspiracy the "'78 conclusion" uncovered.
It's in the link, Bill.
**********
We simply do not know how a body reacts to shots to the head, Bill. I choose to believe that a frontal shot pushed his head backward and people down on the street ran up to the knoll area. They didn't do that because they were sight seeing. *Something* made them run up there.
-
It's in the link, Bill.
**********
We simply do not know how a body reacts to shots to the head, Bill. I choose to believe that a frontal shot pushed his head backward and people down on the street ran up to the knoll area. They didn't do that because they were sight seeing. *Something* made them run up there.
Again, a shot from the right-front does not throw the head and body violently back and to the left.
The link you provided stated the following...
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
The HSCA had no idea what sort of conspiracy existed, if any at all.
This doesn't even mention their faulty conclusion based on the supposed rifle fire caught on the dictabelt recording, even though the impulses were recorded once the motorcade was on it's way to Parkland Hospital.
You wish to claim that the HSCA "got it right", yet you claim, based on your opinion on the way the body went back and to the left, that the President was struck by a shot from the knoll. The HSCA stated that the President was struck twice, both from behind and both from above. it sounds like you're contradicting yourself.
-
Go by your own eyes please. I have an extremely graphic video that I could share with you on here that shows two men, taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head and NEITHER of them are slinged backward. Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo (jet effect, acoustics, etc.) this is more than enough proof - at least for me - to me that someone taking a shot from the rear does not suddenly be slinged backward. It doesn't make sense and if you're honest with yourself after seeing it, it should put doubt into even the most rabid LNer.
I would post it for educational purposes only here but I do not know if the admins would allow it and I don't know who to ask. When I posted it many months ago on EF, some people were shocked but nothing was reported. Then months later a member there, Stancak, got xxxxxx because I kept rebutting his stupid PM long-leg theory. When he came across the video, he suddenly became ultra-sensitive ("oh my goodness") and reported it. Then, irony of ironies, he posts Kennedy's graphic autopsy photos.
If you want to see for yourself, email me.
It all pretty much ended right here: "Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo." Because who needs all that pesky physics and physiology, anyway? We don't need that! We have a video from the internet! All one of it! Because nothing proves impossibility like a single data point.
And yes, I'm channeling the inner sarcast from deep within my soul. A great, dark hairy beast with sharp claws, big teeth, and the Helen Reddy Boxed Set.
-
A bullet striking the head from the right-front would not throw the body back and to the left.
A bullet striking a head moving forward at approximately 11mph, (the speed of the limo), would/could stop
forward movement and create the appearance of being thrown backward. Add in the back brace that held
JFK upright after the throat wound and the probability of a shot from the right front buries the idea a LN
fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.
-
A bullet striking a head moving forward at approximately 11mph, (the speed of the limo), would/could stop
forward movement and create the appearance of being thrown backward. Add in the back brace that held
JFK upright after the throat wound and the probability of a shot from the right front buries the idea a LN
fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.
Nobody cares about your opinion.
Support your statements.
-
It's in the link, Bill.
**********
We simply do not know how a body reacts to shots to the head, Bill. I choose to believe that a frontal shot pushed his head backward and people down on the street ran up to the knoll area. They didn't do that because they were sight seeing. *Something* made them run up there.
"I choose to believe". That say's it all.
-
Nobody cares about your opinion.
Support your statements.
If you don't care about my statements, don't respond.
I believe there is a ignore button, use it.
-
Anybody know about whether anyone has challenged Bugloisi to a debate other than Wecht?
You might want to change that to the past tense 'had challenged' as VB died three years ago.
-
Vincent Bugliosi's conclusion of no conspiracy should make you want to look at the JFK Assassination and dig in to the case . Reclaiming History and the Warren Report should be both in the Fiction section of the library. Now Dr. Cyril Wecht already told us that the Warren Report should be in the Fiction area of the Library and I think it is safe to say that Reclaiming History belongs in the fiction area also. I don't think there is one page in Vincent's book that does not refer to some disclaimer of conspiracy. I have the book & I have to make myself go back and pick up where I left off and read some more and then just set it down because it's a broken record . Have any of you tried to read this book? It's a mile long just like the Warren "26 volume" Report that Dr. Wecht says does not have an index.
I've read it cover to cover twice. I've tried to read Harvey & Lee several times but I burst into laughter by about the third page and have to put it aside.
-
It's in the link, Bill.
**********
We simply do not know how a body reacts to shots to the head, Bill. I choose to believe that a frontal shot pushed his head backward and people down on the street ran up to the knoll area. They didn't do that because they were sight seeing. *Something* made them run up there.
What you mean 'we', Sherlock? There's plenty of research describing what happens when a bullet strikes a head or body. It's called science. Of course you self-appointed experts don't need to do any research... just look at all those movies showing people flying all over the place from shots... pick up a book FFS.
-
If you don't care about my statements, don't respond.
I believe there is a ignore button, use it.
It'd be better if you would simply support your statements.
-
It'd be better if you would simply support your statements.
Point out what I didn't support.
-
I've read it cover to cover twice. I've tried to read Harvey & Lee several times but I burst into laughter by about the third page and have to put it aside.
I don't believe you.
-
Vincent Bugliosi's conclusion of no conspiracy should make you want to look at the JFK Assassination and dig in to the case . Reclaiming History and the Warren Report should be both in the Fiction section of the library. Now Dr. Cyril Wecht already told us that the Warren Report should be in the Fiction area of the Library and I think it is safe to say that Reclaiming History belongs in the fiction area also. I don't think there is one page in Vincent's book that does not refer to some disclaimer of conspiracy. I have the book & I have to make myself go back and pick up where I left off and read some more and then just set it down because it's a broken record . Have any of you tried to read this book? It's a mile long just like the Warren "26 volume" Report that Dr. Wecht says does not have an index.
The "Warren Report" does have an Index.
"The Report of the President's Commission On The Assassination Of President Kennedy" became known as "The Warren Report".
There is a "Table Of Contents".
Here is the link:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
The "Index" is on Pages 880 thru 888.
Dr Wecht is wrong and so are you.
-
I don't believe you.
What, that I burst out laughing when trying to read H&L. :D
I have actually read RH twice but preceded that with a reading of Four Days In November which is the first section of RH up to the funerals on the Monday. It was that reading that caused me to purchase RH online. I haven't read all of the source notes on the CD though but I dip into it at random occasionally and at times when searching for a name or other reference and that too is an excellent read.
-
A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963
?A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
- 1.President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
2.The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
3.Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle. that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
4.Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
5.Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.
Michael, If you believe that the government got it right with its report in 1978 , why do you argue against it?
-
"I choose to believe". That say's it all.
Forming conclusions is not a deliberate process?
-
Again, a shot from the right-front does not throw the head and body violently back and to the left.
What does it do?
-
But apparently according to Brown a shot from the right-rear does. 🤣
No.
I've never said anything close to that.
-
5.Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy. :D
.Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building. ;D
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy.
Was that after he told BRW to vacate the 6th floor and to hand him over his chicken lunch?
No, that would be after BRW finished his lunch and went down a flght to be with his two buddies and watch the motorcade.
Inexplicably, Saint Oz was one of the very few employees that couldn't be bothered to watch the President go by and whose whereabouts when the shots were fired are unknown.
But let's ignore the fact that the assassination rifle was found on the 6th floor with his prints on it, and concentrate on whether Oswald got to munch on BRW's chicken bones.
Hey, maybe that's what happened to the rubber chicken Oz carried into the depository in a 3 foot bag. BRW ate it.
BUGLIOSI HAS THE KOOKS PEGGED
-
Again, a shot from the right-front does not throw the head and body violently back and to the left.
The link you provided stated the following...
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
The HSCA had no idea what sort of conspiracy existed, if any at all.
This doesn't even mention their faulty conclusion based on the supposed rifle fire caught on the dictabelt recording, even though the impulses were recorded once the motorcade was on it's way to Parkland Hospital.
You wish to claim that the HSCA "got it right", yet you claim, based on your opinion on the way the body went back and to the left, that the President was struck by a shot from the knoll. The HSCA stated that the President was struck twice, both from behind and both from above. it sounds like you're contradicting yourself.
Uhh, yes it does Bill. I have another video showing someone taking a shot to the front of their head and their head is blown backwards like Kennedy's. We simply do not know how any gunshot wound to the head is going to cause movement to it but there is visual evidence that it can happen.
And as for the HSCA, you can make all the excuses you want to but they did say there were shots from the front. That's a conclusion written by a government body, the same type of body as the Warren report was. And don't forget Bill, THEY didn't know what the hell to say either except for one thing - that it was going to be all Oswald, all of the time. They had a preordained conclusion from on up high. So they massaged the photographic and other evidence to reach that conclusion. Seriously, Bill, do you know how many witnesses alone that were not even interviewed for the Warren report? One that a simple massage of what they said would be too obvious to be dishonest?
If you ask me, the HSCA, despite all of their own faults, were a little more interested in the real truth of what happened than the Warren gang ever was.
-
1, Oswald went home on a Thursday, instead of his usual Friday ride with BWF. There could be ONE and ONLY ONE reason for this: Oswald needed to get his rifle from the Paines garage :D ::)
2, Oswald left $170 and his ring for Marina and HIS CHILDREN, after the bad news she wanted a divorce. There could be ONE and ONLY ONE reason for this: Oswald was going to shoot JFK ::) :D
3.A light was left on the in Paines garage. There is ONE and ONLY one reason for this: Oswald went into the garage to get his rifle and left the light on. :D :D :D
Soon the Bugliiosi mole hill of "evidence" will grow even larger into a MOUNTAIN of BS:
-
Uhh, yes it does Bill. I have another video showing someone taking a shot to the front of their head and their head is blown backwards like Kennedy's. We simply do not know how any gunshot wound to the head is going to cause movement to it but there is visual evidence that it can happen.
And as for the HSCA, you can make all the excuses you want to but they did say there were shots from the front. That's a conclusion written by a government body, the same type of body as the Warren report was. And don't forget Bill, THEY didn't know what the hell to say either except for one thing - that it was going to be all Oswald, all of the time. They had a preordained conclusion from on up high. So they massaged the photographic and other evidence to reach that conclusion. Seriously, Bill, do you know how many witnesses alone that were not even interviewed for the Warren report? One that a simple massage of what they said would be too obvious to be dishonest?
If you ask me, the HSCA, despite all of their own faults, were a little more interested in the real truth of what happened than the Warren gang ever was.
'I have another video showing someone taking a shot to the front of their head and their head is blown backwards like Kennedy's
> Links please
-
'I have another video showing someone taking a shot to the front of their head and their head is blown backwards like Kennedy's
> Links please
I'd also like to see a link to the video.
-
1, Oswald went home on a Thursday, instead of his usual Friday ride with BWF. There could be ONE and ONLY ONE reason for this: Oswald needed to get his rifle from the Paines garage :D ::)
2, Oswald left $170 and his ring for Marina and HIS CHILDREN, after the bad news she wanted a divorce. There could be ONE and ONLY ONE reason for this: Oswald was going to shoot JFK ::) :D
3.A light was left on the in Paines garage. There is ONE and ONLY one reason for this: Oswald went into the garage to get his rifle and left the light on. :D :D :D
Soon the Bugliiosi mole hill of "evidence" will grow even larger into a MOUNTAIN of BS:
2, Oswald left $170 and his ring for Marina and HIS CHILDREN, after the bad news she wanted a divorce. There could be ONE and ONLY ONE reason for this: Oswald was going to shoot JFK ::) :D
Oswald did this to throw suspicion away from Marina who is obviously involved to the eyeteeth.
As in if what he believed was his theatre rendezvous for his next step out of town and away with the cash had happened. :D 8) Walk:
-
Michael, If you believe that the government got it right with its report in 1978 , why do you argue against it?
Wow, Tim. You left this out:
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
-
Uhh, yes it does Bill. I have another video showing someone taking a shot to the front of their head and their head is blown backwards like Kennedy's. We simply do not know how any gunshot wound to the head is going to cause movement to it but there is visual evidence that it can happen.
And as for the HSCA, you can make all the excuses you want to but they did say there were shots from the front. That's a conclusion written by a government body, the same type of body as the Warren report was. And don't forget Bill, THEY didn't know what the hell to say either except for one thing - that it was going to be all Oswald, all of the time. They had a preordained conclusion from on up high. So they massaged the photographic and other evidence to reach that conclusion. Seriously, Bill, do you know how many witnesses alone that were not even interviewed for the Warren report? One that a simple massage of what they said would be too obvious to be dishonest?
If you ask me, the HSCA, despite all of their own faults, were a little more interested in the real truth of what happened than the Warren gang ever was.
And as for the HSCA, you can make all the excuses you want to but they did say there were shots from the front.
Did the HSCA really say there were shots (plural) from the front, or are you misquoting their findings?
Secondly, they concluded, unlike yourself (even though you are relying on them as if they're confirming your belief) that the shot from the right-front was a miss.
And don't forget Bill, THEY didn't know what the hell to say either except for one thing - that it was going to be all Oswald, all of the time. They had a preordained conclusion from on up high.
Sorry Michael, but I'm not interested in your opinion on that... and make no mistake, it is merely your opinion.
-
HSCA stated that one shot must have come from the knoll area, it didn't hit anything.
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
four shots were fired
the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. The HSCA concluded the existence and location of this alleged fourth shot based on the later discredited Dallas Police Department Dictabelt recording analysis.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
Would a grassy knoll shot be sort of from the side? That's what it seems like to me.
-
Ross , you are right about the Warren Report ( Main report that he handed LBJ ) having an index but I don't think the 26 volumes of testimonies and diagrams and pictures has an index. If you find out about the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Report having an index , I would appreciate it if you let me know. Thanks Ross
-
So you do NOT support the WC's claim afterall. Good to know. They may revoke your LNer card though.
What "WC claim" are you referring to?
-
(https://seanmunger.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/reclaiming-history.jpg?w=616&h=347)
2. Not only is there no credible evidence that organized crime, the CIA, Castro, LBJ, and so on, conspired with Oswald to murder the president, but such a plan would be incredibly reckless, irrational, and dangerous for any of these persons or groups to even entertain, and hence, unlikely and far-fetched
RHVB
JohnM
-
[...]
And as for the HSCA, you can make all the excuses you want to but they did say there were shots from the front.
The HSCA said that there was ONE shot from the front, and that it missed. And that was based on a novel scientific approach that was later shown to be untenable, given the data.
-
In the beginning was the Southern Man
And the Southern Man came forward from Texas
And the Man formed the Commission and sent it forth to declare the Report
And the Commission so declared it
And the Commission begat parrots and those parrots begat parrots
And then came doubters and the doubters became critics
And the parrots spoke unto the critics and said cast down these doubts and believe
And the critics cried lo we can't..for we doubt the report
-
(https://seanmunger.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/reclaiming-history.jpg?w=616&h=347)
2. Not only is there no credible evidence that organized crime, the CIA, Castro, LBJ, and so on, conspired with Oswald to murder the president, but such a plan would be incredibly reckless, irrational, and dangerous for any of these persons or groups to even entertain, and hence, unlikely and far-fetched
RHVB
JohnM
Oh boy....
-
"An analysis by the committee of the statements of witnesses in Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963, moreover, showed that about 44 percent were not able to form an opinion about the origin of the shots, attesting to the ambiguity showed in the August 1978 experiment. Seventy percent of the witnesses in 1963 who had an opinion as to the origin said it was either the book depository or the grassy knoll. Those witnesses who thought the shots originated from the grassy knoll represented 30 percent of those who chose between the knoll and book depository and 21 percent of those who made a decision as to origin. Since most of the shots fired on November 22, 1963 (three out of four, the committee determined) came from the book depository, the fact that so many witnesses thought they heard shots from the knoll lent additional weight to a conclusion that a shot came from there."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=120
-------------------------------
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117
."The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the interval of the taking of the two photographs."
-
Bump
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
So Bugliosi was right?, where is the supporting evidence that supports a conspiracy.
JohnM
-
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/9rAAAOSweM1Z6kol/s-l300.jpg)
3. And if there?s no credible evidence that any of the aforementioned persons or groups were behind the assassination, what other person or group in our society would possibly be behind Oswald?s act? The Des Moines Rotary Club? The Boston Symphony? Some U.S. senators? The Miami City Council? The United States Department of Indian Affairs? The Southern Baptist Christian Conference? I hope the reader isn?t thinking how silly I am. The buffs are silly. I?m a rather serious person
RHVB
JohnM
-
I think you are prematurely dismissing The Boston Symphony as suspects.
If you play their last album backwards you will clearly hear the violins and oboes tapping out a stacatto Morse code message of 'we killed JFK'.
Additionally, the conductor and french horn player died under very strange circumstances.
If that's not evidence of a conspiracy, then I don't know what is.
-
Reminds me of the tragedy that occurred when the London Philharmonic Orchestra was playing the Bermuda Symphony. The guy on the triangle disappeared.
-
BSO was working that day....
Yeah, but what about their doubles ?
-
Yeah, but what about their doubles ?
There is only one suspected double that I know of, but you want to use that very point to help you explain uncomfortable facts in a sarcastic manner? Kind of a best of both worlds kind of thing I will admit however that once you get untangled with John I, you do seem to have cogent statements at your dispose
Seems like I have not seen John I for awhile
-
Yeah, but what about their doubles ?
They had them in the bar later.
-
BSO was working that day....
November 22, 1963
Erich Leinsdorf
Concertmaster, Boston Symphony
Boston Symphony Hall
@ the 2pm performance:
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a press report over the wires. We hope that it is unconfirmed, but we have to doubt it.
The President of the United States has been the victim of an assassination. We will play the funeral march from Beethoven's Third Symphony.
He probably meant The Boston Pops Orchestra. They were free that day.
-
So Bugliosi was right?, where is the supporting evidence that supports a conspiracy.
JohnM
Nope. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The Warren Commission weren't trying to prove a conspiracy, they were just out to get the right result for LBJ and Hoover.
-
He probably meant The Boston Pops Orchestra. They were free that day.
No. It was the Boston Symphony Orchestra.
Just add 8515399 https://vimeo.com/ after the com/at the end of the address.
-
No. It was the Boston Symphony Orchestra.
Not a valid vimeo URL
Ray,
The BSO and the Boston Pops are two different entities.
-
Ray,
The BSO and the Boston Pops are two different entities.
Yes I know, Steve, but it was the Boston Symphony Orchestra not the Pops. I rememberJohn Williams joining the Pops Orchestra in the seventies.
-
Wow, Tim. You left this out:
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
Michael, I left that out because I haven't seen you argue against it. It's not germane to the point I was making. You claim that the government got it right with its report in 1978 . Yet you argue against its concrete findings.
I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963
?A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
- 1.President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
2.The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
3.Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle. that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
4.Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
5.Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.
-
Duh, the one that said that LHO shot and killed JFK from behind. Playing games won't save you.
You're the one playing games when you attribute things to me that I have not said. Grow up.
-
The HSCA also said that there was NO recognizable human figure in the sixth floor window. Funny how you choose to ignore that.
I responded to his assertion that the HSCA concluded that there were shots (note plural) fired from the GK. As you are aware, I noted that the HSCA only committed to one shot from the GK, and that was purely on the basis of the WA acoustic study, which turned out to be in error.
But speaking of funny...
What's really, truly funny is that you assumed that the discussion must be about whatever random pet windmill you've chosen to tilt at this minute...whether it had anything to do with the conversation or not.
What's even funnier is, your own source makes clear that there are no photos showing the SN window during the assassination, so there is no reason to expect to see a "recognizable human figure" of an assassin in those photos. You simply have no point.
-
Ross , you are right about the Warren Report ( Main report that he handed LBJ ) having an index but I don't think the 26 volumes of testimonies and diagrams and pictures has an index. If you find out about the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Report having an index , I would appreciate it if you let me know. Thanks Ross
Mike,
This is additional information.
Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits
The Warren Commission published 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits within a few months after issuing its report. Volumes 1 - 5 are hearings conducted by the Commission members in Washington DC. Volumes 6 - 15 are hearings conducted by staff attorneys on location in Dallas, New Orleans, and other places. Volume 15 also contains an index to names and exhibits. Volumes 16 - 26 contain photographed Commission Exhibits, usually abbreviated to CE (i.e., CE 399), plus other exhibits organized by name.
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1006
Sylvia Meagher was a research analyst at the UN?s World Health Organization. She took a strong interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and read the twenty-six volumes of the hearings and exhibits of the Warren Commission: "It was appalling to find how many of the Commission's statements were unsupportable or even completely contradicted by the testimony and/or exhibits... I began to list what is now a long list of deliberate misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and other defects demonstrating not only extreme bias, incompetence, and carelessness but irrefutable instances of dishonesty."
In 1965 Meagher published Subject Index to the Warren Report and Hearings and Exhibits. As Meagher pointed out, studying the entire twenty-six volumes without a subject index would be "tantamount to a search for information in the Encylopedia Britannica if the contents were untitled, unalphabetized, and in random sequence."
A deep study of the Warren Commission Report convinced her that the its detailed evidence contradicted its general conclusions. Meagher therefore published Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report (1967). Meagher was unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a lone gunman and concluded that the Warren Commission had attempted to cover-up details of the real people behind the assassination. Meagher believed that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a group Anti-Castro exiles.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeagher.htm
Question: Why wasn't Sylvia Meager killed before she could complete her work? After the Warren Report was published: Conspirators were said to be rubbing-out anyone who might expose the conspiracy!
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-se-385drWK0/VXh28EMvuFI/AAAAAAAACNI/H0uIpIZz1bA/s1600/Vincent%2BBugliosi.jpg)
4. As mentioned in the introduction of this book, we all know from our own experiences in life that it is almost impossible to keep a secret. And that?s when only a few people, even two, are involved, and even if the matter that one wishes to remain undisclosed isn?t terribly important. Somehow or other the information gets out, and it does so rather quickly, whether induced by one?s conscience, as in a death-bed confession, or through a former wife or mistress, or inadvertently, or simply because people can?t keep their mouths shut.? As I told the jury in London, ?I?ll stipulate that three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead.? On a national scale we see this phenomenon at work with one presidential administration after another being unable to control, frequently for even a few days, ?leaks? to the media on matters they did not want known. (One example among thousands: USA Today reported on July 19, 2002, that ?recent news leaks [of classified information from a congressional probe of 9-11 intelligence failures] have infuriated the White House and prompted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to issue a memo warning that staffers who spill secrets are jeopardizing American lives.?)3 In the Kennedy case itself, we saw that although only a few members of the FBI?s Dallas office were involved, they were unable to keep secret their effort to suppress Oswald?s leaving a threatening note at the Dallas office about ten days or so before the assassination.
When we apply this literal rule of life to the alleged massive conspiracy the conspiracy theorists claim existed in the murder of the president of the United States?massive not only in the considerable number of people who would have had to be involved* but also in the great number of details and matters that would have had to be suppressed, any one of which could have exposed the plot or given rise to an inference of its existence, and which allegedly included the doctoring of many photographs and X-rays, even the Zapruder film itself, and the murder of over a hundred people to silence them, and then the cover-up of each of these murders?we can be certain that if such a conspiracy took place, its existence would have broken out of its original shell in a thousand different ways, and relatively quickly. Yet after forty-four long years, not one credible word, not one syllable has ever surfaced about any conspiracy to kill Kennedy. (There have been noncredible confessions of guilt in the Kennedy case, nearly all of which have been discussed in depth in this book?for example, Chicago mobster Sam Giancana allegedly telling his brother Chuck that he was behind the murders of JFK, RFK, and Marilyn Monroe, that he met with LBJ and Richard Nixon in Dallas before the assassination and told them he and the CIA were planning to murder JFK, and that Jack Ruby coordinated the whole assassination for Sam. Because none of these confessions are even remotely credible?indeed, many are downright amusing?no serious person has ever paid any attention to them.) The reason why not the slightest trace of a conspiracy has ever been uncovered, of course, is that no such conspiracy ever existed.
When we add to the above the allegation by conspiracy theorists that a second massive conspiracy existed?by the Warren Commission* and its leading assistant counsels to suppress the truth about the assassination from the American people?and not one word has ever leaked in over forty years of the existence of that conspiracy either, the only reasonable conclusion is that only people who subscribe to rules of absurdity, not rules of life, could possibly believe that a conspiracy to kill Kennedy ever existed. The conspiracy argument in the Kennedy assassination requires the belief that for over forty years a great number of people have been able to keep silent about the plot behind the most important and investigated murder of the twentieth century. In other words, it requires a belief in the impossible. Political columnist Charles Krauthammer, writing in 1992, pointed out the absurdity of the cover-up premise: ?That in a country where the fixing of a handful of game shows could not be held secret, a near-universal assassination conspiracy has remained airtight for 28 years.?4 How, sensible people ask, could such a vast conspiracy remain leakproof for almost four and a half decades, or even four and a half days? British writer D. M. Thomas marvels at the absurdity of the notion that ?a network of conspirators killed Kennedy, corrupted the medical and legal investigations, and buried the truth, all without a hitch.?
In his book, Loving God, former presidential assistant Charles Colson, in writing about Watergate, said, ?With the most powerful office in the world at stake, a small band of hand-picked loyalists [of President Richard Nixon]?could not hold a conspiracy together for more than two weeks.?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(http://www.famous-trials.com/images/ftrials/CharlesManson/img/bugliosi.jpg)
5. Obviously, the more complicated a plot is, the greater the likelihood that something will go wrong and it won?t work. Everyone intuitively knows this, and hence we can assume that if there had been a plot to kill Kennedy, the plotters would have made it as uncomplicated as possible. But the massive conspiracy envisioned by most conspiracy theorists necessarily would be extremely complex, and this fact is greatly exacerbated by the ineptitude of human beings.
I?m talking about the staggering incompetence at every level of our society, one that normally prevents any group, large or small, including the U.S. government and its agencies, from performing at anywhere near optimum capacity? Indeed, on a scale of one to ten, they normally operate below five. Incompetence is so widely prevalent that I expect it, and when I find competence I am always pleasantly surprised. Let?s look at just one example among a great many, this one at the CIA, the main federal agency conspiracy theorists suspect of being behind the assassination. In 1994, Aldrich Ames, chief of the CIA?s Soviet counterintelligence branch, pleaded guilty to the biggest espionage case in U.S. history. Ames furnished the Soviets U.S. secrets in return for more than $2 million. His perfidy led to the deaths of several Russian undercover agents working for the United States in the Soviet Union. Ames told his interrogators it was ?really easy? to obtain the top-secret information even after he was transferred to anti-narcotics work in the early 1990s.
In noting that it took an incredible nine years for Ames?s colleagues and superiors at CIA headquarters to catch him, syndicated columnist Mary McGrory wrote that ?Ames and his wife did everything they could to arouse suspicion, living it up in the most provocative manner. What G5-14, on a salary of $69,000-plus, pays half a million in cash [$540,000] for a house in Arlington, Virginia, buys a bright red Jaguar [which he drove to work] and runs up Trumplike charges on his credit card??6 A November 1994 report on the Ames case from the Senate Intelligence Committee found ?gross negligence? (?negligence? being a euphemism here for incompetence) at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and reports from both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Committee on Intelligence ?agreed that the agency [CIA] is in deep disarray,? a condition, they said, that long predated the Ames case.7
I mean, in 1986 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with billions of dollars spent, and the finest scientific minds available, and with the space shuttle Challenger right in front of their noses for inspection, and with a defective pressure seal wrongly designed and about which they had been advised and warned on numerous occasions, sent seven astronauts to their death because of their dreadful incompetence. Speaking of NASA, on the first day of the Apollo 8 flight that circumnavigated the moon, when Colonel Frank Borman, the commander of the flight, was sending transmissions back to Cape Kennedy, he referred to the Apollo 8 flight as the Gemini 8 flight, a flight he had participated in three years earlier. That?s life in the real world.
While we?re talking about incompetence, let?s look at an extreme example of it in the Kennedy case itself. Established procedure in the Secret Service during a presidential motorcade is to scan not only the crowds but also the roofs and windows of buildings as the motorcade goes along.8 But apparently, and unbelievably, not one of the sixteen Secret Service agents in the motorcade through Dealey Plaza was looking anywhere near the upper floors of the Book Depository Building. If they had, they would have seen (as several Dealey Plaza witnesses who never had any obligation to look for such things did) a figure or a rifle in the window where Oswald was. But there?s no evidence, from any of the reports of the agents, that they saw anything in Oswald?s window, or even saw the three black Book Depository employees in the two windows beneath Oswald?s window. Pardon my pique, but where in the hell were their heads when the president?s limousine passed by the Book Depository Building, other than up the proverbial place? Special Agent Roy Kellerman told the Warren Commission that in the Secret Service detail protecting the president, ?when you are driving down [the] street?and you have buildings on either side of you, you are going to scan your eyes up and down? the buildings.9 Can you imagine that? Thirty-two trained eyes belonging to sixteen men whose duty and responsibility was to protect the president, and not one of these thirty-two eyes saw Oswald, or a rifle, or anything worthy of their attention in the sniper?s nest window. But several lay people did, and they were only there to watch the motorcade, not watch over the president?s security.
The question is, How could the vast number of conspirators contemplated by the theorists have pulled off this incredibly complex conspiracy to such a degree of skill?never bumbling or slipping in any way that would reveal or even suggest their existence to one outside their group?that eternal secrecy would be guaranteed? Easy. You see, we know human beings are unable to keep their mouths shut and routinely incompetent, frequently stumbling over their own feet. But the conspirators envisioned by the theorists have their mouths permanently zippered and are extraordinarily competent, even prescient, being able to predict faultlessly all of the many uncontrollable variables in their mission to the point where everything worked perfectly, and with mathematical precision.
As Richard White, professor of history at the University of Washington, and speaking in a generic sense, says, ?You can?t trust the government to do anything right?except, of course, to conspire and cover up. Then it becomes diabolically efficient. The very people who are wildest for government conspiracies are often the same people who believe the government is incapable of delivering the mail efficiently.?10 In other words, the conspiracists believe that Murphy?s law (whatever can go wrong will go wrong) doesn?t apply to the alleged conspiracy in the assassination and cover-up.
The above deals with the murder and cover-up. But with the many groups supposedly involved in the conspiracy, like the CIA, mob, anti-Castro Cubans, and military-industrial complex, how could they handle all the logistical complexities and inevitable disagreements among themselves over details during the planning phase leading up to November 22, without anything they did out of the ordinary (and by definition, they would have had to do things out of the ordinary) coming to the attention of just one person outside their group?
RHVB
JohnM
-
Mike,
This is additional information.
Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits
The Warren Commission published 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits within a few months after issuing its report. Volumes 1 - 5 are hearings conducted by the Commission members in Washington DC. Volumes 6 - 15 are hearings conducted by staff attorneys on location in Dallas, New Orleans, and other places. Volume 15 also contains an index to names and exhibits. Volumes 16 - 26 contain photographed Commission Exhibits, usually abbreviated to CE (i.e., CE 399), plus other exhibits organized by name.
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1006
Sylvia Meagher was a research analyst at the UN?s World Health Organization. She took a strong interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and read the twenty-six volumes of the hearings and exhibits of the Warren Commission: "It was appalling to find how many of the Commission's statements were unsupportable or even completely contradicted by the testimony and/or exhibits... I began to list what is now a long list of deliberate misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and other defects demonstrating not only extreme bias, incompetence, and carelessness but irrefutable instances of dishonesty."
In 1965 Meagher published Subject Index to the Warren Report and Hearings and Exhibits. As Meagher pointed out, studying the entire twenty-six volumes without a subject index would be "tantamount to a search for information in the Encylopedia Britannica if the contents were untitled, unalphabetized, and in random sequence."
A deep study of the Warren Commission Report convinced her that the its detailed evidence contradicted its general conclusions. Meagher therefore published Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report (1967). Meagher was unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a lone gunman and concluded that the Warren Commission had attempted to cover-up details of the real people behind the assassination. Meagher believed that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a group Anti-Castro exiles.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeagher.htm
Question: Why wasn't Sylvia Meager killed before she could complete her work? After the Warren Report was published: Conspirators were said to be rubbing-out anyone who might expose the conspiracy!
"Question: Why wasn't Sylvia Meager killed before she could complete her work? After the Warren Report was published: Conspirators were said to be rubbing-out anyone who might expose the conspiracy!"
DISPATCH CLASSIFICATION PROCESSING ACTION
TOP SECRET MARKED FOR INDEXING
TO Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases X NO INDEXING REQUIRED
INFO ONLY QUALIFIED DESK
CAN JUDGE INDEXING
FROM The Director of Central Intelligence MICROFILM
SUBJECT Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
ACTION REQUIRED - REFERENCES
PSYCH
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on,
there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although
this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at
the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the
Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning,
and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's
findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some
kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was
involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren
Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the
American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of
those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved.
Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government,
including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally
chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both
major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections
of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to
impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of
American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint
that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have
benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of
such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole
reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly
involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation.
Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for
example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of
this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims
of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in
other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and
in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination ques-
tion be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is
active, however, addressees are requested:
DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER DATE
9 attachments h/w 4/1/67
1 - classified secret CLASSIFICATION HQS FILE NUMBER
8 - Unclassified TOP SECRET DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER
NEEDED
CONTINUATION OF CLASSIFICATION DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER
DISPATCH TOP SECRET
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts
(especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission
made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the
critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion
only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the
conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.
Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible
speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the
critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for
this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide
useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out,
as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the
evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv)
hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.
In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful
strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached
Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark
Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where
contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer
as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or
in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments
should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not
consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten
and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the
attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits
have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics.
(A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire
of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt)
now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for
either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists,
but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the
Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend
to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which
are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for
criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close
examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting
eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commis-
sion for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to con-
ceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large
royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and
John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any
conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would
hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and
Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds
on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose
a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his con-
trol: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the
assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have
arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they
light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commis-
sion because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one
way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was
an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against
the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
CLASSIFICATION PAGE NO.
FORM TOP SECRET TWO
8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION. X CONTINUED
CONTINUATION OF CLASSIFICATION DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER
DISPATCH TOP SECRET
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-
conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability
and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged
three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that
the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to
the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases
coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now
putting out new criticism.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteri-
ously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g., the indi-
viduals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Com-
mission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more
people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a
large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn
Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, ap-
peared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were
from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on
a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the
Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be
impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Com-
mission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their
account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far
superior to the work of its critics.
CLASSIFICATION PAGE NO.
FORM TOP SECRET THREE
8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION. CONTINUED
(40)
Document Number 1035-960
for FOIA Review on SEP 1976
-
They saw NO human figure immediately before or immediately after. How do you explain that if you continue to ridiculously claim that LHO was there (and of course there isn't a shred of evil to show that he was)? Was he Houdini?
It's your assertion. It is up to *you* to explain that we *should* *expect* to see a "recognizable human figure" in any photos of the TSBD, and why we should expect to see it. How long after the last shot was the earliest after-the-fact photo taken? When was the last before-the-fact photo taken of that window? I doubt the sniper spent too much time setting up or bugging out. If the no photo is taken soon enough before or after, there is no good reason to expect anyone to be in the window at the first place.
And, you have to consider the various possible stances the sniper could take, visual obstructions like the boxes in the window or the wall to the east of the window, and the angle of the photographer with the TSBD WRT to these visual obstacles. You may have a photo showing some part of a person up there, just not a "recognizable human figure," because most of that figure is hidden by some combination of boxes, walls, window mullions, and shadow. You've done none of that. You've simply assert whatever, then petulantly whined that I don't take your assertion seriously.
Which is yet another good reason for me to not to take your assertions seriously.
-
Wow. You posted two on the same day. You had such a problem with me doing this. What's the difference?
Stop lying, you were posting dozens of threads at a time, as the following statistic shows in graphic detail.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/iwfrx89nf/caprio_sproblem.jpg)
Btw why are you so afraid of Bugliosi?
JohnM
-
Where is the supporting evidence for the claim that LHO did it? I have tried to help you LNers, but you folks gave up after three issues.
Why do LNers accept one theory with NO supporting evidence, but not others that mention a conspiracy? Does this make any sense?
I would urge you to read the HSCA report along with the Warren Report. They are both online I'm sure.
-
ABC Interview with G Robert Blakey....[The Mob did it]
The Mob?s Motive
ABCNEWS: In your book you point the finger squarely at Carlos Marcello and his organization. Why would he want to kill Kennedy?
Blakey: Carlos Marcello was being subject to the most vigorous investigation he had ever experienced in his life, designed to put him in jail. He was in fact summarily, without due process, deported to Guatemala. He took the deportation personally. He hated the Kennedys. He had the motive, the opportunity and the means in Lee Harvey Oswald to kill him. I think he did through Oswald.
When I say this was a mob hit, I don't mean the national syndicate. We had, from the FBI ? we being the House Select Committee On Assassinations ? we got all that illegal electronic surveillance, and we studied it for a period before the assassination and the period after the assassination. We concluded that it was so good that it precluded the possibility that the National Commission was involved, but there was no electronic surveillance in New Orleans.
****************************************************************
Oswald Assassination a Mob Hit or Kill the Killer
ABCNEWS: How central is Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald to your understanding of this case?
Blakey: To understand who killed President Kennedy and did he have help, I think you have to understand what happened to the assassin of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald. I see Jack Ruby's assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald as a mob hit.
This is in direct contradiction to the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission portrayed, wrongly I think, Jack Ruby as a wild card who serendipitously got into position to kill Oswald. I think in fact he stalked him. I can show you from the Warren Commission's evidence that he tried to get into where he was being interrogated, number one. That he tried to get in where there was going to be a lineup, number two. That he was seen around the garage, where he was announced that he was going to be moved. And we know, from Jack Ruby himself, that he had a gun with him at the time of the lineup.
I believe that Ruby was able to get in to kill Oswald through the corrupt cooperation of the Dallas P.D., that he was let in through a back door and he was given an opportunity to kill Oswald. I see that, therefore, as a mob hit. And if that's a mob hit, there is only one reason for it, and that is to cover up the assassination of the president himself. You kill the killer. That's a standard operating procedure for, for mob hits, unless the hit is by somebody who's already in the family. If you use an outsider you kill him.
**************************************************************
Connecting Oswald to the Mob
ABCNEWS: Since you believe that Lee Oswald shot the president, and you also believe that Carlos Marcello was behind the assassination, what connections do you point to between Oswald and Marcello?
Blakey: I can show you that Lee Harvey Oswald knew, from his boyhood forward, David Ferrie, and David Ferrie was an investigator for Carlos Marcello on the day of the assassination, with him in a court room in New Orleans. I can show you that Lee Harvey Oswald, when he grew up in New Orleans, lived with the Dutz Murret family [one of Oswald's uncles]. Dutz Murret is a bookmaker for Carlos Marcello.
I can show you that there's a bar in New Orleans, and back in the '60s, bars used to have strippers and the strippers circuit is from Jack Ruby's strip joint in Dallas to Marcello-connected strip joints in the New Orleans area. So I can bring this connection.
Did Lee Harvey Oswald grow up in a criminal neighborhood? Yes. Did he have a mob-connected family? Did he have mob-connected friends? Was he known to them to be a crazy guy? He's out publicly distributing Fair Play for Cuba leaflets. If you wanted to enlist him in a conspiracy that would initially appear to be communist and not appear to be organized crime, he's the perfect candidate. Ex-Marine, marksman, probably prepared to kill the president for political reasons.
Could he be induced to kill the president for organized crime reasons unbeknownst to him? I think the answer is yes and compelling.
********************************************************
Connecting Ruby to the Mob
ABCNEWS: You're convinced Ruby was connected to organized crime in Chicago?
Blakey: He used to be a runner for Al Capone. He was a gopher. He was violently connected with a mob-dominated union. He was connected to Zooky the Bookie. The mob took out Zooky the Bookie because they wanted to take over his business, and they told Ruby to leave town and Ruby left. This is the story of Jack Ruby in Chicago.
This guy is not somebody totally unrelated to organized crime. He gets into Dallas. I know that he has financial problems. And who is he on the phone with? He's on the phone with major figures of organized crime. I know that he meets with an organized crime figure the night before the assassination, and I know the same guy visited him in jail. Sure, he's a blabbermouth.
But what would you do if the mob came into you and said, "Jack, we want you to hit Oswald, and when you do, you're solid with us." What goes through Jack Ruby's mind? "I'm dead. I either do this or I'm dead."
*************************************************************
ABCNEWS: How certain are you about your theory?
Blakey: What I'm saying to you is, this is not something I'd take to court. I'm talking about a judgment of history. I'm not talking about admissible evidence under a court standard. I'm talking about a jigsaw puzzle and you put little pieces in. Do I have the last piece, certainty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Could reasonable people disagree with me? Yes. What they have to do though, is deal with not strands of the evidence, but the evidence as a whole. For example, I'm more confident that the mob was involved in the assassination in of Lee Harvey Oswald and therefore, of what happened in the plaza, then I am of any connection between the mob and Lee Harvey Oswald.
The strongest part of my case is the [mob] connections to Ruby and the Ruby assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald. Why would the mob want to take out Lee Harvey Oswald, except he knows something about them that they would engage in a high risk venture to kill him.
To ask that question is to answer it. There's only one answer to that. They had a hand in the assassination.
G. Robert Blakey is the William and Dorothy O'Neill Professor of Law at The University of Notre Dame. He served as Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 through 1979. He is the author of The Plot to Kill The President (1981), which was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime. An expert on organized crime, he drafted the legislation in 1970 that created the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).
https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131462&page=1
If the organized crime guys dispatched Oswald to kill President Kennedy...why would he be supplied with a piece of crap rifle?
An M14 would have been a better snipers choice in 1963.
Bugliosi didn't 'investigate' anything [just like the FBI didn't investigate anything]
How many other assassinations did Oswald do?---- Oswald the professional killer? Right
-
ABC Interview with G Robert Blakey....[The Mob did it]
https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131462&page=1
I believe that Ruby was able to get in to kill Oswald through the corrupt cooperation of the Dallas P.D., that he was let in through a back door and he was given an opportunity to kill Oswald. I see that, therefore, as a mob hit. And if that's a mob hit, there is only one reason for it, and that is to cover up the assassination of the president himself. You kill the killer. That's a standard operating procedure for, for mob hits, unless the hit is by somebody who's already in the family. If you use an outsider you kill him.
G Robert Blakey 'investigated'
-
(https://www.statesman.com/rf/image_large/Pub/p4/Statesman/2013/05/18/Images/photos.medleyphoto.3420387.jpg)
6. If Oswald conspired with anyone, they waited quite awhile to bring him aboard. The conspiracy couldn?t have been hatched before October 1, 1963, when we know Oswald was still in Mexico City desperately trying to get to Cuba. If he had succeeded in getting to Cuba, who believes he would have ended up killing Kennedy? No one I?ve ever heard of. And how believable is it that a plot to kill the president of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, would be born after October 1, just seven weeks before Kennedy?s death? To believe something like that is to be addicted to silliness. The absurdity of the notion that Oswald conspired with others to kill Kennedy can be spotlighted by the fact that on the very day, September 26, 1963, that it was announced in both Dallas newspapers that Kennedy was going to come to Texas on November 21 and 22 and that Dallas would likely be one of the cities he would visit,11 Oswald was on a bus traveling to Mexico City determined to get to Cuba.
Indeed, since Kennedy?s motorcade route past the Book Depository Building wasn?t selected until November 18,12 and announced in a paper for the first time on the morning of November 19 in the Dallas Morning News,13 we not only thereby know that Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building on October 15 was unrelated to President Kennedy?s trip to Dallas and the assassination, but it would seem that any conspiracy involving Oswald as the hit man would have had to be hatched no earlier than November 19, just three days before Kennedy?s death (i.e., unless the argument is made?which I have yet to hear even the daffy conspiracy buffs make?that wherever Kennedy went when he came to Dallas, it was Oswald?s job to track him down and kill him). Surely no person with an ounce of sense could possibly believe that the CIA, mob, and so on, recruited Oswald to kill Kennedy just three days before the assassination.
RHVB
JohnM
-
This is a solid argument against Oswald being part of a conspiracy (we can add Oswald going to the FBI about 10 days before the assassination and leaving a provocative note: that's drawing attention to himself); but it's also, albeit to a lesser degree, an argument against Oswald as the assassin.
That is, if he was so angry at the president - as presidential assassins were - that he was willing to throw away his life in killing him then why was he trying to leave the country just two months before the assassination? There's no evidence that he was stalking JFK, following his travels in hopes of somehow shooting him. JFK went to Miami about a week before Dallas. There's no evidence that Oswald wanted to go to Miami and try to shoot him.
And there's little evidence that he harbored hatred towards JFK the man. Yes, we have Volkmar Schmidt's single account where he said Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK because of the president's Cuba policies. But we have Marina saying he liked JFK and De Mohrenschildt saying he admired Kennedy. And there are no writings or public statements from him condemning JFK the man. Recall the debate Oswald had in New Orleans? Castro was quoted calling JFK a (if I recall the right word) "criminal" but Oswald replied that he disagreed with that characterization of Kennedy.
We have, in my opinion, lots of physical and circumstantial evidence to show that Oswald shot JFK. But we have very very little about any motive. It's in this area where the conspiracists can play their ace cards.
-
Of course there's lots of evidence pointing to Oswald because he was the designated patsy and he knew it. James Angleton created the fake defector program and Oswald was a singleton agent disenfranchised from the agency so he could go undercover. But he was actually a member of Angleton's patsy pool who could be used at the CIA's discretion to do just about anything. And every good coup needs a designated patsy.
They could have even told Oswald he was the designated patsy and reassured him he would be granted safe passage to either Cuba, Russia, or Mexico. He might have been trying to get a visa in Mexico so he wouldn't get hung up at the border during his escape. Or maybe he was trying to bail out of the coup, who knows? Either way, he was the designated patsy long before October 1st and he knew all he had to do was play his part in the conspiracy, which did not include firing the rifle, otherwise, the lack of his prints is inexplicable.
Like Thomas Arthur Vallee was the Plan A patsy for Chicago, Oswald was Plan B for Dallas. Vallee got planted in a condo overlooking the motorcade route, Oswald in the TSBD. How can anyone possibly think that was a coincidence?
-
This is a solid argument against Oswald being part of a conspiracy (we can add Oswald going to the FBI about 10 days before the assassination and leaving a provocative note: that's drawing attention to himself); but it's also, albeit to a lesser degree, an argument against Oswald as the assassin.
That is, if he was so angry at the president - as presidential assassins were - that he was willing to throw away his life in killing him then why was he trying to leave the country just two months before the assassination? There's no evidence that he was stalking JFK, following his travels in hopes of somehow shooting him. JFK went to Miami about a week before Dallas. There's no evidence that Oswald wanted to go to Miami and try to shoot him.
And there's little evidence that he harbored hatred towards JFK the man. Yes, we have Volkmar Schmidt's single account where he said Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK because of the president's Cuba policies. But we have Marina saying he liked JFK and De Mohrenschildt saying he admired Kennedy. And there are no writings or public statements from him condemning JFK the man. Recall the debate Oswald had in New Orleans? Castro was quoted calling JFK a (if I recall the right word) "criminal" but Oswald replied that he disagreed with that characterization of Kennedy.
We have, in my opinion, lots of physical and circumstantial evidence to show that Oswald shot JFK. But we have very very little about any motive. It's in this area where the conspiracists can play their ace cards.
You summed it all up very nicely here Steve, Oswald was not part of the conspiracy, as he would never take part in such an act against, the very people he had trained to protect, ie the POTUS, and remember this boy had a good heart.
He was unknowingly used by, those conspirators who had the most hatred towards J.F.K, the right wing KKK protestant Anglo saxons, and according to Milteer a local guy such as Oswald would be picked up to throw the public off, this also prevented them unamerican John Birchers Xmilitary and serving from having to sacrifice one of their own, it worked out perfect to blame a communist sympathiser, it gave the momentum to allow Vietnam to burn even hotter, as it placed the theory in the minds of the new G.I U.S troops that they were somehow avenging their leaders death.
-
(https://d28hgpri8am2if.cloudfront.net/author_images/4286_1430868.jpg)
7. In the same vein, during the five-week period leading up to the assassination, we know Oswald was taking driving lessons from Ruth Paine and was about to apply for a learner?s permit. In fact, we know that as late as November 16, just six days before the assassination, Oswald went to the state?s license examination bureau in Dallas to get his driver?s permit, only leaving because the line was very long.14 How likely is it that Oswald would be taking driving lessons and going down to get a learner?s permit on November 16 if he was planning on murdering the president six days later? As mentioned earlier in this book, his leaving nearly all his money and his wedding ring behind on the morning of the assassination clearly demonstrated his awareness of what he could expect his life to be like after he pulled the trigger. The mundane exercise of learning to drive and looking forward to one day having a driving license speaks loudly for the proposition that Oswald?s intent to murder the president was formed somewhat on the spur of the moment not long before the day of the assassination, and as a necessary corollary and concomitant to this, against the proposition that a group like the CIA or organized crime conspired with Oswald to have him kill Kennedy for them.
Other things Oswald did during the month leading up to the assassination clearly represented a person in the normal, humdrum rhythm of life, not someone preparing, with others, to murder the president of the United States. For example, we already know that on November 1, three weeks before the assassination, he rented a mail box at the Terminal Annex near the Book Depository Building. At $1.50 per month, he paid $3.00 for two months, the rental expiring on December 31, five weeks after the assassination.15 The relevance of this is clear since we know that Oswald was very tightfisted with his money, what precious little of it he had. And although to you and me $1.50 is nothing, everything in life is relative, and to Oswald it was something. Here?s someone who is paying $8.00 a week in rent, can?t live with his wife and daughters because he can?t afford an apartment for the three of them, and has a net worth of little over $200.00. He never would have just thrown away that extra $1.50 for the second month if he didn?t intend to use the mail box for that month of December, particularly, as I say, when he was notorious for literally watching every penny.
Also, on November 1 he sent a letter to Arnold Johnson, the director of information for the American Communist Party in New York City, in which he told Johnson of his being introduced, by a friend, to the local chapter of the ACLU, and asked Johnson to advise him ?to what degree, if any? should he ?attempt to heighten [the group?s] progressive tendencies??16 Around that same time, Oswald sent a $2.00 registration fee to the ACLU in New York City to become a new member, the ACLU receiving the $2.00 on November 4.17 On November 9, Oswald wrote a letter to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C., asking it to ?please inform us [him and Marina] of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visas as soon as they come [in],? mailing the letter on November 12.1
Indeed, in the late evening of November 20, just two days before the assassination, Oswald took a load of his clothing to a ?washateria? (laundromat) near his home.19 Though the thought of killing the president had probably already entered his mind, the act of washing a load of his clothing clearly reflects that no final decision (if one at all) had yet been made, and of course it automatically would have been made by this time if he had been the hit man in a conspiracy to murder the president. If by Wednesday evening he had already committed himself to killing Kennedy, his state of mind would have had to be that if he got caught, Dallas County would be doing his laundry at least for awhile, and if he was able to flee to Mexico or where have you, like the title of Billie Holiday?s song, he would be ?traveling light? while getting there, not carrying a bundle of laundry in his arms.
For all intents and purposes, Oswald?s conduct during the month before the assassination alone precludes the notion of a conspiracy.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://d28hgpri8am2if.cloudfront.net/author_images/4286_1430868.jpg)
7. In the same vein, during the five-week period leading up to the assassination, we know Oswald was taking driving lessons from Ruth Paine and was about to apply for a learner?s permit. In fact, we know that as late as November 16, just six days before the assassination, Oswald went to the state?s license examination bureau in Dallas to get his driver?s permit, only leaving because the line was very long.14 How likely is it that Oswald would be taking driving lessons and going down to get a learner?s permit on November 16 if he was planning on murdering the president six days later? As mentioned earlier in this book, his leaving nearly all his money and his wedding ring behind on the morning of the assassination clearly demonstrated his awareness of what he could expect his life to be like after he pulled the trigger. The mundane exercise of learning to drive and looking forward to one day having a driving license speaks loudly for the proposition that Oswald?s intent to murder the president was formed somewhat on the spur of the moment not long before the day of the assassination, and as a necessary corollary and concomitant to this, against the proposition that a group like the CIA or organized crime conspired with Oswald to have him kill Kennedy for them.
Other things Oswald did during the month leading up to the assassination clearly represented a person in the normal, humdrum rhythm of life, not someone preparing, with others, to murder the president of the United States. For example, we already know that on November 1, three weeks before the assassination, he rented a mail box at the Terminal Annex near the Book Depository Building. At $1.50 per month, he paid $3.00 for two months, the rental expiring on December 31, five weeks after the assassination.15 The relevance of this is clear since we know that Oswald was very tightfisted with his money, what precious little of it he had. And although to you and me $1.50 is nothing, everything in life is relative, and to Oswald it was something. Here?s someone who is paying $8.00 a week in rent, can?t live with his wife and daughters because he can?t afford an apartment for the three of them, and has a net worth of little over $200.00. He never would have just thrown away that extra $1.50 for the second month if he didn?t intend to use the mail box for that month of December, particularly, as I say, when he was notorious for literally watching every penny.
Also, on November 1 he sent a letter to Arnold Johnson, the director of information for the American Communist Party in New York City, in which he told Johnson of his being introduced, by a friend, to the local chapter of the ACLU, and asked Johnson to advise him ?to what degree, if any? should he ?attempt to heighten [the group?s] progressive tendencies??16 Around that same time, Oswald sent a $2.00 registration fee to the ACLU in New York City to become a new member, the ACLU receiving the $2.00 on November 4.17 On November 9, Oswald wrote a letter to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C., asking it to ?please inform us [him and Marina] of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visas as soon as they come [in],? mailing the letter on November 12.1
Indeed, in the late evening of November 20, just two days before the assassination, Oswald took a load of his clothing to a ?washateria? (laundromat) near his home.19 Though the thought of killing the president had probably already entered his mind, the act of washing a load of his clothing clearly reflects that no final decision (if one at all) had yet been made, and of course it automatically would have been made by this time if he had been the hit man in a conspiracy to murder the president. If by Wednesday evening he had already committed himself to killing Kennedy, his state of mind would have had to be that if he got caught, Dallas County would be doing his laundry at least for awhile, and if he was able to flee to Mexico or where have you, like the title of Billie Holiday?s song, he would be ?traveling light? while getting there, not carrying a bundle of laundry in his arms.
For all intents and purposes, Oswald?s conduct during the month before the assassination alone precludes the notion of a conspiracy.
RHVB
JohnM
so even by Bugliosi logic, Oswald was NOT planning to kill JFK!!. :D except suddenly on Thursday morning?? ???
So you will have to explain what was the powerful stimulus that completely overwhelmed Oswald, so much so that his desire to see Marina and his children a littler earlier on Thursday (having been denied visit the previous Friday by Ruth Paine), would cause him to abandon that pleasant thought and replaced with " I just GOTTA kill JFK first, before I visit my wife and children and have a nice 3 day weekend.
-
so even by Bugliosi logic, Oswald was NOT planning to kill JFK!!. :D except suddenly on Thursday morning?? ???
So you will have to explain what was the powerful stimulus that completely overwhelmed Oswald, so much so that his desire to see Marina and his children a littler earlier on Thursday (having been denied visit the previous Friday by Ruth Paine), would cause him to abandon that pleasant thought and replaced with " I just GOTTA kill JFK first, before I visit my wife and children and have a nice 3 day weekend.
Oswald went to pick up his rifle. It's possible, as others have speculated, that he wasn't 100% committed to his plan to kill the Pres if Marina agreed to go back to him. We will never know just as we will never know if he made the bag in the garage, at his room the night before or elsewhere before bringing it to Irving.
You think he was a nice family man? I don't think so. He beat his wife, had a stash of money but offered little to Marina to support her needs (including simple health care) and those of the children. Even if Marina had agreed to go back to him and if he abandoned his plan he was still a walking time bomb and would IMO have erupted at some point but that might have simply been killing Hosty or a cop or two and we wouldn't be talking about the scumbag today.
I'd think he was rapidly losing his sanity. He was a deadbeat and a loser who felt the world owed him something just as his mother taught him. He wasn't a patsy so much as an insecure mama's boy.
-
Oswald went to pick up his rifle. It's possible, as others have speculated, that he wasn't 100% committed to his plan to kill the Pres if Marina agreed to go back to him. We will never know just as we will never know if he made the bag in the garage, at his room the night before or elsewhere before bringing it to Irving.
You think he was a nice family man? I don't think so. He beat his wife, had a stash of money but offered little to Marina to support her needs (including simple health care) and those of the children. Even if Marina had agreed to go back to him and if he abandoned his plan he was still a walking time bomb and would IMO have erupted at some point but that might have simply been killing Hosty or a cop or two and we wouldn't be talking about the scumbag today.
I'd think he was rapidly losing his sanity. He was a deadbeat and a loser who felt the world owed him something just as his mother taught him. He wasn't a patsy so much as an insecure mama's boy.
Oswald had a long, documented history of abandoning his family: he defected to the Soviet Union leaving them - his Mother and brothers - behind. Indeed, in letters to his brother he told him that he wasn't going to answer them anymore, that he had turned his back on the US and them, and was starting a better life in a better place.
Then he tries, as the evidence for me indicates, to shoot Walker and leaves behind a note explaining to Marina what she and Junie could do to survive. They would be on their own.
Then we have him going to Mexico City and trying to defect to Cuba. Marina said that when she and Oswald said goodbye to each other in New Orleans as she left for Texas and he for Mexico that she was certain it would be the last she ever saw of him.
This is a man with a clear history of putting his own interests and desires above everyone else. Including his children.
But it is true, as I see it, that his motive for shooting JFK is something that is difficult to explain. There's no long term planning behind the act. He didn't stalk JFK, he didn't leave notes or messages indicating his hatred of JFK. There's little "paper trail" telling us why he did what he did. It does seem to have been a spur of the moment, impetuous act.
-
Oswald went to pick up his rifle. It's possible, as others have speculated, that he wasn't 100% committed to his plan to kill the Pres if Marina agreed to go back to him. We will never know just as we will never know if he made the bag in the garage, at his room the night before or elsewhere before bringing it to Irving.
You think he was a nice family man? I don't think so. He beat his wife, had a stash of money but offered little to Marina to support her needs (including simple health care) and those of the children. Even if Marina had agreed to go back to him and if he abandoned his plan he was still a walking time bomb and would IMO have erupted at some point but that might have simply been killing Hosty or a cop or two and we wouldn't be talking about the scumbag today.
I'd think he was rapidly losing his sanity. He was a deadbeat and a loser who felt the world owed him something just as his mother taught him. He wasn't a patsy so much as an insecure mama's boy.
Oswald slept in his mother's bed until age 11, she bathed him until he got 'too big down there', one of the guys in his marine unit said he was effeminate, and some of the boarders at his rooming house said he had this weird arse movement (I don't recall the exact term they used) when he walked.
I kind of feel sorry for him, though. He needed better guidance as a youngster.
-
Oswald had a long, documented history of abandoning his family: he defected to the Soviet Union leaving them - his Mother and brothers - behind. Indeed, in letters to his brother he told him that he wasn't going to answer them anymore, that he had turned his back on the US and them, and was starting a better life in a better place.
Then he tries, as the evidence for me indicates, to shoot Walker and leaves behind a note explaining to Marina what she and Junie could do to survive. They would be on their own.
Then we have him going to Mexico City and trying to defect to Cuba. Marina said that when she and Oswald said goodbye to each other in New Orleans as she left for Texas and he for Mexico that she was certain it would be the last she ever saw of him.
This is a man with a clear history of putting his own interests and desires above everyone else. Including his children.
But it is true, as I see it, that his motive for shooting JFK is something that is difficult to explain. There's no long term planning behind the act. He didn't stalk JFK, he didn't leave notes or messages indicating his hatred of JFK. There's little "paper trail" telling us why he did what he did. It does seem to have been a spur of the moment, impetuous act.
Good points, Steve.
Yeah, the motive thing is a bit troubling. Why take a shot at Walker ? Why shoot JFK ?
The truth is, sometimes people do things that make absolutely zero sense and their acts aren't motivated by anything comprehensible to the rest of us.
There are whackjobs out there that can go off at anytime.
That being said, while I'm certain that Saint Oz was guilty, it's always bothered me somewhat that he maintained his innocence. He had to have known all the evidence that would be presented against him in the JDT and JFK murders.
Then again, Ted Bundy and OJ also claimed they were innocent.
There's just no telling what goes on in the mind of a psychopath.
-
Oswald slept in his mother's bed until age 11, she bathed him until he got 'too big down there', one of the guys in his marine unit said he was effeminate, and some of the boarders at his rooming house said he had this weird arse movement (I don't recall the exact term they used) when he walked.
I kind of feel sorry for him, though. He needed better guidance as a youngster.
Perhaps Oswald was doublejointed as per his odd off balance position in the BYP:
(http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/images/backyarda.jpg)
-
it's always bothered me somewhat that he maintained his innocence. He had to have known all the evidence that would be presented against him in the JDT and JFK murders.
If Oswald admitted his crimes the game was over. By game I mean exactly that; his attitude was 'you find the answers 'cause I'm way smarter than you guys.' An admission would see him languishing in jail awaiting his trial with the certainty IMO of a spell on death row and a pathetic execution. So long as the game was in play he got the attention he so clearly craved. I agree that the evidence was overwhelming but that little insecure attention seeker would have lied his way to the very end so long as it meant the spotlight was on him.
-
If Lee constructed CE 142, it had to be in situ at the wrapping bench in the first floor. The same place where there were wrappers and the offices of Truly and Shelley. Just when do you think he did that?
Save it for The Bag thread. I lost interest in that issue weeks ago. I mean, 200+ pages is more than enough.
-
If Oswald admitted his crimes the game was over. By game I mean exactly that; his attitude was 'you find the answers 'cause I'm way smarter than you guys.' An admission would see him languishing in jail awaiting his trial with the certainty IMO of a spell on death row and a pathetic execution. So long as the game was in play he got the attention he so clearly craved. I agree that the evidence was overwhelming but that little insecure attention seeker would have lied his way to the very end so long as it meant the spotlight was on him.
Thumb1:
-
;D
Trust me, if I was a LNer - that's one thread I would avoid at all costs.
Talk it up as much as you like. It's a non-event for me. 200 + pages with some photographs posted dozens (literally) of times with the same limited discussion going around and around getting nowhere. That's what it is.
-
You left out the most probable location: the packing bench at the depository.
According to the evidence.
Confirming you have no clue about the evidence so why bother posting your rants in the first place when you have nothing to contribute?
One thing about you kooks that is consistent across various sites is your hatred for the opinions of other people who see things differently. Par for the course.
I did say "or elsewhere" which can involve your preferred place if you like. I don't really care. If you'd actually think more broadly you might consider the possibility that the materials for the bag making were taken home so the bag could be constructed without the eyes of his coworkers and office staff watching him 'steal' materials for what was obviously his private use.
I think you might be the clueless one here.
-
No and it proves you didn't read my OP about the bag making process.
Like I said, take it to the Bag thread.
-
FBI testimony suggests the tape was most likely pulled and applied at the packing table based on the working of the dispenser.
Thanks for reconfirming your ignorance concerning the evidence.
I suggest you confine your rants to PM when entertaining your inbred mates at the troll farm.
You seem to be a pretty nasty piece of work Tom. I hope that's not the case. Is it because I think Oswald is not only guilty as sin but that he was a despicable husband and father? Tough if that offends you.
First of all, according to you the FBI say 'most likely'. That's not a definite in my book. Could the tape be dispensed then taken away for use hours later? Packing tapes I've used since the 1970s could be used in the way. They don't adhere quite as well and can be a little messy sticking to itself but it certainly can be done. Any proof that the tape in question was different?
Anyway take it to the Bag thread.
-
West, did not notice any heavy tape dispenser missing nor Lee anywhere near the wrapping tables.
You pull out the tape, it becomes wet and sticky. You have to use it straight away.
The tape and paper were forensically 100 % identical between CE 677 and CE 142. The tape had the same tiny marks on it as well.
Lee was a terrible husband no question about that. Did he leave a rifle in a blanket knowing that Ruth's children and his eldest daughter played in the garage? Worse still, Marina never said a word about it to Ruth either.
Too bad for you that the tape can be taken off a roll without applying it immediately. Which is why the FBI said 'most likely' instead of 'definitely'.
Also, despite what you suggest, the paper and tape in the packing room were not under 24 hour guard and your hero could have constructed the bag without being seen when Truly and the paper and tape police were eating lunch or taking a dump.
Even worse for you is Saint Oz's prints magically appearing on the bag you insist Studebaker created.
Take your "I have a hypothesis about a paper bag, Fritz and Wade sent an innocent young man to his death." garbage back to the 200 page waste of bandwith, where it belongs.
I'll be happy to continue demolishing your 'hypothesis' there.
We're busy discussing what a murdering, lying, creep, POS, your innocent young hero was.
-
Too bad for you that the tape can be taken off a roll without applying it immediately. Which is why the FBI said 'most likely' instead of 'definitely'.
Howard, please read what Tony actually said. The tape had to be dispensed via the wetting roller which made marks on the paper. The marks were on the tape therefore the tape went through the wetting roller. If it hadn't it would't have had the marks that the wetting roller made. Capisce?
Also, despite what you suggest, the paper and tape in the packing room were not under 24 hour guard and your hero could have constructed the bag without being seen when Truly and the paper and tape police were eating lunch or taking a dump.
The tape minder said he never left his post even for lunch.
Even worse for you is Saint Oz's prints magically appearing on the bag you insist Studebaker created.
Ask yourself, could Fritz have handed the bag that Studebaker created to Oswald?
Take your "I have a hypothesis about a paper bag, Fritz and Wade sent an innocent young man to his death." garbage back to the 200 page waste of bandwith, where it belongs.
It is a matter of record that the DPD sent a number of innocent men to their death.
-
Oswald went to pick up his rifle. It's possible, as others have speculated, that he wasn't 100% committed to his plan to kill the Pres if Marina agreed to go back to him. We will never know just as we will never know if he made the bag in the garage, at his room the night before or elsewhere before bringing it to Irving.
You think he was a nice family man? I don't think so. He beat his wife, had a stash of money but offered little to Marina to support her needs (including simple health care) and those of the children. Even if Marina had agreed to go back to him and if he abandoned his plan he was still a walking time bomb and would IMO have erupted at some point but that might have simply been killing Hosty or a cop or two and we wouldn't be talking about the scumbag today.
I'd think he was rapidly losing his sanity. He was a deadbeat and a loser who felt the world owed him something just as his mother taught him. He wasn't a patsy so much as an insecure mama's boy.
Mr Howsley....You are exposing yourself as a fool. You've constructed a villain to blame for a crime that rational reasoning and commonsense should lead you to understand was not committed in the manner as the official "investigation" has concluded.
It is a FACT that a man who did not fit the description of Lee Oswald was observed behind the sixth floor windows of the TSBD prior to, and during the shooting. Several eyewitnesses saw a man who was estimated to weigh 175 pounds and who was dressed in light colored khaki clothing with a hunting ( sniper) rifle behind the windows of the sixth floor.
Lee Oswald who weighed 131 pounds was dressed in a reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers at the time that John Kennedy was murdered. Lee Oswald didn't even own any light colored khaki clothing....
You cannot refute these simple elementary FACTS.....so perhaps you should pause and give a little more thought to the ideas you are espousing.... because only an irrational fool would continue to babble nonsense and make a fool of himself.
-
Mr Howsley....You are exposing yourself as a fool. You've constructed a villain to blame for a crime that rational reasoning and commonsense should lead you to understand was not committed in the manner as the official "investigation" has concluded.
It is a FACT that a man who did not fit the description of Lee Oswald was observed behind the sixth floor windows of the TSBD prior to, and during the shooting. Several eyewitnesses saw a man who was estimated to weigh 175 pounds and who was dressed in light colored khaki clothing with a hunting ( sniper) rifle behind the windows of the sixth floor.
Lee Oswald who weighed 131 pounds was dressed in a reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers at the time that John Kennedy was murdered. Lee Oswald didn't even own any light colored khaki clothing....
You cannot refute these simple elementary FACTS.....so perhaps you should pause and give a little more thought to the ideas you are espousing.... because only an irrational fool would continue to babble nonsense and make a fool of himself.
Walt, I'm sorry but I've only read up to WF47 (Walt's Fabrications #47) so can't spare the time to look for flaws in your post. Once I've got through the complete list I'll get to the more recent stuff.
-
The tape minder said he never left his post even for lunch.
Not even for a xxxx apparently. Or if he did need a toilet break occasionally did he ask an office worker to keep an eye on the job station while he was otherwise occupied so that the precious paper and tape was secure? I don't accept that as a serious proposition.
Another possibility: Oswald asked a workmate to make a bag for him or at least supply the materials. Now consider this; if one employee helped another with a bit of material that they really had no right to use for anything other than work related activities and that material becomes evidence in the murder of the Pres what reaction can we expect? I'd say the guy who helped Oswald is just as likely to say nothing to detectives. Is he going to confess and admit he was party to theft and maybe get fired sometime after the warehouse gets back to normal?
I've seen these sort of 'transactions' over many years in workshops and warehouses I have worked in as a supervisor. It goes on all of the time, one guy helping another thinking nothing of it but knowing all along that they better not get caught.
-
Howard, please read what Tony actually said. The tape had to be dispensed via the wetting roller which made marks on the paper. The marks were on the tape therefore the tape went through the wetting roller. If it hadn't it would't have had the marks that the wetting roller made. Capisce?
The tape minder said he never left his post even for lunch.
Ask yourself, could Fritz have handed the bag that Studebaker created to Oswald?
It is a matter of record that the DPD sent a number of innocent men to their death.
Ray, read the testimony again. The marks on the tape are put on by the roller BEFORE the tape makes contact with the moisturizer.
Even if Saint Oz couldn't pull off a strip of unwettened tape and had to construct the bag in the shipping room, do you honestly believe that would be impossible ?
You actually believe the paper and tape were constantly under guard and the room was never empty ? C'mon man, get real.
Could Fritz have handed the bag to Saint Oz during interrogation ? Yes, he COULD have. But there's ZERO evidence that he did. Additionally, just letting Saint Oz 'handle' the bag certainly wouldn't result in Oz leaving a palm print, would it ?
What your actually asking us to believe is that Fritz had Saint Oz press his palm into the bag. Again, c'mon man, get real.
If you tell me the DPD sent innocent men to their death, I'm not going to argue.
But I will argue that Saint Oz definitely wasn't one of them, and there's a mountain of evidence that proves that.
-
Oswald asked a workmate to make a bag for him or at least supply the materials.
The only person he could of asked was WEST! :D
So West was the only employee who was trained to operate that machine? What happened when he took leave or phoned in sick? Pretty unlikely he was the only one. Besides why wouldn't West agree to make bag for Oswald?
I'd say the guy who helped Oswald is just as likely to say nothing to detectives.
If Studebaker constructed CE 142 and it came back from the FBI with partials belonging to Lee on the 24th (day Lee was killed) would you disclose this to the FBI or to Captain Fritz?
It's called CYA. It didn't matter now as the "suspect" was stone cold dead.
Tony, I don't understand your point. You eat, sleep and breathe this topic and I barely have a passing interest it (no disrespect intended) so I'll need to have it explained differently. If your point is that West or 'another' would have volunteered their involvement (innocent though it was) because Oswald was dead then I don't accept that. Once a lie is told (or deliberate withholding of information) it becomes increasing difficult by the hour to tell the truth. I've seen that many times in my working life.
-
By involving a third party, you have just made your paper bag scenario more complex and even further unlikely. The moment you remove the tape from the dispenser you have to use it.
My interest in the assassination commenced in 1985 when l borrowed and read the WC volumes from the University's library.
I am still learning.
What applies to a third party in keeping quiet, also equally applied to Studebaker and Day.
My suggestion of innocent assistance from a coworker doesn't involve a conspiracy whereas your theory does. Apply the KISS principle. If that doesn't make sense at all because it's impossible or extremely unlikely then consider other possibilities. Oswald either taking materials home or asking a coworker for help are both plausible and non conspiratorial. That's what I'd be banking on.
-
BTW Tony, Do you agree that it's unlikely that Troy West was the only employee that could operate that machine and the wrapping process came to a standstill when he was on leave or called in sick? Also, wouldn't you agree that Troy West must have had an enormously strong bladder to have not taken a toilet break during work hours on the Wednesday or Thursday of assassination week?
-
Stop the rot, they carried Oswald's rifle sack out of the building as evidence and that's that.
But at least you're still not persisting with your bizarre theory that the bag was actually being used to carry out the window sill, well I hope not anyway. LOL.
JohnM
Yeah we all know it was tucked inside Montgomery?s trousers right John?
-
Yeah we all know it was tucked inside Montgomery?s trousers right John?
No, he was just happy to see you.
JohnM
-
No, he was just happy to see you.
JohnM
Perhaps you can offer a viable alternative then?
-
The bare bones KISS solution is Oswald approaching Troy West during a break asking him politely to make a wrapper for some curtain rods he (Oswald) will pick up in the afternoon.
Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks.
BTW: there is ZERO evidence of Oswald taking tape or paper to Irving.
I'm not surprised. I'd suggest he took a bag to Irving; a bag made that very day. The bag had crease lines indicating that it had been folded over several times resulting in a package easily concealed under a jacket.
-
Perhaps you can offer a viable alternative then?
Are you still going with the window sill was hidden by the paper bag theory? LOL!
JohnM
-
Are you still going with the window sill was hidden by the paper bag theory? LOL!
JohnM
It was entered into evidence by Montgomery and Johnson at 3.20pm. Along with the chicken lunch sack and bones, the pop bottle, a paper wrapper (that had only ever been sealed at one end) and an empty viceroy packet. Btw the strip was not from the south east window but the one to the west of it.
What is your theory John? How was the strip transported to the crime lab? How many trips did Montgomery and Johnson make? Where was it in the photos of the two?
-
When certain Dallas authorities knew that Kennedy was finished, there was no regret. They were absolutely dedicated to covering it up.
They called Kennedy a communist. Then a 'communist' was accused of the shooting. And that made sense?
Then the thing with Gen Walker...made no sense at all.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQttbmHGJKBGZf7jYtIZDrAH5Hvdrv_MUVnHATrHYoNMZkW2zu_kA)
8. Again in the same vein, if you?re the triggerman for the mob, CIA, Castro, or anyone else in the biggest murder case in American history, what?s more likely? That on the night before the murder, you?re at your home, apartment, or ?safe house? preparing for the following day, and are either meeting with or at least available to your ?handlers? for last-minute instructions or consultation? Or that you?re going to be visiting your wife, who is staying at someone else?s home, and begging her to come back home to you?* Common sense, which Voltaire tells us is not that common, dictates that it?s the former, not the latter.
It is reasonably clear that when Oswald went to visit his wife and two children the night before Kennedy came to Dallas, it was his intention to get his rifle and assassinate the president the next day?as indicated, what other reason would he have had to go there, for the first time, on a Thursday night? It is equally reasonably clear that this intention of his was not irrevocable but conditional. If Marina was willing to come back to him, a possibility he already knew was faint, he was prepared to forego his plans concerning Kennedy. If Marina, then, had agreed to come back to Oswald on the night before the president came to Dallas, it is almost a certainty the assassination would never have taken place.?
It is interesting to note that as we saw in the Oswald biography section, Marina herself feels this way. In a narrative written in Russian by Marina at the request of the Warren Commission, and translated by the Commission, she said about the night before the assassination, when her husband virtually begged her to come back to him and she refused to do so, ?Of course, if I had known what was going to happen, I would have agreed without further thought. Perhaps, if Lee was planning anything, he staked everything on a card. That is, if I agreed to his proposal to go with him to Dallas, he would not do what he had planned, and, if I did not, then he would.?20
Oswald?s entreaty to Marina to come back to him on the night before the assassination virtually precludes, all by itself, the existence of a conspiracy.
RHVB
JohnM
-
9. This book has proved beyond all doubt that Oswald was a highly unreliable, highly disturbed, and emotionally unhinged political fanatic. His own wife, Marina, described him as ?not a very trustworthy [trusting?] person.?21 At the London trial, when I asked Ruth Paine, who knew Oswald very well, ?Do you feel he [Oswald] was the type one would employ to accomplish a serious mission?? she answered, ?No. I would not have employed him for any job. I didn?t see him as stable enough.?
?He was unstable and flighty??
?Yes?He acted from his emotions primarily?rather than working from a set of logical ideas.?22
To believe that a group of conspirators like the CIA or mob would entrust the biggest murder in American history to Oswald, of all people, is too preposterous a notion for any rational person to harbor in his or her mind for more than a millisecond. How could they possibly have confidence in someone like Oswald to take care of their monumental mission in a way that would involve no problems for them, when he couldn?t even adequately take care of himself (he was living in a virtual closet on November 22, 1963), much less his wife and two children.
RHVB
JohnM
-
I have always thought that is the most persuasive statement from VB regarding the very high probability that Oswald acted in isolation. He couldn't trust anyone and no one with any common sense could trust him.
-
I have always that is the most persuasive statement from VB regarding the very high probability that Oswald acted in isolation. He couldn't trust anyone and no one with any common sense could trust him.
He once described himself as: "The son of an insurance salesman whose early death left a far mean streak of independence brought on by neglect."
-
I have always that is the most persuasive statement from VB regarding the very high probability that Oswald acted in isolation. He couldn't trust anyone and no one with any common sense could trust him.
Working alone was the smart move. Nobody to rat on him.
-
If V. Bugliosi's Reclaiming History is so impactful, revealing, and such a pillar of accuracy and truth...why isn't available online?
From the video...
Bugerlosi claimed that "Oswald read the newspaper every day except that Friday when he killed Kennedy."
How in the blazes of hell could he possibly have know that?
-
If Marina was willing to come back to him, a possibility he already knew was faint, he was prepared to forego his plans concerning Kennedy. If Marina, then, had agreed to come back to Oswald on the night before the president came to Dallas, it is almost a certainty the assassination would never have taken place. Oswald?s entreaty to Marina to come back to him on the night before the assassination virtually precludes, all by itself, the existence of a conspiracy.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/36_20_21.gif)
Among the most absurd fables I've ever read.
-
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150609162531-vincent-bugliosi-charles-manson-prosecutor-dies-orig-00001828-large-169.jpg)
10. Not only wouldn?t any group of conspirators ever dream of putting its entire future into the hands of Oswald, but the evidence is very clear that Oswald himself, being such a loner and someone with a mind of his own who disliked taking orders from anyone, would be highly unlikely to work with anyone else on such a mission.23 As author Jean Davison points out, the ultimate weakness of the conspiracy theorists? contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was framed is their erroneous conception of Oswald. ?In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces?he?s a dumb and compliant puppet with no volition of his own.?24 But we know from all the evidence that Oswald was the exact opposite of this, in the extreme, that he was anything but meek and malleable. Here?s someone who described himself as having a ?mean streak of independence?; someone who for awhile in grade school even refused to salute the flag in the morning with his fellow students;25 someone who, during high school, when ordered to jog around the field with the other players during tryouts for the football team, told the coach, ?This is a free country, and I don?t have to do it?;26 someone who, as a fellow marine who was stationed with Oswald in Japan said, ?was often in trouble for failure to adhere to rules and regulations and gave the impression of disliking any kind of authority?;27 and someone who, as another marine who was stationed with Oswald in San Diego said, ?was an argumentative type of person [who] would frequently take the opposite side of an argument just for the sake of a debate.?28
There were no exceptions to this perception of Oswald?s independence from those who knew him. A member of the Russian emigr? community in Dallas said that Oswald wasn?t ?responsible enough to have?anybody above him really telling him what to do.?29* ?He resented any type of authority,? another said.30 Still another said, ?I just thought he was a person that couldn?t get along with anybody or anyone.?31
Yet the conspiracy theorists want us to believe that the man who couldn?t get along in school, couldn?t get along in the Marines, someone we know couldn?t even get along with his own wife, was supposedly selected by a group of conspirators to get along with them in committing the biggest murder in American history.
No one knew Oswald better than Marina, and when she was asked, under oath, by the HSCA, ?Can you visualize him working with an accomplice?? she answered, ?Personally, I can?t,? basing this on the fact, she said, that ?living with a person for a few years you?have some kind of intuition about what he might do or might not.?32 Earlier, before the Warren Commission, when she was asked whether she felt that her husband ?acted in concert with someone else,? she responded, ?No, only alone.?
?You are convinced that his action was his action alone, that he was influenced by no one else??
?Yes, I am convinced.?33
Marina?s biographer, Priscilla McMillan, who spent a great number of hours interviewing Marina, writes, ?I have often asked Marina whether Lee might have been capable of joining with an accomplice to kill the President. Never, she says. Lee was too secretive ever to have told anyone his plans. Nor could he have acted in concert, accepted orders, or obeyed any plan by anybody else. The reason Marina gives is that Lee had no use for the opinions of anybody but himself. He had only contempt for other people. ?He was a lonely person,? she says. ?He trusted no one. He was too sick. It [killing Kennedy] was the fantasy of a sick person, to get attention only for himself.?? McMillan says that Marina believed that with respect to the assassination, Lee acted on impulse and first thought seriously about killing the President only a day or two before he did it.34
Not that by itself it would carry great weight, but it should be noted that no evidence has ever surfaced that Oswald, either around the time of the assassination or at any prior time, ever hinted, even accidentally, to anyone, including his wife, that he was working for or associated with any agency or group of people, and the Warren Commission, after an exhaustive inquiry, was unable to find any such evidence. And as to Oswald?s connection to any other individual, such as Jack Ruby, Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter said, ?The Commission left no stone unturned to track down Oswald?s background to the maximum extent possible, to see if he had dealings with anyone else who might have been a co-conspirator,? and nothing was found.3
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/EhAAAOSwjDZYbuoX/s-l300.jpg)
11. As we?ve seen in this book, at the time of the assassination and Ruby?s killing of Oswald, those who knew Oswald and Ruby well, including family members, rejected the likelihood or notion that either had acted in concert with others to carry out their respective deeds. Yet years later, thousands of conspiracy theorists, not one of whom knew or had ever met either Oswald or Ruby, are convinced Oswald (in those cases where they don?t go further and say he was just a patsy) and Ruby were members of a conspiracy. On this one point alone of familiarity with the subject, who is more likely to be correct?those who knew the two men or those who did not?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01469/1963-funeral_1469436i.jpg)
12. In a similar vein, we know from common sense and the experience of our lives, that more than anything else, survivors of a murder victim want the person or persons who killed their loved one to be brought to justice. What reason do we have for believing that the Kennedy family is any different? (As President Kennedy?s brother Robert said, ?Nobody is more interested than I in knowing who is responsible for the death of President Kennedy.?)36 Yet conspiracy theorists, without any evidence to support their position, are apparently convinced that John F. Kennedy?s survivors are an exception. (Indeed, several are so crazy as to believe that RFK actually knew who killed his brother and joined in the conspiracy to cover it up.)37
It is noteworthy, then, that the Kennedy family has been supportive of the Warren Commission?s conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Because of Bobby Kennedy?s fierce opposition to organized crime, which his brother the president supported, and because of JFK?s efforts, with RFK?s help, to remove Castro from power in Cuba, and with the concomitant dissatisfaction with JFK by the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exiles over the administration?s failure to provide air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion, RFK?s first instinct?there have been too many reports from various sources to deny this?immediately after the assassination was to suspect a possible retaliatory killing by one of the people or groups he went after. However, after the coffee cooled and the FBI and Warren Commission investigated the assassination, he issued the following statement to the media on September 27, 1964: ?I am convinced [Lee Harvey] Oswald was solely responsible for what happened and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. I have not read the report, nor do I intend to. But I have been briefed on it and I am completely satisfied that the Commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The [Warren] Commission?s inquiry was thorough and conscientious.?38 RFK, who undoubtedly knew every one of the seven Commission members personally, had no doubt about their integrity in this case, while thousands of conspiracy theorists down through the years, 99.9 percent of whom never knew even one, much less all seven, deeply distrust them.
Perhaps one thing speaks louder than any words, however, with respect to RFK?s feelings. During the entire Warren Commission period, he was the nation?s attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer in the land with jurisdiction over the FBI, the main investigative arm for the Commission. If at any time he had sensed that the Warren Commission and the FBI weren?t doing enough or the right things, wouldn?t he have automatically put pressure on them to do so? I would think he would do this even if the victim were not his brother?all the more so when it was. But he never did. Does that not speak volumes? Not only did he not do anything, but in a letter to the Warren Commission on August 4, 1964, he affirmatively told the commissioners he could ?state definitely that I know of no credible evidence to support the allegations that the assassination of President Kennedy was caused by a domestic or foreign conspiracy,? adding that ?I have no suggestions to make at this time regarding an additional investigation which should be undertaken by the Commission prior to the publication of its report.?
The president?s youngest brother, Senator Edward Kennedy, told Time magazine in 1975, ?There were things that should have been done differently. There were mistakes made. But I know of no facts that have been brought to light which would call for a reassessment of the conclusion. I?m fundamentally satisfied with the findings of the Warren Commission.?39
What about JFK Jr., the slain president?s son? Since he literally grew up at the feet of his elders in the Kennedy family, if the sense throughout the years was that his father had been murdered as a result of a conspiracy, surely JFK Jr. would have known about it. And just as surely, the late son of the president would look favorably on someone like Oliver Stone, who ostensibly was trying to do everything he could to uncover that conspiracy. But when JFK Jr.?s staff at his magazine, George, asked him to interview Stone to help get the fledgling magazine off the ground in its second issue in November of 1995, thinking it would be a blockbuster commercial success, JFK Jr. balked. When his aides persisted, he agreed to have dinner with Stone at Rockenwagner, a Santa Monica, California, restaurant, and when Stone asked John Jr. rhetorically whether he really believed Oswald alone had killed his father, adding that there had to be a conspiracy, John excused himself and walked away. After he returned, the dinner was politely brought to a close as soon as possible. John later told his aides, ?I just couldn?t sit across a table from that man for two hours. I just couldn?t,? and Stone was not interviewed for the magazine. John?s biographer, Richard Blow, who worked with him at the magazine, said that Stone ?made John feel like Captain Kirk being stalked by the world?s looniest Trekkie.?40
It?s instructive, is it not, that the Warren Commission?s conclusion of no conspiracy in the assassination is accepted by the brothers and son of the murdered president, but categorically rejected by thousands of conspiracy theorists who were strangers to the president?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01469/1963-funeral_1469436i.jpg)
12. In a similar vein, we know from common sense and the experience of our lives, that more than anything else, survivors of a murder victim want the person or persons who killed their loved one to be brought to justice. What reason do we have for believing that the Kennedy family is any different? (As President Kennedy?s brother Robert said, ?Nobody is more interested than I in knowing who is responsible for the death of President Kennedy.?)36 Yet conspiracy theorists, without any evidence to support their position, are apparently convinced that John F. Kennedy?s survivors are an exception. (Indeed, several are so crazy as to believe that RFK actually knew who killed his brother and joined in the conspiracy to cover it up.)37
It is noteworthy, then, that the Kennedy family has been supportive of the Warren Commission?s conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Because of Bobby Kennedy?s fierce opposition to organized crime, which his brother the president supported, and because of JFK?s efforts, with RFK?s help, to remove Castro from power in Cuba, and with the concomitant dissatisfaction with JFK by the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exiles over the administration?s failure to provide air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion, RFK?s first instinct?there have been too many reports from various sources to deny this?immediately after the assassination was to suspect a possible retaliatory killing by one of the people or groups he went after. However, after the coffee cooled and the FBI and Warren Commission investigated the assassination, he issued the following statement to the media on September 27, 1964: ?I am convinced [Lee Harvey] Oswald was solely responsible for what happened and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. I have not read the report, nor do I intend to. But I have been briefed on it and I am completely satisfied that the Commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The [Warren] Commission?s inquiry was thorough and conscientious.?38 RFK, who undoubtedly knew every one of the seven Commission members personally, had no doubt about their integrity in this case, while thousands of conspiracy theorists down through the years, 99.9 percent of whom never knew even one, much less all seven, deeply distrust them.
Perhaps one thing speaks louder than any words, however, with respect to RFK?s feelings. During the entire Warren Commission period, he was the nation?s attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer in the land with jurisdiction over the FBI, the main investigative arm for the Commission. If at any time he had sensed that the Warren Commission and the FBI weren?t doing enough or the right things, wouldn?t he have automatically put pressure on them to do so? I would think he would do this even if the victim were not his brother?all the more so when it was. But he never did. Does that not speak volumes? Not only did he not do anything, but in a letter to the Warren Commission on August 4, 1964, he affirmatively told the commissioners he could ?state definitely that I know of no credible evidence to support the allegations that the assassination of President Kennedy was caused by a domestic or foreign conspiracy,? adding that ?I have no suggestions to make at this time regarding an additional investigation which should be undertaken by the Commission prior to the publication of its report.?
The president?s youngest brother, Senator Edward Kennedy, told Time magazine in 1975, ?There were things that should have been done differently. There were mistakes made. But I know of no facts that have been brought to light which would call for a reassessment of the conclusion. I?m fundamentally satisfied with the findings of the Warren Commission.?39
What about JFK Jr., the slain president?s son? Since he literally grew up at the feet of his elders in the Kennedy family, if the sense throughout the years was that his father had been murdered as a result of a conspiracy, surely JFK Jr. would have known about it. And just as surely, the late son of the president would look favorably on someone like Oliver Stone, who ostensibly was trying to do everything he could to uncover that conspiracy. But when JFK Jr.?s staff at his magazine, George, asked him to interview Stone to help get the fledgling magazine off the ground in its second issue in November of 1995, thinking it would be a blockbuster commercial success, JFK Jr. balked. When his aides persisted, he agreed to have dinner with Stone at Rockenwagner, a Santa Monica, California, restaurant, and when Stone asked John Jr. rhetorically whether he really believed Oswald alone had killed his father, adding that there had to be a conspiracy, John excused himself and walked away. After he returned, the dinner was politely brought to a close as soon as possible. John later told his aides, ?I just couldn?t sit across a table from that man for two hours. I just couldn?t,? and Stone was not interviewed for the magazine. John?s biographer, Richard Blow, who worked with him at the magazine, said that Stone ?made John feel like Captain Kirk being stalked by the world?s looniest Trekkie.?40
It?s instructive, is it not, that the Warren Commission?s conclusion of no conspiracy in the assassination is accepted by the brothers and son of the murdered president, but categorically rejected by thousands of conspiracy theorists who were strangers to the president?
RHVB
JohnM
What a pathetic argument to make. The Kennedy family allegedly supports the WC finding so those findings must be true?.. Wow!
What information did the Kennedys have (that we don't have) to even make that determination (if they ever truly did) to begin with?
-
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/EhAAAOSwjDZYbuoX/s-l300.jpg)
11. As we?ve seen in this book, at the time of the assassination and Ruby?s killing of Oswald, those who knew Oswald and Ruby well, including family members, rejected the likelihood or notion that either had acted in concert with others to carry out their respective deeds. Yet years later, thousands of conspiracy theorists, not one of whom knew or had ever met either Oswald or Ruby, are convinced Oswald (in those cases where they don?t go further and say he was just a patsy) and Ruby were members of a conspiracy. On this one point alone of familiarity with the subject, who is more likely to be correct?those who knew the two men or those who did not?
RHVB
JohnM
Wow, the king of BS is on a roll?.
First of all, how well can anybody truly know another person to make such a determination with any degree of certainty? Just how many families have been completely taken by surprise by the violent actions of a person they deemed to be peaceful?
Secondly, the same people who claimed to know Oswald said he had a secretive nature. Once you make that determination you need to wonder how well you can truly know a man who according to you is secretive!
I would actually like to know who these people are who knew Oswald "well"....
For instance, did Ruth Paine know him well? She had met him in March 1963. She saw him again in late September 63 when she picked up Marina in New Orleans and after that she saw Oswald during a few visits to her house in October and November. Does anybody really believe that under those circumstances you can know anybody "well"?
-
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2A93-4Ql9GQ/VXbrD1GbwwI/AAAAAAABeJo/2bh0cfw-r6o/s1600/cropthumbnail.jpg)
13. If a group like the CIA or organized crime was behind Oswald?s murder of Kennedy, is it likely that Oswald was so strapped for money at the time he murdered Kennedy that he never had a pot to grow flowers in, having, per the Warren Report, only $183 to his name at the time of his arrest?41* In addition to the $170 he had left for Marina, at the time of his arrest Oswald had a $5 bill, eight $1 bills, a fifty-cent piece, three dimes, a nickel, and two pennies on his person.42 A total of $183.87?a big hit man for the mob or CIA. Right. We know that contract killers get thousands of dollars to eliminate people no one has ever heard of, but to kill the president of the United States the mob or CIA is not going to pay its hit man anything, not even any money up front?
When, on June 22, 1996, I went to the rooming house where Oswald lived at the time of the assassination, Kaye Puckett, who currently runs the place her family has owned since 1939, and was married with three children and living at the rooming house in 1963, showed me where Oswald?s room was, right off the living room to the left when you enter the home. I was astonished at how small it was. When I said to Mrs. Puckett, ?This looks more like a large closet to me than a room,? she responded that at one time it had been used as a telephone room for all the tenants (it had also, at another time, been used as a small library) and was never intended to be a regular room to rent, but it was all that was available to Oswald when he came to the rooming house in October of 1963, the other regular rooms being rented out, and he settled for it. So the CIA or mob or military-industrial-complex conspirators were really taking good care of their hit man, weren?t they?
Surely no one believes that Oswald would have agreed to commit the biggest murder in American history as a paid hit man for someone else without getting some real money up front.
Quite apart from Oswald?s not receiving any large sum of money around the time of the assassination as a down payment to kill Kennedy, virtually all conspiracy theorists have alleged that Oswald was an agent of U.S. intelligence during the years leading up to the assassination, many claiming he was even a double agent, helping the KGB. But if this is so, unless the theorists want us to believe he was working free for these agencies (completely unrealistic), where is there any evidence that Oswald, at any point in his adult life, was spending more money than he was earning from his various jobs? To the contrary, all the evidence is that Oswald was always very poor. Poor to the point where he had to borrow money to pay for his and Marina?s transportation to the United States from Russia. To the point where Oswald owned one suit to his name, a Russian-made, poorly fitting garment of heavy fabric that was unsuitable for the warm climate of Texas and Louisiana.43 To the point where Ruth Paine described the Oswalds as ?very poor,?44 and Oswald?s aunt, Lillian Murret, said the Oswalds ?were practically starving? in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans.45 To the point where, as indicated, their friend in Dallas, Paul Gregory, told the Warren Commission that he would often take them shopping for groceries and he was ?amazed at how little they bought,?46 and their friends would bring food and groceries to their apartment.47 To the point where Jeanne de Mohrenschildt didn?t feel she could really judge whether Marina was the type to make a home out of where they lived because ?they had so few things,? and you can?t ?make a home out of nothing?They were so poor.?48 To the point where near the end Oswald was living in a very tiny 5 ? 13? foot room at a rooming house for which he paid eight dollars a week.
As mentioned in the introduction to this book, no one has studied the assassination more than the late Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg. And as Weisberg confided to me in a letter three years before his death, he had ?not found a shred of evidence? to support the position that Oswald was a paid agent for anyone, adding that Oswald ?never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from being an agent.?49
RHVB
JohnM
-
I appreciate the balance.
Mr. Capasse is a very good debater from what I've seen. On this though, I think he erred in saying what he did.
It's a downer if one opens up page one and every thread is a conspiracy thread, really... and I'd think it would be vice-versa as well.
Thanks to Mr. Mytton for the postings. Jusy my humble opinion.
-
you started this little tantrum 6/10 - and like a baby have added one for each time Caprio did - :D
check the dates & times
you started this little tantrum 6/10
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, it's all powerful and irrefutable and this feeble response proves it.
and like a baby have added one for each time Caprio did
This is supposed to be a debate between Adults yet you persist with calling me a "baby" and you talk about throwing feces?, be honest, you're a government plant trying to make the CT's look like they're completely off their rocker?
check the dates & times
What's to check, I post then he posts.
JohnM
-
Thank you Richard - I have no problem with a fair and balanced board of topics
But it becomes quite mundane when it's same topic posted here again and before that and before that
it can all be done in one thread to make room for other subjects LN & CT - and that is not Mytton's motive
It is a game of spite; nothing more
Thank you Richard - I have no problem with a fair and balanced board of topics
Yeah sure you do and this unwarranted attack by you, on me, is also fair and balanced?
My threads have a start and end that goes to 32 and yet Caprio is well over 200 and you don't say boo, fair and balanced, my ass!
But it becomes quite mundane when it's same topic posted here again and before that and before that
it can all be done in one thread to make room for other subjects LN & CT - and that is not Mytton's motive
It is a game of spite; nothing more
You can't be serious, the topics in the Bugliosi threads are hardly ever discussed because you lot are intellectually dishonest and always stay in your own self serving safe zones. Time to wake up!
JohnM
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D23NN8K3I5A/maxresdefault.jpg)
14. The very rifle that Oswald owned and used to murder the president points away from a conspiracy. One thought that almost immediately occurred to me at the beginning of my research for the London trial was this: Why would whatever group (mob, CIA, KGB, etc.) that was allegedly behind Oswald furnish its hit man with a used, surplus, nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle (one that?get this?had a homemade sling)?50 Not that Oswald?s rifle wasn?t able to get the job done. Safely assuming that Kennedy?s head was the target of whoever pulled the Carcano trigger, one in three shots from the rifle did directly hit the target. But is it sense or nonsense to believe that members of a group like the CIA or mob or military-industrial complex, needing to make sure that Kennedy was killed, would let their hit man try to carry out the biggest murder ever with anything other than a very high-quality rifle? The fact that Oswald used the type of rifle he did is almost, by itself, prima facie evidence that he acted alone and there was no conspiracy. Oh, by the way, the clip on Oswald?s Carcano could hold six live rounds.51 But we know Oswald fired three rounds, and only one cartridge was found in the chamber,52 and the clip was empty.53 So the big group behind the assassination had its assassin set out on the morning of November 22 to kill the president of the United States with a clip that was missing two rounds.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D23NN8K3I5A/maxresdefault.jpg)
14. The very rifle that Oswald owned and used to murder the president points away from a conspiracy. One thought that almost immediately occurred to me at the beginning of my research for the London trial was this: Why would whatever group (mob, CIA, KGB, etc.) that was allegedly behind Oswald furnish its hit man with a used, surplus, nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle (one that?get this?had a homemade sling)?50 Not that Oswald?s rifle wasn?t able to get the job done. Safely assuming that Kennedy?s head was the target of whoever pulled the Carcano trigger, one in three shots from the rifle did directly hit the target. But is it sense or nonsense to believe that members of a group like the CIA or mob or military-industrial complex, needing to make sure that Kennedy was killed, would let their hit man try to carry out the biggest murder ever with anything other than a very high-quality rifle? The fact that Oswald used the type of rifle he did is almost, by itself, prima facie evidence that he acted alone and there was no conspiracy. Oh, by the way, the clip on Oswald?s Carcano could hold six live rounds.51 But we know Oswald fired three rounds, and only one cartridge was found in the chamber,52 and the clip was empty.53 So the big group behind the assassination had its assassin set out on the morning of November 22 to kill the president of the United States with a clip that was missing two rounds.
RHVB
JohnM
Might be interesting if it could be proved that Oswald owned and fired the rifle.
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/29/14/35C8D04800000578-3662487-image-a-1_1467206975583.jpg)
15. Additionally, if some group was behind Oswald?s killing of Kennedy, it obviously wouldn?t have had him use any rifle that was so easily traceable to him, as the Mannlicher-Carcano was, since he would be a link to the group.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJ24aH6SDIFreO9N_Yf9RWti1CgTxWyQdO0FAQjzkCKTKAsUFd)
16. If, indeed, groups like the CIA, mob, military-industrial complex, or whatever, were behind the assassination, not only would they have made sure their hit man had the best firearm available, but since they wouldn?t want him to be apprehended and questioned, they almost assuredly would have equipped the firearm with a sound suppressor, most commonly known as a silencer. Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to ?substantially diminish the report? of the weapon and to ?alter or disguise the sound,? such as to make it sound like ?the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer? or ?the operation of machinery.? He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available ?probably wouldn?t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd? in Dealey Plaza.5
RHVB
JohnM
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/29/14/35C8D04800000578-3662487-image-a-1_1467206975583.jpg)
15. Additionally, if some group was behind Oswald?s killing of Kennedy, it obviously wouldn?t have had him use any rifle that was so easily traceable to him, as the Mannlicher-Carcano was, since he would be a link to the group.
RHVB
JohnM
Another pathetic argument that works both ways. One can just as easily say that it would be pretty stupid for Oswald to use a rifle that was so easily traceable to him as it turned out to be!
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/29/14/35C8D04800000578-3662487-image-a-1_1467206975583.jpg)
15. Additionally, if some group was behind Oswald?s killing of Kennedy, it obviously wouldn?t have had him use any rifle that was so easily traceable to him, as the Mannlicher-Carcano was, since he would be a link to the group.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Using silencers would have increased the appearance of a sophisticated attack, and have opened the public's imagination to the possibility of additional shots
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJ24aH6SDIFreO9N_Yf9RWti1CgTxWyQdO0FAQjzkCKTKAsUFd)
16. If, indeed, groups like the CIA, mob, military-industrial complex, or whatever, were behind the assassination, not only would they have made sure their hit man had the best firearm available, but since they wouldn?t want him to be apprehended and questioned, they almost assuredly would have equipped the firearm with a sound suppressor, most commonly known as a silencer. Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to ?substantially diminish the report? of the weapon and to ?alter or disguise the sound,? such as to make it sound like ?the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer? or ?the operation of machinery.? He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available ?probably wouldn?t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd? in Dealey Plaza.5
RHVB
JohnM
So that could be the reason why at Z223, that most the crowd seems not to have yet realized 2 shots have been fired, and that JFK is hit.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/ad/76/77ad76f6f769c316d4fe43927620b1b4.jpg)
18. Another point is that Oswald, though a good shot, qualified as a sharpshooter and a marksman in the Marines, but never as an expert. He certainly was not the professional shooter with sniper-like accuracy any group of conspirators would have automatically employed to kill the president of the United States. The CIA or mob or military-industrial complex would have chosen someone not only from the expert category, but from among the very best within that special category.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(http://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20150609/ARTICLE/306099522/EP/1/1/EP-306099522.jpg)
19. If, for instance, organized crime (or the CIA, military-industrial complex, etc.) decided to commit the biggest murder in American history, which would result in a retaliation against them of unprecedented proportions if they were discovered to be behind it, they would select a hit man who not only was exceptionally professional and tight-lipped but also had a very successful track record with them. Oswald had no track record with them. Yet they?re going to use and rely on someone like him to kill the president of the United States? Really?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(http://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20150609/ARTICLE/306099522/EP/1/1/EP-306099522.jpg)
19. If, for instance, organized crime (or the CIA, military-industrial complex, etc.) decided to commit the biggest murder in American history, which would result in a retaliation against them of unprecedented proportions if they were discovered to be behind it, they would select a hit man who not only was exceptionally professional and tight-lipped but also had a very successful track record with them. Oswald had no track record with them. Yet they?re going to use and rely on someone like him to kill the president of the United States? Really?
RHVB
JohnM
You make the case for why it wasn't Oswald. :D
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/ad/76/77ad76f6f769c316d4fe43927620b1b4.jpg)
18. Another point is that Oswald, though a good shot, qualified as a sharpshooter and a marksman in the Marines, but never as an expert. He certainly was not the professional shooter with sniper-like accuracy any group of conspirators would have automatically employed to kill the president of the United States. The CIA or mob or military-industrial complex would have chosen someone not only from the expert category, but from among the very best within that special category.
RHVB
JohnM
That's why he could never have made the shots he is alleged to have made.
-
(http://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20150609/ARTICLE/306099522/EP/1/1/EP-306099522.jpg)
19. If, for instance, organized crime (or the CIA, military-industrial complex, etc.) decided to commit the biggest murder in American history, which would result in a retaliation against them of unprecedented proportions if they were discovered to be behind it, they would select a hit man who not only was exceptionally professional and tight-lipped but also had a very successful track record with them. Oswald had no track record with them. Yet they?re going to use and rely on someone like him to kill the president of the United States? Really?
RHVB
JohnM
No not really, but they might use him as the patsy Oswald said he was.
-
(http://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20150609/ARTICLE/306099522/EP/1/1/EP-306099522.jpg)
19. If, for instance, organized crime (or the CIA, military-industrial complex, etc.) decided to commit the biggest murder in American history, which would result in a retaliation against them of unprecedented proportions if they were discovered to be behind it, they would select a hit man who not only was exceptionally professional and tight-lipped but also had a very successful track record with them. Oswald had no track record with them. Yet they?re going to use and rely on someone like him to kill the president of the United States? Really?
RHVB
JohnM
Absolutely correct, where are all of these "clandestine meetings" with espionage agents? They are nowhere to be found, we know what Oswald was doing almost all the time, no suspicious contacts.
Patsy? Why? Because LHO squealed about the FBI following him around? He wanted to see himself as a scape goat. Oh, yeah, let's take the word of a wife beater and use pretzel logic.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRInUs9pO4N9mgBbG1zSPQIzMpybw9hxqOabAvcsqXYlIH5tgDLWA)
20. Without exception, all the pro-conspiracy books arguing that Oswald was a hit man for some powerful group (as we know, most contend he wasn?t involved in the assassination at all but was framed) promote the notion that Oswald?s relationship with the group went back some time, and for groups like U.S. intelligence and the KGB, at least four to five years. Further, they claim he was being groomed by them as a presidential assassin or for some other very serious mission. But how likely is it that with the biggest murder ever coming up on his plate, Oswald (on his own or with the group?s knowledge and consent) would try to murder some other public figure first? (As we know, Oswald attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker just months earlier, on April 10, 1963.) Would the rationale be that he needed live target practice for the main event? As the expression goes, please.
One footnote to this: Whatever group was allegedly behind Oswald, Walker, a virulent right winger who was one of the leaders of the John Birch Society in Dallas, would represent to their interests the exact opposite of what the moderately liberal JFK would. So there wouldn?t have been any commonality between the intended victims.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Absolutely correct, where are all of these "clandestine meetings" with espionage agents? They are nowhere to be found, we know what Oswald was doing almost all the time, no suspicious contacts.
Patsy? Why? Because LHO squealed about the FBI following him around? He wanted to see himself as a scape goat. Oh, yeah, let's take the word of a wife beater and use pretzel logic.
What "clandestine meetings"? Regardsless of your foolish claim, you really haven't got a clue what Oswald did "almost all the time". In fact, you can't even account for the time Oswald is supposed to go to the postoffice and arrange the money order for the purchase of the rifle?..
You probably don't (and likely never will) know every single person who he associated with in New Orleans and where he went. You also do not know exactly who he met and where he went on week days when he was by himself in Oak Cliff.
Patsy? Why? Because LHO squealed about the FBI following him around? He wanted to see himself as a scape goat. Oh, yeah, let's take the word of a wife beater and use pretzel logic.
You clearly don't get the point I was making. Nobody is taking Oswald's word for anything.
-
What "clandestine meetings"? Regardsless of your foolish claim, you really haven't got a clue what Oswald did "almost all the time". In fact, you can't even account for the time Oswald is supposed to go to the postoffice and arrange the money order for the purchase of the rifle?..
You probably don't (and likely never will) know every single who he associated with in New Orleans and where he went. You also do not know exactly who he met and where he went on week days when he was by himself in Oak Cliff.
Do you know where your parents were on a day by day, hour by hour basis 30+ years ago? Do you know where they spent every last dollar of their income? Did they try to hide their movements from you and others or were they normal outgoing people? If they were normal well adjusted people despite much of their time not being unaccounted for what exactly is the point you are trying to make in relation to Oswald a notoriously secretive person?
-
Do you know where your parents were on a day by day, hour by hour basis 30+ years ago? Do you know where they spent every last dollar of their income? Did they try to hide their movements from you and others or were they normal outgoing people? If they were normal well adjusted people despite much of their time not being unaccounted for what exactly is the point you are trying to make in relation to Oswald a notoriously secretive person?
The point I made is clear and obvious, but just in case you missed it; the foolish claim below is total BS
we know what Oswald was doing almost all the time
for one simple reason; we don't know what Oswald was doing when he was alone in Oak Cliff or New Orleans.
-
... we don't know what Oswald was doing when he was alone in Oak Cliff or New Orleans.
We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all. Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group. He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one. I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
-
Except from the above.
"as we know, most contend he wasn?t involved in the assassination at all but was framed".
At least the Bug got that part right.
-
We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all. Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group. He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one. I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
Oswald was David to JFK's Goliath
CTers need an army
-
We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all. Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group. He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one. I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground
So now it's only some of the time?
which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all.
Really? How do you figure, when you don't know what he was doing all of the time? Do you often jump to conclusions for which there is no factual evidence?
Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one.
So we are told? but, even if true, what does that actually prove?
I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
Something else you've just been told and want to believe, right?
-
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2015/06/ap070524045195.jpg)
21. In a similar vein, if Oswald, as part of a conspiracy, was scheduled to murder the president of the United States, how likely is it that his physical, mental, and emotional immersion in, and preparation for, such an extremely important and dangerous mission was so minimal, and his concern about it so little, that just two or so weeks before the scheduled murder, the main thing on his mind was to go into the local office of the FBI in Dallas and threaten to blow up the building if one of the agents didn?t stop bothering his wife?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2015/06/ap070524045195.jpg)
21. In a similar vein, if Oswald, as part of a conspiracy, was scheduled to murder the president of the United States, how likely is it that his physical, mental, and emotional immersion in, and preparation for, such an extremely important and dangerous mission was so minimal, and his concern about it so little, that just two or so weeks before the scheduled murder, the main thing on his mind was to go into the local office of the FBI in Dallas and threaten to blow up the building if one of the agents didn?t stop bothering his wife?
RHVB
JohnM
I wonder how Bugs "knows" that Oswald threatened to blow up the FBI building.... Really?
-
You make the case for why it wasn't Oswald. :D
He makes the case for Oswald doing it alone.
-
I wonder how Bugs "knows" that Oswald threatened to blow up the FBI building.... Really?
Didn't the woman at the front desk at FBI/Dallas say something about that. I recall some sort of controversy about what Oswald actually said to her. Maybe it's not confirmed about any bomb. But even Bugs said he wrote the book as if he were in court, so can anyone blame him for the shotgun approach; just throw everything including speculation at the jury and see what sticks. In the so called 'shotgun fallacy' the ideal situation is to fire all barrels (no matter how silly some things seem to some people), with the goal of getting people to start to think that there's so much to it that it must be true.
Someone once said that trials are not about the truth. They are about who wins the argument.
-
We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground
So now it's only some of the time?
which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all.
Really? How do you figure, when you don't know what he was doing all of the time? Do you often jump to conclusions for which there is no factual evidence?
Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one.
So we are told? but, even if true, what does that actually prove?
I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.
Something else you've just been told and want to believe, right?
Martin, It all leads to Oswald acting alone. I don't know what part if any you think Oswald played in a conspiracy but I haven't seen credible evidence that he was in cahoots with anyone. People build their conspiracy sand castles each day but when the tide comes in it's all washed away. If anyone has rock solid evidence that Oswald is either innocent or that he was a key player in a grand conspiracy then I'm yet to see it. After 55 years I'm as close to certain that such evidence won't be forthcoming as it simply doesn't exist.
I started out many years ago as someone who loved a good conspiracy but before I was 'sold' I insisted on seeing the 'evidence' stack up. The more I read about the assassination the more (much to my initial disappointment!) I was swayed by the LN evidence. It's not as exciting as a conspiracy theorist's fantasies must be but I much prefer to live in the real world.
I don't expect anyone to be persuaded by the above. I don't care either. It's simply an honest statement on what I know to be true.
-
Didn't the woman at the front desk at FBI/Dallas say something about that. I recall some sort of controversy about what Oswald actually said to her. Maybe it's not confirmed about any bomb. But even Bugs said he wrote the book as if he were in court,acting as prosecuting counsel so can anyone blame him for the shotgun approach; just throw everything including speculation at the jury and see what sticks. In the so called 'shotgun fallacy' the ideal situation is to fire all barrels (no matter how silly some things seem to some people), with the goal of getting people to start to think that there's so much to it that it must be true.
Someone once said that trials are not about the truth. They are about who wins the argument.
Fixed it for you in red. Chappers.
-
(http://cdn.fora.tv/thumbnails/965_320_240.jpg)
22. Moreover, if Oswald were about to murder the president in two or so weeks, would he do anything at all that had the potential of drawing anyone?s attention to him, particularly the attention of the FBI?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(http://cdn.fora.tv/thumbnails/965_320_240.jpg)
22. Moreover, if Oswald were about to murder the president in two or so weeks, would he do anything at all that had the potential of drawing anyone?s attention to him, particularly the attention of the FBI?
RHVB
JohnM
Precisely, if he were about to do that terrible deed, why would he draw attention to himself. Shows that it probably wasn't him. Seems RHVB is trying to prove it wasn't Oz.
-
Precisely, if he were about to do that terrible deed, why would he draw attention to himself. Shows that it probably wasn't him. Seems RHVB is trying to prove it wasn't Oz.
Tell us who Bug thought was the assassin.
Seems RHVB is presenting a reasoned argument that Oswald had no help and had no plans to shoot Kennedy even as late as a week or two before the assassination.
-
Tell us who Bug thought was the assassin.
Seems RHVB is presenting a reasoned argument that Oswald had no help and had no plans to shoot Kennedy even as late as a week or two before the assassination.
I'm not interested in who The Bug believed was the assassin, although that seems pretty obvious. Lots of people disagree that he is printing a reasoned argument. It is just his opinion as a prosecutor.
-
I'm not interested in who The Bug believed was the assassin, although that seems pretty obvious. Lots of people disagree that he is printing a reasoned argument. It is just his opinion as a prosecutor.
Of course it was Oswald in Bug's legal crosshairs. But you claimed Bug was seemingly making Oswald look innocent in the Bug #22 JohnM posted. On the contrary he made Oswald look like he had nothing planned out regarding Kennedy as late as the FBI/Dallas incident just 1-2 weeks before the assassination.
So it seems you do care about Bug's opinions. Opinions based on sound reasoning by the way, as Bug made the very reasonable argument that no one with any intention of assassinating the POTUS (who was scheduled to arrive in Dallas shortly) would march into FBI/Dallas headquarters making threats against an FBI agent, opening the possibility up of getting himself arrested.
-
(http://liberalamerica.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Vincent-Bugliosi.jpg)
23. On October 4, 1963, Oswald applied for a job as a ?typesetter trainee? at the Padgett Printing Company in Dallas and was turned down because (the bottom of the application reads) ?Bob Stovall [the president of Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald previously worked] does not recommend this man. He was released [there] because of his record as a troublemaker.? Stovall also informed Padgett that Oswald had ?communistic tendencies.?59
If Oswald was the scheduled hit man in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, why would those behind him (CIA, mob, FBI, etc.) have him apply for a job just seven weeks before the assassination that wasn?t on the presidential motorcade route and would never be? Padgett Printing is located today where it was back in 1963, at 1313 North Industrial Boulevard in Dallas, a boulevard of light industry and no tall office buildings, where large crowds of people would be nonexistent. After the presidential limousine was scheduled to get off Elm Street onto the Stemmons Freeway en route to the Trade Mart, North Industrial Boulevard, to the west of the freeway, would be running roughly parallel to it, including the location at 1313 North Industrial Boulevard. However, per Dave Torok, president of Padgett Printing, the company?s building has always been only one story, and the Stemmons Freeway, he said, ?is a good half mile away, and you can?t see it from our building, even from the roof.?60
The point, of course, is that if Padgett Printing Company had hired Oswald on October 4, Kennedy would not have been a target for Oswald to shoot and kill on November 22. And if Oswald were scheduled to be the hit man for the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, why would his employers (CIA, mob, etc.) have him apply for a job that, if he were hired, would eliminate him as their chosen assassin?
But there?s more bad news for the poor, hapless conspiracy theorists, who would gladly settle for anything real, no matter how small, to keep their hopes alive, instead of getting hit with one haymaker after another to their dreams. On October 8, the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) sent Oswald out for a job interview at the Solid State Electronics Company of Texas. He didn?t get the job because the company was looking for a sales clerk, and he had no experience that qualified him for that position. ?I sure would like to have the job,? he told James Hunter of Solid State, who interviewed him. ?Every place I go they want experience.?61 And again, the problem for the theorists is that Solid State was located at 2647 Myrtle Springs in Dallas, out beyond Parkland Hospital and nowhere near the motorcade route The next day, October 9, the TEC sent Oswald to the Burton-Dixie Corporation for a job as a clerk trainee. Emmett Hobson at Burton-Dixie knows that the company didn?t hire Oswald, but told the FBI he didn?t recall why, and could not recall the background information Oswald had given him. Burton-Dixie was located at 817 Corinth in Dallas, an industrial area near Oak Cliff, which again, unfortunately for the buffs, was nowhere near the motorcade route.62
On October 14, Oswald applied for a job at the Wiener Lumber Company in Dallas. The proprietor, Sam Wiener, was impressed with Oswald as a prospective employee until Oswald was asked to show his Honorable Discharge Card, which Oswald, of course, was unable to do. In the ?Remarks? section of Oswald?s application, Wiener typed, ?Although this man makes an excellent appearance and seems quite intelligent he seemed unable to understand when I continually and clearly asked him for his honorable discharge card or papers for the latest (just ended) hitch. I believe he does not have [it] and will not get such a card or paper. Do not consider for this reason only.?
The lumber company was at the corner of Inwood Road and Maple Avenue, near Love Field, so was close to the motorcade route, but again, not on it. The closest that the president?s motorcade came to this location was at the intersection of Lemmon Avenue and Inwood Road, a little more than three-quarters of a mile from Wiener Lumber.63
Again, the fact, alone, that Oswald was applying for jobs up through October 14 at locations not on the motorcade route virtually precludes the notion of conspiracy among rational people.
RHVB
(https://s15.postimg.cc/k5ku7jbej/padgett_job_application.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/blog_post/primary_image/scanners/crimes-of-bush-bugliosis-case-for-murder/primary_bugliositrailer-thumb-510x282-53323.png)
24. In the same vein, although Oswald applied for his job at the Book Depository Building with Roy Truly on October 15, the Depository had two buildings, the one at Houston and Elm that everyone knows about, and another building called the ?Warehouse,? located at 1917 Houston, a building that was larger than the one at Houston and Elm but with two fewer stories.*The Warehouse was not on the parade route, being about four blocks north of the Book Depository Building. (Indeed, at that time in 1963, Houston Street became unpaved one block north of Elm.) Truly just as well could have assigned Oswald to work in the building at 1917 Houston as at the building at Houston and Elm. ?I might have sent Oswald to work in a warehouse two blocks away,? Truly said. ?Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald.? Truly said he ?hired? the other ?boy? for the Warehouse.64 Neither Oswald nor the supposed conspirators behind him could have possibly known or foreseen which building Truly would have assigned Oswald to. And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination. What type of massive conspiracy by the CIA, mob, et cetera, to murder Kennedy would be completely dependent on what building Truly assigned the assassin to? I mean, would any group of conspirators choose a location for killing Kennedy that depended on an arbitrary decision such as this one that was wholly beyond its control? Of course, we could make Roy Truly part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, something that would be perfectly all right with the conspiracy theorists.
It should be noted further that, as we saw in this book, there is absolutely no evidence that any group such as the CIA or mob had anything to do with Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building, the building that literally enabled Oswald to successfully kill Kennedy.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/blog_post/primary_image/scanners/crimes-of-bush-bugliosis-case-for-murder/primary_bugliositrailer-thumb-510x282-53323.png)
24. In the same vein, although Oswald applied for his job at the Book Depository Building with Roy Truly on October 15, the Depository had two buildings, the one at Houston and Elm that everyone knows about, and another building called the ?Warehouse,? located at 1917 Houston, a building that was larger than the one at Houston and Elm but with two fewer stories.*The Warehouse was not on the parade route, being about four blocks north of the Book Depository Building. (Indeed, at that time in 1963, Houston Street became unpaved one block north of Elm.) Truly just as well could have assigned Oswald to work in the building at 1917 Houston as at the building at Houston and Elm. ?I might have sent Oswald to work in a warehouse two blocks away,? Truly said. ?Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald.? Truly said he ?hired? the other ?boy? for the Warehouse.64 Neither Oswald nor the supposed conspirators behind him could have possibly known or foreseen which building Truly would have assigned Oswald to. And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination. What type of massive conspiracy by the CIA, mob, et cetera, to murder Kennedy would be completely dependent on what building Truly assigned the assassin to? I mean, would any group of conspirators choose a location for killing Kennedy that depended on an arbitrary decision such as this one that was wholly beyond its control? Of course, we could make Roy Truly part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, something that would be perfectly all right with the conspiracy theorists.
It should be noted further that, as we saw in this book, there is absolutely no evidence that any group such as the CIA or mob had anything to do with Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building, the building that literally enabled Oswald to successfully kill Kennedy.
RHVB
JohnM
And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination.
And yet another selfserving biased opinion based on the pre-determined assumption that Oswald was indeed the killer....
Besides, how in the world would Bugs know there wouldn't have been an assassination if Oswald had worked in the other building?
As the basic argument is BS, everything else Bugs writes is equally f.o.s.
-
And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination.
And yet another selfserving biased opinion based on the pre-determined assumption that Oswald was indeed the killer....
Besides, how in the world would Bugs know there wouldn't have been an assassination if Oswald had worked in the other building?
As the basic argument is BS, everything else Bugs writes is equally f.o.s.
Your part of the argument needs evidence of a more probable prime suspect.
-
Your part of the argument needs evidence of a more probable prime suspect.
No it doesn't, but I understand why a LN would think so?.
-
Do you learn The Bug's text off by heart, John? Seems you have `a love affair with whatever rubbish he spouted.
-
Of course it was Oswald in Bug's legal crosshairs. But you claimed Bug was seemingly making Oswald look innocent in the Bug #22 JohnM posted. On the contrary he made Oswald look like he had nothing planned out regarding Kennedy as late as the FBI/Dallas incident just 1-2 weeks before the assassination.
So it seems you do care about Bug's opinions.
Not at all. I certainly do not care about the Bugs opinions, which I consider purely a prosecutors brief with no possibility of cross examination of his claims.
Opinions based on sound reasoning by the way, as Bug made the very reasonable argument that no one with any intention of assassinating the POTUS (who was scheduled to arrive in Dallas shortly) would march into FBI/Dallas headquarters making threats against an FBI agent, opening the possibility up of getting himself arrested.
His opinion in that case would seem to suggest that he thought it wasn't Oswald who shot the President.
-
And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination.
And yet another selfserving biased opinion based on the pre-determined assumption that Oswald was indeed the killer....
Besides, how in the world would Bugs know there wouldn't have been an assassination if Oswald had worked in the other building?
As the basic argument is BS, everything else Bugs writes is equally f.o.s.
Bugliosi is answering THOSE conspiracy theorists/believers who argue that Oswald WAS part of some sort of conspiracy that involved elements of other groups.
For those who believe that Oswald WAS involved and WAS part of a conspiracy, Bugliosi is raising these questions as to how it could possibly have been planned and carried out.
If you don't think Oswald was involved then you can ignore his responses which, again, are directed at those who DO believe he was.
-
24. In the same vein, although Oswald applied for his job at the Book Depository Building with Roy Truly on October 15, the Depository had two buildings, the one at Houston and Elm that everyone knows about, and another building called the ?Warehouse,? located at 1917 Houston, a building that was larger than the one at Houston and Elm but with two fewer stories.*The Warehouse was not on the parade route, being about four blocks north of the Book Depository Building. (Indeed, at that time in 1963, Houston Street became unpaved one block north of Elm.) Truly just as well could have assigned Oswald to work in the building at 1917 Houston as at the building at Houston and Elm. ?I might have sent Oswald to work in a warehouse two blocks away,? Truly said. ?Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald.? Truly said he ?hired? the other ?boy? for the Warehouse.64 Neither Oswald nor the supposed conspirators behind him could have possibly known or foreseen which building Truly would have assigned Oswald to. And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination. What type of massive conspiracy by the CIA, mob, et cetera, to murder Kennedy would be completely dependent on what building Truly assigned the assassin to? I mean, would any group of conspirators choose a location for killing Kennedy that depended on an arbitrary decision such as this one that was wholly beyond its control? Of course, we could make Roy Truly part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, something that would be perfectly all right with the conspiracy theorists.
It should be noted further that, as we saw in this book, there is absolutely no evidence that any group such as the CIA or mob had anything to do with Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building, the building that literally enabled Oswald to successfully kill Kennedy.
RHVB
JohnM
Since this was a conspiracy, everyone associated with LHO being at the right place at the right time (as the patsy) was part of the conspiracy. This includes Ruth Paine who got him the job at the TSBD and was obviously 1 of his handlers. Whoever else was involved with LHO working at the TSBD (owned by oilman D. Harold Byrd) on Nov 22, 1963 was also a conspirator, which includes Truly. But these low level conspirators probably were never informed what they were conspiring to do, right up to the fateful day. They had their orders to handle LHO and set him up in a designated spot, which just happened to overlook the motorcade where JFK would be handed to him on a silver platter.
So why then did Oswald wait 8 seconds after the limo's turn onto Elm before taking his 1st shot? He had JFK at a full stop, 60 feet in front of him, dead to rights.
-
So why then did Oswald wait 8 seconds after the limo's turn onto Elm before taking his 1st shot? He had JFK at a full stop, 60 feet in front of him, dead to rights.
A hired gun would have shot JFK right at that point. You've provided another indication that he was a lone nut and not a hired assassin. With the rifle in his hands he surely had one last debate in his mind;
will I, won't I.
Go on Lee, pull the trigger, pull the trigger and it'll all be over.
Peace awaits you, just pull the trigger.
DO IT!!
-
A hired gun would have shot JFK right at that point. You've provided another indication that he was a lone nut and not a hired assassin. With the rifle in his hands he surely had one last debate in his mind;
will I, won't I.
Go on Lee, pull the trigger, pull the trigger and it'll all be over.
Peace awaits you, just pull the trigger.
DO IT!!
No hired gun would shoot from the TSBD in the first place. No guaranteed, clear route of escape. Hitmen are not in the business of getting caught.
-
No hired gun would shoot from the TSBD in the first place. No guaranteed, clear route of escape. Hitmen are not in the business of getting caught.
But patsies are.
-
Not at all. I certainly do not care about the Bugs opinions, which I consider purely a prosecutors brief with no possibility of cross examination of his claims.
His opinion in that case would seem to suggest that he thought it wasn't Oswald who shot the President.
Nonsense. Bug is making the case for Oswald only getting the idea to make an attempt on Kennedy a day or two before the 22nd
Do try to connect the dots, Ray.
-
So why then did Oswald wait 8 seconds after the limo's turn onto Elm before taking his 1st shot? He had JFK at a full stop, 60 feet in front of him, dead to rights.
That question can only be correctly answered when you can PROVE what the shooting sequence was and where each shot was fired from.
-
Nonsense. Bug is making the case for Oswald only getting the idea to make an attempt on Kennedy a day or two before the 22nd
Do try to connect the dots, Ray.
Only in the mind of an LN are there real dots to be connected.
In the real world all there is, is Bugs making up a fairytale scenario for which (as in most cases) there isn't a shred of evidence....
Connecting dots of speculation leaves you with only one thing: more speculation!
-
So why then did Oswald wait 8 seconds after the limo's turn onto Elm before taking his 1st shot? He had JFK at a full stop, 60 feet in front of him, dead to rights.
That question can only be correctly answered when you can PROVE what the shooting sequence was and where each shot was fired from.
No, I don't have to prove that. You have to find the testimony from at least 1 individual that heard gunshots during the turn onto Elm, which would have been impossible to miss. This missing testimony is proof enough for me. After all, (spoiler alert) I can't prove there is no tooth fairy.
-
Who the conspirators were and how far up the ladder it went is the debate
No, it's far more basic than that.
CTers can't even agree on how many shots were fired in DP. Even if you think there was a conspiracy there still has to be a finite number of shots. That's not even (at this point) asking from where and by whom. If that simple question can't be answered then the sky is the limit really. That's why many CTers don't want to answer how many shots because it would close doors that they want to remain open in other conspiracy scenarios.
Despite not being prepared to answer that simple question (how many shots) we are expected to accept the body altering theory and there being two Oswald's both mother and son? That is simply absurd.
BTW You'll get no argument from me defending Trump. He is the most dangerous man on the planet today.
-
No, it's far more basic than that.
CTers can't even agree on how many shots were fired in DP. Even if you think there was a conspiracy there still has to be a finite number of shots. That's not even (at this point) asking from where and by whom. If that simple question can't be answered then the sky is the limit really. That's why many CTers don't want to answer how many shots because it would close doors that they want to remain open in other conspiracy scenarios.
Despite not being prepared to answer that simple question (how many shots) we are expected to accept the body altering theory to hid shots from behind and there being two Oswald's both mother and son? That is simply absurd.
BTW You'll get no argument from me defending Trump. He is the most dangerous man on the planet today.
Sorry, but the number of shots that were reported (except if any were reported for the turn onto Elm) is irrelevant. Surely the other shooters were either using silencers or waiting for the Turkey Shoot Point so that multiple shots sounded like one. So my answer to your simple question is that you have placed too much weight on counting shots because you have a predilection for Oswald being a lone nut shooter when there isn't a single shred of evidence that he was anything but a patsy.
-
Sorry, but the number of shots that were reported (except if any were reported for the turn onto Elm) is irrelevant. Surely the other shooters were either using silencers or waiting for the Turkey Shoot Point so that multiple shots sounded like one. So my answer to your simple question is that you have placed too much weight on counting shots because you have a predilection for Oswald being a lone nut shooter when there isn't a single shred of evidence that he was anything but a patsy.
No point in discussing this any further. When you throw out a line like:
the number of shots that were reported (except if any were reported for the turn onto Elm) is irrelevant
it's time to move on. I knew that you wouldn't have even an approximation of the number of shots but I am surprised at how blas? you are about the events in DP.
-
(http://cdn.fora.tv/thumbnails/965_320_240.jpg)
22. Moreover, if Oswald were about to murder the president in two or so weeks, would he do anything at all that had the potential of drawing anyone?s attention to him, particularly the attention of the FBI?
RHVB
JohnM
Hello, was Hoover not running the FBI? And besides, a patsy is supposed to draw attention to themselves.
These are too easy Mytton. Bugliosi's arguments are a train wreck of illogical thinking. You keep putting up 1 strawman of his after another. He would crash and burn trying to convict Oswald these days especially against a competent lawyer, unlike cornpone Gerry Spence. That is if he was still alive. Same results tho.
-
No point in discussing this any further. When you throw out a line like:
the number of shots that were reported (except if any were reported for the turn onto Elm) is irrelevant
it's time to move on. I knew that you wouldn't have even an approximation of the number of shots but I am surprised at how blas? you are about the events in DP.
Again, you missed my point. The number of shots that people heard does not necessarily correlate with the number of shots fired for the reasons I posted. It certainly isn't correlated with the number of hulls that were staged by Fritz and Co. in the SN. Hence irrelevant. Otherwise, you tell me what the relevance is.
ps my guess is that at least 6 shots were fired. 1 shot from a frangible bullet darn near blew JFK's head off. Some came from silencers. Some from the Mauser. Some simultaneously from the front, back, and side at the Turkey shoot point, which Greer slowed the limo down for, so he could turn around to watch the Big Event unfold.
-
Greer slowed the limo down for, so he could turn around to watch the Big Event unfold.
Yeah he literally had a front row seat. :D
or was he one of the shooters? Maybe Greer was the target and took his foot off the gas to throw the guy in the drain off his shot resulting in JFK getting hit by mistake?
Hey, I had no idea it was so easy being a CTer!
-
But patsies are.
LOL. Place Oswald behind the limo and then claim JFK was shot from in front of the limo. Great plan.
-
Do you learn The Bug's text off by heart, John? Seems you have `a love affair with whatever rubbish he spouted.
Concrete, cited research is definitely seductive. Seems you lot are more hooked on fly-by-night cheap, easy speculation. Fun being a CTer isn't it.
If you have cited information revealing Bug's research into Dirty Harvey's job hunting is erroneous in some manner, by all means feel free to post it.
-
No it doesn't, but I understand why a LN would think so?.
... yes, given that an estimated 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people have been accused in various conspiracy theories on the assassination.
What... too soon, Martin?
-
... yes, given that an estimated 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people have been accused in various conspiracy theories on the assassination.
What... too soon, Martin?
You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.
As usual, you are wrong.
-
Concrete, cited research is definitely seductive. Seems you lot are more hooked on fly-by-night cheap, easy speculation. Fun being a CTer isn't it.
If you have cited information revealing Bug's research into Dirty Harvey's job hunting is erroneous in some manner, by all means feel free to post it.
Bugs research that the conspiracists would never have chosen Oswald could be right. He might never have been part of the plot, just ( as he said) the "patsy".
As for it being fun being a Ct. It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly, even though it has been shown to be a one sided investigation. But then you feluccas don't believe that do you?
-
Bugs research that the conspiracists would never have chosen Oswald could be right. He might never have been part of the plot, just ( as he said) the "patsy".
As for it being fun being a Ct. It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly, even though it has been shown to be a one sided investigation. But then you feluccas don't believe that do you?
Sour grapes, Ray?
-
Bug Non Sequitur #23: Oswald's job seeking proves he wasn't part of a conspiracy.
You guys keep assuming his job at the TSBD was a fluke and there were no handlers ready to relocate him to the TSBD if Plan A in Chicago got nixed, which it did.
That said, October 4, 1963 Oswald applied for a job at Padgett Printing but was not hired because of a poor recommendation by the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD who was involved with the search of the Paine household in November 1963. He used 2 negatives to make a 5"x8"print of the BYP CE 133-A and an 8"x10" print of the infamous CE 133-C. WTF? Did Stovall prevent Oswald from getting the job so he would be available for the TSBD? And how did Stovall know Oswald?
-
You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.
As usual, you are wrong.
A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'
In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up, Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.
Tick-tock, tick-tock...
-
A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'
In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up, Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.
Tick-tock, tick-tock...
A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Yes indeed... so glad you noticed. Now why do you ignore them?
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'
Indeed it does... what is does not do is equate to 'must be guilty'
In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up
As I said before;
You seem to be under the foolish notion that, no matter how weak and inconclusive it truly is, the LN argument nevertheless wins by default unless conclusively proven wrong on all accounts.
As usual, you are wrong.
and that btw equates to 'no need for my truth to show up'....
Perhaps you still don't get that I have no case to prove....
Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.
Since when does 'prime suspect' equate to 'must be guilty' (anywhere else than in Salem, I mean) ?
.
-
A lot of 'inconclusives' in this case, aren't there.
Yes indeed... so glad you noticed. Now why do you ignore them?
Pretty sure 'can't rule out' equates with 'inconclusive'
Indeed it does... what is does not do is equate to 'must be guilty'
In the meantime, while we wait for your 'truth' to show up
As I said before;
and that btw equates to 'no need for my truth to show up'....
Perhaps you still don't get that I have no case to prove....
Dirty Harvey remains prime suspect.
Since when does 'prime suspect' equate to 'must be guilty' (anywhere else than in Salem, I mean) ?
.
Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman
Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'
Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.
Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?
-
Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman
Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'
Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.
Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?
Unfortunately we CTs can't prove Oswald didn't do it, as it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. However you, Feluccas are in a worse boat as you can't prove he did it either, despite you having to prove a positive.
-
Unfortunately we CTs can't prove Oswald didn't do it, as it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. However you, Feluccas are in a worse boat as you can't prove he did it either, despite you having to prove a positive.
They say it only takes a minute to die
-
Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman
Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'
Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.
Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?
Your truth equates with Oswald not being a lone gunman
First of all, you haven't got a clue about what my truth is and what it equates to.... All you can do is speculate and guess, which is actually not all that unusual for an LN
Where did I attach guilt to 'prime suspect'
You didn't.. at least not directly. I just helped you out in case you ever wanted to go there?.
Yeah, you characters don't have a case to prove but want LNers to prove your speculations wrong.
I'm glad you agree that non-LNs (which I think you mean by "you characters") don't have to prove anything!
As for LNs proving speculations wrong.... Reasonable doubt is actually a kind of speculation about the probative value of the evidence presented! And with that in mind; yes, you are right... LNs should be able to prove their case, if it really is as solid as they pretend it to be. Makes one wonder why they never ever are able to do so..
Fun being a CTer, isn't it.
I wouldn't know? Fun labeling people CT's just because they don't agree with you?
Where do the 'inconclusives' prove Oswald innocent?
They don't... just like they don't prove his guilt either.
Why do you ignore the 'can't rule out' that accompany those 'inconclusives'?
What did I ignore? I don't attach silly conclusions to them, like you do, but that does not mean I ignore anything, so why don't you give an example of a "can't rule out inconclusiveness" that I have ever ignored?
-
It certainly is better than to have to parrot the WC endlessly, and mindlessly,
Uh Ray...it's not 'parrot' anymore. It's lemmings now. You know..they jumped off the cliff after drinking the Warren Commission kool-aid.
Boogerlosi wrote Reclaiming the Yarn. [making stuff up]
Stovall did not refer to Oswald as a 'trouble maker' in his testimony before the Commission.
Mr. JENNER. He was prompt and worked every day and had little in the way of absenteeism?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Mr. Graef said that he sought overtime employment; do you recall that?
Mr. STOVALL. Only by his statements that he made it known that he was available to work on Saturday and he simply had a wife and kid and needed the money and I'm sure that he did, as far as that goes, because of the rate of pay he was working, living in these times, it didn't go very far.
Mr. JENNER. Your overall impression is that he was an industrious person?
Mr. STOVALL. He was inefficient--I wouldn't say he was industrious--if he would have maybe applied himself at least--he was inept in this particular craft.
-
Bug Non Sequitur #23: Oswald's job seeking proves he wasn't part of a conspiracy.
You guys keep assuming his job at the TSBD was a fluke and there were no handlers ready to relocate him to the TSBD if Plan A in Chicago got nixed, which it did.
That said, October 4, 1963 Oswald applied for a job at Padgett Printing but was not hired because of a poor recommendation by the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD who was involved with the search of the Paine household in November 1963. He used 2 negatives to make a 5"x8"print of the BYP CE 133-A and an 8"x10" print of the infamous CE 133-C. WTF? Did Stovall prevent Oswald from getting the job so he would be available for the TSBD? And how did Stovall know Oswald?
"the owner of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Stovall was a police detective with the DPD"
You damn liar. There are two different Stovalls. You are attempting to make them appear to be one and the same. You are not to be trusted.
Stovall, Richard S.
Member, Dallas Police Department.
Stovall, Robert L.
President, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall
-
You damn liar.
:-[ 'That's wrong' would have sufficed.
-
:-[ 'That's wrong' would have sufficed.
Says the guy who dismisses LNers as lemmings and parrots. And calls Bug a liar who makes things up. So no, 'that's wrong' does not suffice.
Well, we lemmings do our research. Trojan has purposely left out the first names of both Stovalls, hoping that no one will check that. A typical CTer feint.
-
Says the guy who dismisses LNers as lemmings and parrots. And calls Bug a liar who makes things up. So no, 'that's wrong' does not suffice.
Well, we lemmings do our research. Trojan has purposely left out the first names of both Stovalls, hoping that no one will check that. A typical CTer feint.
I just made a false assumption like every LNer does here. Stovall isn't exactly a common name. So every time you are mistaken (which is all the bloody time) you're a damn liar? Aren't you taking this a little too personally, dufus?
"Well, we lemmings do our research." :D
-
Says the guy who dismisses LNers as lemmings and parrots. And calls Bug a liar who makes things up. So no, 'that's wrong' does not suffice.
Well, we lemmings do our research. Trojan has purposely left out the first names of both Stovalls, hoping that no one will check that. A typical CTer feint.
?Bob Stovall [the president of Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald previously worked] does not recommend this man. He was released [there] because of his record as a troublemaker.? Stovall also informed Padgett that Oswald had ?communistic tendencies.?
Find and post a link that cites this officially and I will apologize for calling you a lemming.
-
Find and post a link that cites this officially and I will apologize for calling you a lemming.
trou?ble?mak?er
ˈtrəbəlˌmākər
noun
noun: troublemaker; a person who habitually causes difficulty or problems
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. STOVALL
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stova_ro.htm
Mr. STOVALL. He sought employment at another company here in town, a printing company.
Mr. JENNER. Do you recall the name of that company?
Mr. STOVALL. Padgett Printing Co.--Padgett Printing and Lithographing Co., and the superintendent over there called me and he gave us as a reference.
Mr. JENNER. Do you know the superintendent's name?
Mr. STOVALL. Ted Gangel.
(...)
Mr. JENNER. They are here in Dallas?
Mr. STOVALL Yes--he's their superintendent. He called me and asked me and I told him I did not know, but I would check, so I asked John Graef and they said this fellow was kind of an oddball, and he was kinda peculiar sometimes and that he had had some knowledge of the Russian language, which--this is all I knew, so I told Ted, I said, "Ted, I don't know, this guy may be a damn Communist. I can't tell you. If I was you, I wouldn't hire him."
(...)
Mr. STOVALL. I don't believe so. There was such a short period of time this fellow worked for us and he was a constant source of irritation because of his lack of productive ability, that----
Mr. JENNER. Would you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. STOVALL. We would ask him to reduce a line to 4 inches in width, that happened to be 6, and he might make it 4 1/4 or 3 7/8, and this was a loss in labor and materials both, and it had to be redone.
Mr. JENNER. Did this occur with greater frequency than you thought--than your people thought was permissible, having in mind the progress which you would expect of him or a man in his position to have attained?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes; that's true.
Mr. JENNER. What about his relations with others in the company---other employees-how did he get along, or did that come to your attention?
Mr. STOVALL I don't think anyone liked him or disliked him either one. He was just one of those people you don't know. If you don't know a guy, you can't know if you don't like him. That's probably the main reason we don't like him. Someone made mention in one instance that he bumped them in a dark room, which is a walkway area, and if a guy's bent over a tray and somebody else is coming by--he will get bumped, and it depends on who is doing the bumping, whether you get upset about it or not.
Mr. JENNER. Well, it can be done without taking offense to one another?
Mr. STOVALL. There's nothing at all wrong in it. There's no pain at all in saying "Excuse me."
Mr. JENNER. Yes; and apparently he was not inclined to do that.
Mr. STOVALL. It seems that that's so---yes.
-
I just made a false assumption like every LNer does here. Stovall isn't exactly a common name. So every time you are mistaken (which is all the bloody time) you're a damn liar? Aren't you taking this a little too personally, dufus?
"Well, we lemmings do our research." :D
"I just made a false assumption like every LNer does here. Stovall isn't exactly a common name"
>>> Huh? I immediately red-flagged the Stovall name coincidence. No false assumption on my part. I do my research. You only look for convenient ways to trick people into buying into your daffy theories. Then shuck & jive by trying to lay blame elsewhere. Typical CTer.
"So every time you are mistaken (which is all the bloody time*) you're a damn liar?"
>>> What? You brainiacs call us liars in every post. LOL
* Excuse me? Are you still claiming that DPD Stovall and JCS Stovall are the same person?
-
(https://maverickmedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bugliosi1-00184204.jpg)
25. Oswald told Marina he didn?t care for his job at the Book Depository Building, and as late as November 9 (Ruth Paine thinks it may have been November 2),65 just thirteen days before the assassination, he applied for a job, per Marina, at ?some photographic? company but did not get it.66 So up to thirteen days before the assassination, or twenty at the most, Oswald sought a job that would have taken him away from his sniper?s nest right above the president?s limousine. Some conspiracy.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(http://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JFK_at_Rice_University-JFK_Library-879x485.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/mzft7pj7v/Oak_tree.jpg)
26. We know why Oswald shot Kennedy from the Book Depository Building. He worked there. Besides, no better opportunity to kill Kennedy would probably ever come to him. But if a powerful organization like the CIA, KGB, or organized crime, with vast resources at its disposal, decided to kill the president of the United States, obviously it would reconnoiter assassination sites around the country where the president was scheduled to be, searching for the very best one it could find. With this in mind, why in the world would any of these groups have chosen a location for their hit man that had a giant and heavily foliaged oak tree obstructing his view of the president during several of the critical seconds in which he would want to be tracking and shooting the president? And why would they choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine?
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://maverickmedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bugliosi1-00184204.jpg)
25. Oswald told Marina he didn?t care for his job at the Book Depository Building, and as late as November 9 (Ruth Paine thinks it may have been November 2),65 just thirteen days before the assassination, he applied for a job, per Marina, at ?some photographic? company but did not get it.66 So up to thirteen days before the assassination, or twenty at the most, Oswald sought a job that would have taken him away from his sniper?s nest right above the president?s limousine. Some conspiracy.
RHVB
And some lone assassin. The Bug is doing a great job of proving Oswald was never the gunman. Why would he move jobs if he intended to assassinated the President?
Keep posting John. These are getting better and better.
-
(http://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JFK_at_Rice_University-JFK_Library-879x485.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/mzft7pj7v/Oak_tree.jpg)
26. We know why Oswald shot Kennedy from the Book Depository Building. He worked there. Besides, no better opportunity to kill Kennedy would probably ever come to him. But if a powerful organization like the CIA, KGB, or organized crime, with vast resources at its disposal, decided to kill the president of the United States, obviously it would reconnoiter assassination sites around the country where the president was scheduled to be, searching for the very best one it could find. With this in mind, why in the world would any of these groups have chosen a location for their hit man that had a giant and heavily foliaged oak tree obstructing his view of the president during several of the critical seconds in which he would want to be tracking and shooting the president? And why would they choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine?
RHVB
JohnM
I thought the Bug said he wanted to move jobs. :D
-
1. Perhaps the most powerful single piece of evidence that there was no conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy is simply the fact that after all these years there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any of the persons or groups suspected by conspiracy theorists
We'll call this Fallacious Bugliosi Argument 1.
The first fallacy is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The second fallacy is that "credible evidence" is lawyer rhetoric for "I'm dismissing anything that doesn't fit my preconceived conclusion".
Otherwise, all I have to say is "there is no credible evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy" and we're done.
And in the conspiracy prosecutions I have conducted, I have always been able to present direct evidence of the co-conspirators acting in concert before, during, or after the crime, and/or circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of concert or meeting of the minds could be made.
Oh, you mean like several witnesses reporting having seen Ruby, Tippit, and/or Oswald together prior to November 22? Yeah, I know, that's not "credible". Because....reasons.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #3. Appeal to ridicule.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #4 -- strawman. What "alleged massive conspiracy"? And there he goes with the "credible" nonsense again.
-
There were certain type of conspiracy theorists who served a purpose Pretty sure LBJ was at least quoted that he believed a larger conspiracy may have existed. This of course was not an especially veiled reference of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy Yet it served as a most excellent rhetorical function since you could imply a Soviet conspiracy without ever providing the slightest bit of evidence
-
By now it has to be more than obvious to the reader of Reclaiming History that Bugliosi is a lawyer, not a scientist. He doesn't understand or follow the scientific method. He doesn't understand or follow basic logic either. He calls rhetoric and conjecture "evidence", he calls his unsupported opinions "common sense", and he hypocritically pretends that his religious belief that Oswald killed Kennedy is somehow different from somebody else's religious belief in a conspiracy.
-
Bugliosi Fallacious Argument #5 - "vast conspiracy" strawman again.
Here we see Bugliosi doing what he does best: reiterating the same argument he already made, giving it a different number, and pretending like it's something new. That's how you end up with a 1600 page book in desperate need of an editor.
-
2. Not only is there no credible evidence that organized crime, the CIA, Castro, LBJ, and so on, conspired with Oswald to murder the president, but such a plan would be incredibly reckless, irrational, and dangerous for any of these persons or groups to even entertain, and hence, unlikely and far-fetched
RHVB
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #2 - non-sequitur
Not only does he invoke the "credible" nonsense once again, but he thinks it somehow follows that something is unlikely simply because he considers it to be dangerous.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #6.
Speaking of silly arguments:
"I don't think a conspiracy would have been done that way, therefore there was no conspiracy".
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #7 - yet another non-sequitur.
"I don't believe someone involved in a murder plot would ever do anything I consider 'mundane', therefore there was no conspiracy. But on the other hand a lone-nut murderer would definitely do mundane things like watch television the night before and take in a movie afterwards."
-
Tony, I don't understand your point. You eat, sleep and breathe this topic and I barely have a passing interest it (no disrespect intended) so I'll need to have it explained differently.
Well maybe before you start throwing around the word "kook", you should actually learn the evidence. Like how the tape dispensers worked.
-
They couldn't have planned to change the route before they changed the route?
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #9.
To believe that a group of conspirators would entrust the biggest party headquarters break-in in American history to 5 two-bit "plumbers" sticking tape over a lock is too preposterous a notion for any rational person to harbor in his or her mind for more than a millisecond.
To believe that a group of conspirators would entrust the first biggest murder in American history to a disgruntled out of work actor who couldn't even read a compass is too preposterous a notion for any rational person to harbor in his or her mind for more than a millisecond.
etc, etc, etc
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #8 - another strawman
Pretend you're a mindreader who knows what Oswald would have done, and then pretend that the story you fabricated (which of course is "common sense") somehow "precludes" the existence of a conspiracy.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #10 -- yet another strawman and more of Vince's mad mindreading skilz.
Name one conspiracy theorist in all of JFK-dom who has ever claimed that Oswald was "selected by a group of conspirators to get along with them".
-
What a pathetic argument to make. The Kennedy family allegedly supports the WC finding so those findings must be true?.. Wow!
What information did the Kennedys have (that we don't have) to even make that determination (if they ever truly did) to begin with?
[img width=60 height=60 ]https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png[/img]
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #12 - false appeal to authority
-
Bugliosi's arguments get more and more ridiculous as he goes along. This is another version of his "I don't believe conspirators would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy".
First of all, just because Oswald was a cheapskate, it doesn't follow that he was poor. Second of all, if a person really was an undercover agent, he wouldn't be undercover long if he was in the habit of going on spending sprees. Third of all, we have a witness saying that Oswald came in to look at cars saying that within a few weeks he had some money coming in and would be back.
Yeah, I know. He was another liar. They were all liars.
-
I see one difference: Caprio writes his own posts. Mytton cuts and pastes Bugliosi.
-
Yeah, I know. He was another liar. They were all liars.
Yep, like all these inconvenient eyewitnesses and investigators;
Ruth Paine
Michael Paine
Marina Oswald
Davis sister 1
Davis sister 2
Mrs Brock
Benavides
Markham
Postal
Givens
Frazier
Warren
Greer
Holmes
Norman
Kirk
Cadigan
Truly
Brewer
Bledsoe
Brennan
Baker
Humes
Boswell
Callaway
Roberts
McDonald
Day
Fritz
And etc etc, basically everyone else connected with this case whose name wasn't Saint Lee Harvey Oswald, lied profusely.
JohnM
-
Bugliosi's arguments get more and more ridiculous as he goes along. This is another version of his "I don't believe conspirators would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy".
First of all, just because Oswald was a cheapskate, it doesn't follow that he was poor. Second of all, if a person really was an undercover agent, he wouldn't be undercover long if he was in the habit of going on spending sprees. Third of all, we have a witness saying that Oswald came in to look at cars saying that within a few weeks he had some money coming in and would be back.
Yeah, I know. He was another liar. They were all liars.
'Money coming in'
File that gem in the 'delusions of grandeur' category
And file you in the 'I believe everything sweet darling little angel Lee says' category.
Oswald: I'm innocent.
Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
-
Yep, like all these inconvenient eyewitnesses and investigators;
Ruth Paine
Michael Paine
Marina Oswald
Davis sister 1
Davis sister 2
Mrs Brock
Benavides
Markham
Postal
Givens
Frazier
Warren
Greer
Holmes
Norman
Kirk
Cadigan
Truly
Brewer
Bledsoe
Brennan
Baker
Humes
Boswell
Callaway
Roberts
McDonald
Day
Fritz
And etc etc, basically everyone else connected with this case whose name wasn't Saint Lee Harvey Oswald, lied profusely.
JohnM
Quote me ever calling all of these people liars. I'll put up the LN cavalcade of lying/mistaken witnesses against your list any day of the week.
-
'Money coming in'
File that gem in the 'delusions of grandeur' category
And file you in the 'I believe everything sweet darling little angel Lee says' category.
uhhh.....Bill....Oswald never said he went and looked at cars.
Oswald: I'm innocent.
Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
This canard again from basketball gorilla man. How about you tell the pearly gates joke again? That one never gets old.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #14
"rifle that Oswald owned and used to murder the president" - LOL
Conspirators always use expensive weapons to commit assassinations. Look at Booth's derringer or Castro's exploding cigar.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #15.
This is yet another version of "I don't believe conspirators would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy". Bugliosi seems to have this idealized notion that these conspirators that he has invented are infallible. Like those Watergate conspirators who didn't do something stupid and get caught.
And by "so easily traceable", he means with an ID nobody ever said anything about until Oswald was dead, and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of a couple of block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.
Oh, yeah, and yellow blobs and moon craters.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #16
Talk about begging the question: we "know" there wasn't a conspiracy because they would have used a silencer and we know that Oswald did it with the Carcano that "he owned and fired at JFK'.
How many times have we heard from the LN crowd that there was no silencer that would have silenced a high-powered rifle? I guess Bugliosi should have talked to them.
-
16. If, indeed, groups like the CIA, mob, military-industrial complex, or whatever, were behind the assassination, not only would they have made sure their hit man had the best firearm available, but since they wouldn?t want him to be apprehended and questioned, they almost assuredly would have equipped the firearm with a sound suppressor, most commonly known as a silencer. Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to ?substantially diminish the report? of the weapon and to ?alter or disguise the sound,? such as to make it sound like ?the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer? or ?the operation of machinery.? He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available ?probably wouldn?t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd? in Dealey Plaza.5
RHVB
Adding to John Iacoletti's Bug fallacies..
Bug Non Sequitur #16: This was not a conspiracy because Oswald used a crap rifle with a wonky scope.
Why would the CIA give the patsy a fancy sniper's rifle with an actual sighted-in scope and silencer if they wanted to portray him as a lone nut assassin that could only afford a $12.95 army surplus bolt action rifle with a grossly misaligned $7 scope?
-
I believe they did use silencers.
-
I believe they did use silencers.
Of course they did. Only the Mauser from the TSBD was allowed to make noise (except for simultaneous shots at the Turkey Shoot Point, which sounded like a single shot). And only 3 noisy shots, otherwise, it wouldn't match the 3 hulls that Fritz staged in the SN. I'm still not sure how Oswald didn't get a single print on the MC's stalk, barrel, scope, mag, ammo and strap when he disassembled/reassembled it in the TSBD. And why would you keep a useless scope on the rifle especially if you were trying to make it fit into a paper bag and you knew you wouldn't be using it anyway?
No, the MC never took a shot because it was already planted in the TSBD by then. They shot some rounds into a swimming pool so they could plant an intact magic bullet and 3 hulls, which could be linked to the MC rifle. Otherwise, the Bug was right that the conspirators would never rely on Oswald with the MC alone to do the job. He was the designated patsy. Every good coup needs one.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #18.
Notice how often Bugliosi says the same thing over and over again, but puts different numbers next to it each time?
"I don't believe conspirators would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" ad infinitum
-
But how likely is it that with the biggest murder ever coming up on his plate, Oswald (on his own or with the group?s knowledge and consent) would try to murder some other public figure first? (As we know, Oswald attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker just months earlier, on April 10, 1963.)
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #20 -- Begging the question again
Typical Bugliosi. Take something that we don't actually know and stick "As we know" in front of it.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #19
How many times now has he made the "I don't believe a conspiracy would do X, therefore there was no connspiracy" argument? I've lost count.
-
I started out many years ago as someone who loved a good conspiracy but before I was 'sold' I insisted on seeing the 'evidence' stack up. The more I read about the assassination the more (much to my initial disappointment!) I was swayed by the LN evidence.
I'm sure that if you'd care to share what specific "evidence" it was that swayed you, there would be plenty of people to tell you what's wrong with it.
-
Didn't the woman at the front desk at FBI/Dallas say something about that. I recall some sort of controversy about what Oswald actually said to her. Maybe it's not confirmed about any bomb. But even Bugs said he wrote the book as if he were in court, so can anyone blame him for the shotgun approach; just throw everything including speculation at the jury and see what sticks. In the so called 'shotgun fallacy' the ideal situation is to fire all barrels (no matter how silly some things seem to some people), with the goal of getting people to start to think that there's so much to it that it must be true.
Someone once said that trials are not about the truth. They are about who wins the argument.
Exactly. Bugliosi's only tool is lawyer rhetoric, so that's what he goes with.
-
Exactly. Bugliosi's only tool is lawyer rhetoric, so that's what he goes with.
He has said that he wrote the book as if he were at argument in court. Something like that.
Show us one lawyer who doesn't exaggerate.
Or even one CTer...
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3Pzv-L5QN6A/hqdefault.jpg)
27. If a group like the mob or the CIA was behind Oswald?s assassination of Kennedy, in the period of time leading up to the assassination they (his ?handlers,? per conspiracy lore) would obviously have to be in touch with him. But in a telephone conversation, Mrs. Puckett told me that none of the seventeen tenants of the rooming house in 1963 had their own phone. She said they all shared ?one communal pay phone on the wall in the hall back near the kitchen, and with all of them having only this one phone, it was in use a lot.?67
Also, Oswald spent every weekend, except one, with his wife and children at the Paine residence in Irving, and missed no days of work at the Book Depository Building. In the evenings we know he went to the nearby washateria on occasion, and went out on the evenings of October 23, a Wednesday, when he attended a speech by General Walker, and October 25, a Friday night when he was in Irving and attended a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union. But other than this, according to Mrs. Puckett?s mother (Mrs. Johnson) and the housekeeper, Earlene Roberts, in the five weeks prior to the assassination Oswald simply never went out. Mrs. Johnson said that except for watching TV with the other renters sometimes (during which, she said, if they talked to him, he wouldn?t answer), ?I just really never did see that man leave [his] room?95 percent of the time he would sit in his room.?68 Earlene Roberts said, ?He was always home at night?he never went out.?69 And Ruth Paine testified at the trial in London that Oswald was a loner who never had a relationship with anyone other than Marina, and never received or made any calls at her house phone while he was in her home. When I asked her, ?So you?re not aware of any contacts he had with anyone?? she answered, ?No.?70 So it would seem that the biggest murder plot in American history, with the inevitable follow-up conversations, could only have taken place under the following circumstances: Oswald called his mob or CIA contacts from his job at the Book Depository Building, or they called and asked for him. But Roy Truly, the superintendent at the Book Depository, testified before the Warren Commission that there was only one phone (on the first floor) for the employees to use during their lunch hour ?for a minute? and they were ?supposed to ask permission to use the phone.? And Truly said, ?I never remember ever seeing him [Oswald] on the telephone? during work hours.71 Or on the way home from work Oswald got off the bus to call his co-conspirators from a pay phone. Or they called him at the rooming house (Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper, said that Oswald never received any telephone calls),72 or he called them with a bunch of change from the busy communal pay phone on the wall in the hall back near the kitchen of the rooming house.73 Just how likely is any of this?
Moreover, Arthur Johnson, the landlord at Oswald?s rooming house, told Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth on the afternoon of the assassination that Oswald ?always talked in that foreign language when he talked on the phone.? Whom was he talking to? Roberts, the housekeeper, told Aynesworth that Oswald ?dialed that BL number [Irving, Texas, where Marina was living] a lot.?74 As far as receiving phone calls, the landlady, Mrs. Johnson, like Earlene Roberts, said she didn?t recall Oswald ever receiving a call at the rooming house.7
RHVB
JohnM
-
28. Part of a criminal?s invariable preparation for any premeditated crime is to contemplate how to pull it off without being caught. Although Oswald may have been disoriented enough not to have considered this part of the venture, we can be more than 100 percent certain that a group like the CIA, mob, or military-industrial complex would have. Since we know this to be true, if a group was behind Oswald?s act, it is absolutely inconceivable that it wouldn?t have done everything possible to avoid having its hit man captured and interrogated by the authorities, which carried the enormous danger of his cracking and implicating the group. No matter how far removed the group personally may have been from his act, he would have to have sufficient knowledge to incriminate whoever approached him to do the job, that person could in turn put the hat on the person or persons above him, and so on up to the architects of the assassination themselves. Since they would know this, at a very minimum they would have tried to provide for Oswald?s escape. But much more probably, a car would have been waiting for him at a prearranged place after he left the Depository Building, not to help him escape, but to drive him to his death.* Yet here we have Oswald, right after the assassination, leaving the Depository Building, completely alone and wandering out on the streets, trying to get back to his home by catching a bus, then deciding to get off and find a cab. This fact alone, and all by itself, tells any sensible person that Oswald acted alone, that there was no conspiracy in the assassination to kill Kennedy.
And as indicated, when Oswald was arrested he only had $13.87 on his person,76 not enough to get him far away from Dallas, which, in the unlikely event the mob or CIA didn?t arrange for his immediate death, they would have wanted him to be.
Even if we make the completely unreasonable assumption that a group behind Oswald?s killing Kennedy would not have made every effort to help Oswald escape or kill him after he left the Book Depository Building to ensure he wasn?t captured and interrogated (i.e., apparently the group wanted him to be grilled for hours on end before it killed him), and accept the assumption made by so very many that it decided, instead, to have Ruby silence Oswald for it, let?s see where that takes us. There are two realities to consider. First, by the time Ruby shot Oswald, Oswald had already been interrogated for twelve hours over a three-day period (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) by investigators from the Dallas Police Department, FBI, and Secret Service, as well as by the U.S. Post Office inspector and U.S. marshall in Dallas.77 Second, if it was the group?s plan to get someone to silence Oswald after Oswald killed Kennedy, all rational minds have to agree that the group surely would not have waited until after Oswald killed Kennedy before it started looking for someone to silence Oswald. This would all be worked out, of course, well in advance.
In view of these two realities, the evidence that Ruby did not silence Oswald for any group such as the mob is that if he had been chosen to kill Oswald, he would have done so the first opportunity he had, rather than give the authorities two more days to interrogate Oswald, and that was on Friday evening at the Dallas Police Department. That evening, while Oswald was being grilled in the Homicide and Robbery office by Captain Fritz and others, Ruby, we know, was right outside Fritz?s office talking to reporters. At one point, Fritz brought Oswald out of the office and Oswald walked right past Ruby, coming within two to three feet of him.78 And Ruby admitted to the FBI that he had his revolver, the one he used to kill Oswald two days later, in his right front trouser pocket because he had a lot of money from his nightclub on his person.79 Ruby?s own attorney, Tom Howard, said Ruby was armed with his revolver that Friday night.80* Presumably at the request of his lawyers, Ruby wrote his version of the events that led up to his shooting of Oswald on 3 ? 5 inch cards, and the cards were given to his lawyers. Some were prepared before his trial, others in advance of a motion for a new trial. On one of the cards, he wrote in his handwriting, ?Had I wanted to get him [Oswald] I could have reached in and shot [him] when either Fritz [or] Curry brought him out in the hall, when they told the press that they would bring him down in the basement.?81
In addition to the fact that if Ruby killed Oswald for the mob (or any other group) he would have done so on Friday night to prevent further interrogation of Oswald, there is another reason why Ruby would have killed Oswald Friday night. The mob and Ruby would necessarily have to believe that Oswald would be extremely well protected by Dallas law enforcement, so Ruby would have no choice but to kill him the first opportunity he had since he would have had no way of knowing that he would ever have another opportunity to do so.
The fact that Ruby did not kill Oswald on Friday night, when it would have been so easy for him to have done so, is virtually conclusive evidence, all by itself, that he didn?t kill Oswald on Sunday for anyone but himself, which in turn is just further evidence that there was nothing inside of Oswald to silence because he too acted alone.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #22
Not only is this just a rephrasing of #21 (Bugliosi does that a lot in order to make lists that look long), but it does nothing to argue against the possibility of a conspiracy, which is what he is trying to do here.
-
He has said that he wrote the book as if he were at argument in court. Something like that.
Show us one lawyer who doesn't exaggerate.
This is why lawyers shouldn't pretend to be scientists -- or that they care about the truth.
-
If you don't think Oswald was involved then you can ignore his responses which, again, are directed at those who DO believe he was.
Bugliosi's arguments are fallacious no matter what you believe about Oswald.
It's the usual strawman argument that any conspiracy would necessarily be vast, and have perfectly executed a plan that micromanaged every little detail of what ended up happening.
-
Unfortunately we CTs can't prove Oswald didn't do it, as it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. However you, Feluccas are in a worse boat as you can't prove he did it either, despite you having to prove a positive.
No one can prove anything to a CTroll
-
Bugliosi's arguments are fallacious no matter what you believe about Oswald.
It's the usual strawman argument that any conspiracy would necessarily be vast, and have perfectly executed a plan that micromanaged every little detail of what ended up happening.
Whoa. Maybe bench your Wikipedia Strawman for a second here, professor: Pretty sure the psychological take on conspiracy-mongers is their seeming need to make sense of a pipsqueak/loser/nobody taking down the most powerful man in the world. Thus the 42 groups-84 shooters-214-people-accused of being involved pretty much puts to the lie any lack of vastiosity (as Woody Allen might say) from the fringers.
Oswald = David
Kennedy = Goliath
Who'da thunk it?
Definitely not CTers
-
This is why lawyers shouldn't pretend to be scientists -- or that they care about the truth.
CTers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers or scientists
Or pretend that they care about the truth while at the same time twisting what witnesses and other people on the forum said or what they meant. Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.
-
Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.
One question- yes or no...would the FBI lie?
Bonnie Ray Williams- His Altered Testimony
By John Butler | Published: June 26, 2018
Bonnie Ray Williams gave testimony concerning the assassination of President Kennedy on numerous occasions. These were :
11-22-63- This was an Affidavit In Any Fact sworn at the Dallas County Sheriff?s Office Patsy Collins
11-23-63- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 2 pages Barwell Odum and Will Griffin
1-14-64- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 Unknown agents
3-19-64- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 A. Raymond Switzer and Eugene F. Petrakis
3-24-64- Warren Commission testimony, Vol. III page 161
5-26-64- Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 A. Raymond Switzer and Eugene F. Petrakis
The FBI considered Bonnie Ray Williams as a Key Person in the investigation. Bonnie Ray Williams was a star witness. But, his testimony had to be adjusted over time so that he would be saying the right thing when Bonnie Ray Williams finally arrived at the Warren Commission hearing on 3-24-64 in Washington D.C.
How would Bonnie Ray Williams and his altered testimony outline the Gauntlet Theory? How would his testimony exemplify what happened to many witnesses testimony that resulted in the grand deception on Elm Street. Well, that?s what this discussion is about. Starting on 11-23-63 his statements begin to evolve into something totally different from what he originally said on 11-22-63. The FBI were the agents of that evolution.
During the period 11-22-63 to 3-24-64 the only thing in his statements that remain fairly consistent is that the shooting he describes came from above him on the sixth floor. What did not stay consistent was the number of shots fired and president?s location when shots were fired. If his testimony of 11-22-63 was allowed to stand then there would be a different view of the assassination. Read Bonnie Ray Williams statement of 11-22-63 paying attention to the underlined portion and the notes at the bottom.
(https://i1.wp.com/jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Bonnie-ray-williams-dallas-11-22-63-a.jpg?resize=768%2C891)
The first time Bonnie Ray Williams talks to the FBI is on 11-23-63. There are changes made to what he said just the day before at the Sherriff?s Office. The location of the shooting has changed from the Houston Street intersection to the Elm Street intersection in front of the TSBD. The number of shots remains at two in this FBI 302 below.
(https://i0.wp.com/jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/bonnie-ray-statement-11-23-63-a.jpg?resize=629%2C1024)
But it had to be three shots huh?
It kept changing until another shot was finally mentioned.........
http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/06/26/bonnie-ray-williams-his-altered-testimony/
-
Curious.......
How did we figure that he went to Walker lectures and ACLU meetings?
-
Unfortunately we will never know as the SAC in charge of the Dallas Office was accused by Hosty of ordering him of destroying evidence relating to the deceased accused. We already know that an official of the FBI was prepared to alter evidence about Oswald in this case......the question is.......was this the precedent?
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #23
This is the stupidest argument yet in a series of stupid arguments. Where is it written that an assassination can only be attempted from one's place of employment? Or that this strawman conspiracy had to micromanage every facet of everybody's lives for months and months?
-
Well, we lemmings do our research.
The funniest part of all is Bill "pretty sure" "if I recall correctly" Chapman lecturing anyone else on doing his research.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #25
And there he goes again. Repeating an argument he already made and giving it a new number.
Assassination conspiracies are required to have a gunman with long term employment near the site of the assassination. It's in the rule book.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #26
Another round of "I don't believe a conspiracy would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy".
But why would a lone nut choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine either?
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/61471718/uh-huh-huh-huh-you-said-erect.jpg)
-
CTers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers or scientists
Or pretend that they care about the truth while at the same time twisting what witnesses and other people on the forum said or what they meant. Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.
What a flagrantly tacky statement it is to say that someone that you don't even really know only "pretends to care about the truth". Or do you just pretend to not care?
Hundreds of members and guests will read this blanket broad brush statement and see it as a brazenly barefaced and obviously glaring mental distortion.
You can believe what you want but don't dare to stand in judgment like that towards someone that doesn't seem to agree with your way of thinking.
In other words...what a crappy thing to say.
It reminds me of Clinton calling all the Trump supporters a bunch of deplorables.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #26
Another round of "I don't believe a conspiracy would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy".
But why would a lone nut choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine either?
Yes. He had a complete and open shot coming down Houston. Much more clearly than going down Elm away from the so-called lair, with the branches in the way and so forth. I've watched enough Forensic Files episodes (free on YTV) and criminals do do strange and dumb things.
But for this particular case, this makes no sense at all. The loud boom shot heard by various witnesses was IMO the distracting shot, causing confusion in the plaza area. You can see that it did work as some of the SS agents immediately threw their heads backward to look that way.
The planners wanted to make damned sure the job got done so IMO this whole thing basically came down to overkill when the frontal shot blew his head off. What I've always wondered, too, is why not just shoot him in the head from the same gun that hit his back for the very first shot? It is something to think about but then I just answered my own question above with overkill.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #26
Another round of "I don't believe a conspiracy would do X, therefore there was no conspiracy".
But why would a lone nut choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine either?
Because he didn't have the resources to reconnoiter assassination sites around the country where the president was scheduled to be, searching for the very best one he could find.
;D
-
Yes. He had a complete and open shot coming down Houston. Much more clearly than going down Elm away from the so-called lair, with the branches in the way and so forth. I've watched enough Forensic Files episodes (free on YTV) and criminals do do strange and dumb things.
But for this particular case, this makes no sense at all. The loud boom shot heard by various witnesses was IMO the distracting shot, causing confusion in the plaza area. You can see that it did work as some of the SS agents immediately threw their heads backward to look that way.
The planners wanted to make damned sure the job got done so IMO this whole thing basically came down to overkill when the frontal shot blew his head off. What I've always wondered, too, is why not just shoot him in the head from the same gun that hit his back for the very first shot? It is something to think about but then I just answered my own question above with overkill.
His head was blown off? I didn't know that.
-
His head was blown off? I didn't know that.
Yes, it was "blown off." Figuratively speaking. Were you not aware of that? Or because you don't like the Kennedys, he was merely "shot."
-
Yes, it was "blown off." Figuratively speaking. Were you not aware of that? Or because you don't like the Kennedys, he was merely "shot."
Show us photographs of JFK's head in its 'blown off' state.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #28
Another round of "I know what a real conspiracy would do and that doesn't match what happened" with a new number attached to it.
...and apparently he thinks a conspiracy would try not to be caught but a lone gunman wouldn't. :D
-
No one can prove anything to a CTroll
Especially when you don't have any proof.
-
Whoa. Maybe bench your Wikipedia Strawman for a second here, professor: Pretty sure the psychological take on conspiracy-mongers is their seeming need to make sense of a pipsqueak/loser/nobody taking down the most powerful man in the world. Thus the 42 groups-84 shooters-214-people-accused of being involved pretty much puts to the lie any lack of vastiosity (as Woody Allen might say) from the fringers.
Oswald = David
Kennedy = Goliath
Who'da thunk it?
Definitely not CTers
"Pretty sure" you're making even less sense than usual.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #27
Yet another "I know what a real conspiracy would do and that doesn't match what happened" argument with a new number.
This is really how the LN mind works:
"Oswald never went anywhere or talked to anybody"
"What about all of those sightings where he met with people?"
"They were all lying or mistaken, because Oswald never went anywhere or talked to anybody"
-
Especially when you don't have any proof.
Pretty sure your standard-of-proof bar has reached the Kuiper Belt by now..
-
CTers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers or scientists
Or pretend that they care about the truth while at the same time twisting what witnesses and other people on the forum said or what they meant. Or what the witnesses saw or didn't see.
Et tu, Brute'
-
"Pretty sure" you're making even less sense than usual.
'Pretty sure' that's another hollow CTroll response
-
Pretty sure your standard-of-proof bar has reached the Kuiper Belt by now..
No, your "pretty sure" bar has reach the earth's core.
-
What a flagrantly tacky statement it is to say that someone that you don't even really know only "pretends to care about the truth". Or do you just pretend to not care?
Hundreds of members and guests will read this blanket broad brush statement and see it as a brazenly barefaced and obviously glaring mental distortion.
You can believe what you want but don't dare to stand in judgment like that towards someone that doesn't seem to agree with your way of thinking.
In other words...what a crappy thing to say.
It reminds me of Clinton calling all the Trump supporters a bunch of deplorables.
Boo-hoo
It's the 'Kidnapper-In-Chief' who is deplorable
And you claimed in another thread that LNers are not interested in the truth
The problem with your way of thinking is that you for some strange reason think you are 'educating' us. You have stated as much.
Now, what was that about 'you can believe what you want'
Hypocrite
-
No, your "pretty sure" bar has reach the earth's core.
No, my standard remains at reasonable, both-feet-on-the-ground levels...
-
Especially when you don't have any proof.
You've said it yourself Iacoletti, "All the evidence leads to Oswald" and until you can convince anyone that this evidence was fabricated, we have evidence that by your definition must be accepted in Court as proof as Oswald's guilt.
JohnM
-
You've said it yourself Iacoletti, "All the evidence leads to Oswald" and until you can convince anyone that this evidence was fabricated, we have evidence that by your definition must be accepted in Court as proof as Oswald's guilt.
Reminds me of a Henry Fonda movie called '12 Angry Men'.
Anyone ever see it?
Eleven guys just simply refused to believe in a reasonable doubt.
But after hours of deliberation...jurist Fonda got the unanimous acquittal that the lawyers couldn't seem to demonstrate....
-
Show us photographs of JFK's head in its 'blown off' state.
There. Happy?
(http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif)
-
Reminds me of a Henry Fonda movie called '12 Angry Men'.
Anyone ever see it?
Eleven guys just simply refused to believe in a reasonable doubt.
But after hours of deliberation...jurist Fonda got the unanimous acquittal that the lawyers couldn't seem to demonstrate....
You know Jerry, there is a lot more to researching this case than watching Henry Fonda movies!? God bless ya!
JohnM
-
But why would a lone nut choose to shoot the president at a time when at least 80 percent of his body was concealed and protected by the body of his limousine either?
-sigh- You've just answered Bugliosi's question and positively reinforced his conclusion, of course shooting a man who was moving and had most of his body concealed made a difficult job even more difficult but Oswald only had that one option. Whereas your massive conspiracy of people who had control over the FBI, the Dallas Police and the WC themselves could have easily killed Kennedy anywhere they liked!
JohnM
-
It's the 'Kidnapper-In-Chief' who is deplorable
And you claimed in another thread that LNers are not interested in the truth
Who is this 'kidnapper' ?...Cut down on the liquor there.
Produce that post that you refer to...
-
Who is this 'kidnapper' ?...Cut down on the liquor there.
Produce that post that you refer to...
Donald Trump = The Kidnapper-In-Chief
(as opposed to Commander-In-Chief)
Related to his having kids removed from their parents at the border
-
Et tu, Brute'
BUMP
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #6.
Speaking of silly arguments:
"I don't think a conspiracy would have been done that way, therefore there was no conspiracy".
Thumb1: +++
Could we find one that isn't silly?
-
-sigh- You've just answered Bugliosi's question and positively reinforced his conclusion, of course shooting a man who was moving and had most of his body concealed made a difficult job even more difficult but Oswald only had that one option.
So you really do think that it's some hard and fast rule that an assassination has to be done from one's place of employment.
Somebody should have told Guiteau and Czolgosz.
Whereas your massive conspiracy of people who had control over the FBI, the Dallas Police and the WC themselves could have easily killed Kennedy anywhere they liked!
Sorry, that massive conspiracy is an LN strawman.
-
No, my standard remains at reasonable, both-feet-on-the-ground levels...
Yawn, everybody thinks his own unsubstantiated opinion is "reasonable".
-
You've said it yourself Iacoletti, "All the evidence leads to Oswald" and until you can convince anyone that this evidence was fabricated, we have evidence that by your definition must be accepted in Court as proof as Oswald's guilt.
The little "evidence" that you have is weak, circumstantial, and tainted. It comes nowhere near anything resembling a proof.
-
I must have missed the trial. When was that?
It is on YouTube [I will not link it]
Just search the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald
Bugliosi had a mock trial ..I think it was in England for some reason.
The show starred Vince Bugliosi
Introducing Vince Bugliosi
Persecutor was Vincent Bugliosi...with a judge, jury, and defense attorney appointed by Mr Bugliosi.
-
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41wxJuGykBL._AC_UL320_SR214,320_.jpg)
29. One other indication that Oswald?s decision to kill the president was essentially spontaneous (and therefore, devoid of any conspiracy with others) and formed sometime after the route of the president?s motorcade in front of Oswald?s workplace first became public only three days before the assassination, is his lack of planning to ensure his survival. Although Oswald wanted to survive?he tried to escape, and also physically resisted arrest, striking the arresting officer and drawing his revolver before it was wrenched away from him?he apparently never thought out his escape, even to the obvious point of bringing his revolver to work with him so that he would have it to defend and extricate himself from any possible confrontation with the authorities after his attempt on the president?s life the next day. Instead, he admitted during his interrogation by Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police Department that after he left the Book Depository Building following the assassination, he went back to his room at 1026 North Beckley in Dallas and got his revolver.
RHVB
JohnM
-
The little "evidence" that you have is weak, circumstantial, and tainted. It comes nowhere near anything resembling a proof.
Hmmmm, on one side we have Loony Toons John Iacoletti and on the other we have one of the most successfully brilliant lawyers of all time Vincent Bugliosi!
JohnM
-
There. Happy?
(http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif)
Kennedy had a moustache, was bald on top and wore glasses?
-
So you really do think that it's some hard and fast rule that an assassination has to be done from one's place of employment.
Where did JohnM mention anything about any options re location?
By the time Oswald took aim he had only about 20% of the target available.
Yet you avoid that by veering off course and offer up some goofy nonsense about other shooters in completely different circumstances.
-
Poor Vince, out of steam at #29...
"...his lack of planning to ensure his survival. Although Oswald wanted to survive?"
And leaving all that nice cash behind in Irving. Must have had blind faith in his handler.
What handler?
-
..he apparently never thought out his escape, even to the obvious point of bringing his revolver to work with him so that he would have it to defend and extricate himself from any possible confrontation with the authorities .. he went back to his room and got his revolver.
After he had already 'escaped' ::)
Assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, and just plain wild guesses and inventing various scenarios can work just about any way you want.
Coulda..woulda...shoulda held back a couple of dollars and gone to the nearest sporting goods and bought another box of shells for a real battle.
-
Hmmmm, on one side we have Loony Toons John Iacoletti and on the other we have one of the most successfully brilliant lawyers of all time Vincent Bugliosi!
Mytton always ends up reverting back to a false appeal to authority.
He wasn't chatty with the cab driver. Such brilliant "evidence".
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Where did JohnM mention anything about any options re location?
By the time Oswald took aim he had only about 20% of the target available.
Yet you avoid that by veering off course and offer up some goofy nonsense about other shooters in completely different circumstances.
I'm not the one trying to make the silly argument that if Oswald wanted to shoot the president, he only had one option for where to do it.
-
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/02/18/jfk460.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=ee7b393f9f8767803fec48a722bee049)
30. If Oswald had conspired with others to murder Kennedy, why would he not have explored the possibility with the authorities of saving his own life by implicating them? This would be particularly true if, as the conspiracy theorists allege, he was ?set up? by co-conspirators to take the blame, that he was ?the designated fall guy.? In fact, they cite his statement in custody that he was just a ?patsy? as support for this proposition. But if, indeed, Oswald?s co-conspirators set him up, he?d have all the more reason to implicate them, having no reason at that point to feel any loyalty toward those who had betrayed him. Yet Oswald, throughout his twelve hours of interrogation, never suggested in any way that he was part of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Because Oswald knew that there was so much evidence against him, including his ownership of the murder weapon, and that a sentence of death was going to be automatic, to save his life he most likely would have implicated others if there were any to implicate (an extremely common occurrence in criminal cases, i.e., ?turning state?s evidence?), yet he said nothing. This fact is circumstantial evidence that there simply were no co-conspirators for him to implicate. And what about Ruby? As we have seen, it is scripture among conspiracy theorists that ?Jack Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob.? But they don?t ask themselves, ?Who was supposed to silence Jack Ruby?? Ruby, we know, lived more than three long years (1,154 days) after killing Oswald before passing away on January 3, 1967, and never once suggested that he killed Oswald for someone else. But if mobsters were behind Ruby?s act, they could never know if Ruby would talk someday. Yet there is no evidence that the mob or anyone else tried to silence Ruby. We?ve observed that the emotionally erratic and unreliable Oswald would have been one of the last people in the world the mob (or any other group of alleged conspirators) would have relied on to carry out its biggest murder ever. But Ruby was equally unreliable. Why would the mob choose someone to silence Oswald who was a notorious blabbermouth, had a volcanic temper, and was so emotionally unstable? The notion that the mob (or anyone else) got the goofy Oswald, of all people, to kill Kennedy and then got the even goofier Jack Ruby, of all people, to silence Oswald is downright laughable. I told the jury in London that the mob could just as well have ?gone down to Disneyland and gotten Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to do their bidding for them.?83
Several years after I made that remark in London, I read The Last Mafioso, Ovid Demaris?s biography of Los Angeles mob boss Jimmy ?The Weasel? Fratiano, the highest-ranking mafioso ever to ?turn? on the mob, his testimony for the federal government in the early 1980s sending many of them to prison for life. Fratiano was particularly close to fellow mafioso Johnny Roselli, and Fratiano quotes Roselli as telling him one day while they were driving through the Santa Monica mountains shortly after Roselli?s testimony before the HSCA in Washington, D.C., in 1976, ?[They?re] all hot, you know, about who killed Kennedy. Sometimes I?d like to tell them the mob did it, just to see the expression on their stupid faces. You know, we?re supposed to be idiots, right? We hire a psycho like Oswald to kill the President and then we get a blabbermouth, two-bit punk like Ruby to shut him up. We wouldn?t trust those jerks to hit a fucking dog.?84 I don?t know if Roselli told Fratiano this, or Fratiano, for some reason, made it up, but either way, it clearly reflects a mafioso?s view of the preposterous theory that organized crime, even if it made the even more preposterous decision to murder the president of the United States, would hire Oswald and Ruby to do its bidding for them.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #29
Here we see Vince drop the trappings completely and go into full blown mindreading mode.
Extra LOLs for Bugliosi's stance that Oswald lied during interrogation except when he didn't.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #29
Here we see Vince drop the trappings completely and go into full blown mindreading mode.
Extra LOLs for Bugliosi's stance that Oswald lied during interrogation except when he didn't.
Hilarious, another angry and desperate response just admit that Bugliosi's got you by the short and curlies and you just can't refute any of it.
JohnM
-
I'm not the one trying to make the silly argument that if Oswald wanted to shoot the president, he only had one option for where to do it.
Tell us when you think the foxy Oswald + Friends started to plan an attempt on Kennedy and then maybe you can suggest which locations or methods of attack would have him out & about rather than showing up for work that day.
-
Oswald wanted to assess what old fart Fritz (and the FBI) actually knew before playing his ace card.
What was that card? It sounds like you believe Oswald was involved and not the patsy he claimed to be.
-
Ruby, we know, lived more than three long years (1,154 days) after killing Oswald before passing away on January 3, 1967, and never once suggested that he killed Oswald for someone else.
No doubt.
Jack Ruby was placed in solitary confinement until he died [rather suddenly as it happened]
-
No doubt.
Jack Ruby was placed in solitary confinement until he died [rather suddenly as it happened]
Cancer is sudden?
-
Cancer is sudden?
Ruby arrested on November 24, 1963.
Ruby dies on January 3, 1967.
In conspiracy world that's another sudden, mysterious death.
-
Ruby arrested on November 24, 1963.
Ruby dies on January 3, 1967.
In conspiracy world that's another sudden, mysterious death.
Like I've said before, it must be fun being a CTroll
Anything goes, no critical thought needed
I swear, they must all be Trump supporters
-
Like I've said before, it must be fun being a CTroll
Anything goes, no critical thought needed
I swear, they must all be Trump supporters
It's the same mindset.
Although in Trump's defense (sort of), his critics are so over the top, so hysterical that you wind up throwing up your heads hands (but head too) and saying the hell with everything.
He's an ass, a jerk, a egomaniac, a child; he's not an American Hitler.
-
Cancer is sudden?
Ruby's was.
-
Like I've said before, it must be fun being a CTroll
Anything goes, no critical thought needed
I swear, they must all be Trump supporters
Thumb1:
-
No doubt.
Jack Ruby was placed in solitary confinement until he died [rather suddenly as it happened]
Check your facts. Ruby died in hospital, not in prison and he didn't die of cancer as you seem to believe. Ruby died from a blood clot in his lung. Maybe you need to watch a few more UTUBE vids.
-
Ruby's was.
If you think he needed to be silenced why then wait more than 3 years to shut him up?
-
Hilarious, another angry and desperate response just admit that Bugliosi's got you by the short and curlies and you just can't refute any of it.
We should just call this entire series of posts "The 'Mytton' Delusion".
-
You go first...
In the meantime, witness Euins testified that the first shot came as the limo reached the end of the fountain area. FBI recreation images show that position, revealing that JFK would be almost totally exposed. Well, at least more than just the head and shoulders he wound up with for the twofer.
Given the fountain thing, logic dictates that Oswald originally attempted that course of action. The rest is history.
Nice cherry-pick, but logic doesn't dictate that Oswald attempted anything. That's just your assumption.
-
Check your facts. Ruby died in hospital, not in prison and he didn't die of cancer as you seem to believe. Ruby died from a blood clot in his lung. Maybe you need to watch a few more UTUBE vids.
Maybe you need to watch fewer youtubes, post less, and read more....
Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism, secondary to bronchogenic carcinoma ( lung cancer ), on January 3, 1967
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby#Death
In 1966 Ruby?s conviction was overturned; however, while waiting for a new trial, he died of cancer.
https://www.history.com/topics/jack-ruby
Where did I say that Ruby "died in prison"?
Check your own facts.
Jack Ruby was never sent to prison.
So again, he was placed in solitary confinement in Dallas County Jail.
The shackles Ruby wore when dying at Dallas? Parkland Memorial Hospital sold for over $11,000
https://www.history.com/topics/jack-ruby
Ruby was even placed in solitary confinement on his own hospital bed.
-
It's the same mindset.
Although in Trump's defense (sort of), his critics are so over the top, so hysterical that you wind up throwing up your heads hands (but head too) and saying the hell with everything.
He's an ass, a jerk, a egomaniac, a child; he's not an American Hitler.
Ding ding ding, the Deplorables always tip their hand. And yes, Heir Drumpf is as much an American Nazi as the architect of the Big Event, Allen Dulles was. They are cut from the same cloth. And like the LNers, they are all perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
How anyone, let alone a LNer can think that Ruby was anything but an assassin to silence the patsy Oswald, is either a self-delusional Trumptard or a Bugliosi fanboy. I didn't bother to read the Bug's Non Sequitur #30, but I'll bet it was good if it took a stab at giving Ruby a free pass. Thumb1:
-
Ding ding ding, the Deplorables always tip their hand. And yes, Heir Drumpf is as much an American Nazi as the architect of the Big Event, Allen Dulles was. They are cut from the same cloth. And like the LNers, they are all perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
How anyone, let alone a LNer can think that Ruby was anything but an assassin to silence the patsy Oswald, is either a self-delusional Trumptard or a Bugliosi fanboy. I didn't bother to read the Bug's Non Sequitur #30, but I'll bet it was good if it took a stab at giving Ruby a free pass. Thumb1:
Swell. Somebody's tipping his hand alright. Nazis everywhere!! Let me guess, 9/11 was done by the Bush neocons, right?
When you have your tinfoil hat on, Jack, do you pick up free cable too? My cable bill is getting high and I'm trying to save a few dollars.
Let's see: you're a physicist, a photographic expert, a forensic expert, a medical expert....what am I 'm leaving out? And you say it's the LNers are the ones who suffer from a belief they know more than they do? Do I have that right?
And, to tie a bow on it: I said Trump is an egomaniac, a child, and other names but don't think he's an American Hitler and for you that means I'm one of the "deplorables" who voted for him? See, the egomaniac, child characterization is evidence of what I think about him.
No wonder you can't figure out who shot JFK. You're standing on your tinfoil covered empty head.
-
Ding ding ding, the Deplorables always tip their hand. And yes, Heir Drumpf is as much an American Nazi as the architect of the Big Event, Allen Dulles was. They are cut from the same cloth. And like the LNers, they are all perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
How anyone, let alone a LNer can think that Ruby was anything but an assassin to silence the patsy Oswald, is either a self-delusional Trumptard or a Bugliosi fanboy. I didn't bother to read the Bug's Non Sequitur #30, but I'll bet it was good if it took a stab at giving Ruby a free pass. Thumb1:
Daffy do you wear your special pink hat outside?
-
Ruby's was.
'An autopsy confirmed the brain tumors, massive spread of cancer, and a blood clot in his leg, which finally killed him'
-Cite: Texas History
-
Swell. Somebody's tipping his hand alright. Nazis everywhere!! Let me guess, 9/11 was done by the Bush neocons, right?
Did I say Nazis were everywhere? Are YOU claiming Bush was behind 9/11? Why else would you bring it up?
When you have your tinfoil hat on, Jack, do you pick up free cable too? My cable bill is getting high and I'm trying to save a few dollars.
Good one. Paint all non-LNers as tinfoil hat CTs. That's your shtick, after all.
Let's see: you're a physicist, a photographic expert, a forensic expert, a medical expert....what am I 'm leaving out? And you say it's the LNers are the ones who suffer from a belief they know more than they do? Do I have that right?
I only supported my credentials when LNers tried to discredit me for having them and I never claimed to be a forensic or medical expert. But really, is that all you got? You guys seem obsessed with my credentials. There were lots of students in my classes that got their degrees, just not a lot of them bother to debate on a JFK forum, I suppose. I never use my credentials as an appeal to authority, but I do use them to call BS when LNers try to misuse forensic science to bamboozle the forum.
And, to tie a bow on it: I said Trump is an egomaniac, a child, and other names but don't think he's an American Hitler and for you that means I'm one of the "deplorables" who voted for him? See, the egomaniac, child characterization is evidence of what I think about him.
Sure. You hate Trump, but he's no Hitler. ;)
-
Daffy do you wear your special pink hat outside?
Dufus, do you wear your Russian Ushanka hat outside, comrade?
-
Dufus, do you wear your Russian Ushanka hat outside, comrade?
You lost the election, get over it Snowflake.
-
You lost the election, get over it Snowflake.
I'm not a democrat and I am also not a Deplorable. But you are. How do you sleep at night, comrade?
-
I'm not a democrat and I am also not a Deplorable. But you are. How do you sleep at night, comrade?
I'm well off, that's how.
-
I'm well off, that's how.
Ya, it's all about the almighty dollar with you Deplorables, isn't it? Even when your pathologically lying, ego-maniacal, narcissistic leader shoves his foot in his mouth again and again, you monkeys just kiss his ass and ask for more. 70% of you Trumptards thought he did a good job in Helsinki. 80% of you thought that kidnapping children at the border was a good idea. Lord help us all.
-
Ya, it's all about the almighty dollar with you Deplorables, isn't it? Even when your pathologically lying, ego-maniacal, narcissistic leader shoves his foot in his mouth again and again, you monkeys just kiss his ass and ask for more. 70% of you Trumptards thought he did a good job in Helsinki. 80% of you thought that kidnapping children at the border was a good idea. Lord help us all.
You should really stop with your whinny political beliefs . Politics and religion should be left out of the discussion on here. Especially current politics. Take it to Off Topic if you want to piss and moan.
-
You should really stop with your whinny political beliefs . Politics and religion should be left out of the discussion on here. Especially current politics. Take it to Off Topic if you want to piss and moan.
Who the hell started the political whining? You did, with your pink hat reference. Your problem is you can dish it out but in the end, you're just a snowflake. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. :D
-
Who the hell started the political whining? You, with your pink hat reference. Your problem is you can dish it out but in the end, you're just a snowflake at heart. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. :D
You're a crazy loon and soft in the head. You started with Steve Galbraith. Classic Troll. Rise above it Daffy.
-
Ruby arrested on November 24, 1963.
Ruby dies on January 3, 1967.
In conspiracy world that's another sudden, mysterious death.
Well Ruby Ruby, Ruby baby did die suddenly... right after his last breath
8)
-
Well Ruby Ruby, Ruby baby did die suddenly... right after his last breath
8)
I suppose Ruby was just another psycho that killed Oswald to spare the Kennedy's a drawn out trial. ::)
-
You're a crazy loon and soft in the head. You started with Steve Galbraith. Classic Troll. Rise above it Daffy.
Slither back under your rock Trumptard. IMO, you're everything that is wrong with America. Try debating about the facts for a change and keep the Trumptard-politics out of it.
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #30
Like he knows what Oswald said throughout his twelve hours of interrogation.
Like "isn't that laughable" constitutes evidence of anything besides Bugliosi's insipid rhetoric.
-
I suppose Ruby was just another psycho that killed Oswald to spare the Kennedy's a drawn out trial. ::)
Is that what you suppose? I can't recall ever saying that. Ruby said that.
-
Check your facts. Ruby died in hospital, not in prison and he didn't die of cancer as you seem to believe. Ruby died from a blood clot in his lung. Maybe you need to watch a few more UTUBE vids.
From the 'Fun Being a CTroll' department, one of their crack(ed) investigators suggested that 'they' injected Ruby with cancer cells. Or something llke that.
Maybe Roger Stone(d) said that. He'll say anything.
-
From the 'Fun Being a CTroll' department, one of their crack(ed) investigators suggested that 'they' injected Ruby with cancer cells.
It would have been smarter to have injected him with a couple of slugs in the basement car park. No, that's a terrible idea. How about we wait for three years then inject him with cancer? Great idea, that'll silence the blabbermouth ... can't take any chances. Thumb1:
-
(https://idktonight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Madison3.jpg)
31. I spoke earlier of the virtual impossibility of all the people involved in any conspiracy to kill the president keeping it a secret for even a few days, much less over forty years. But there?s a perhaps even more difficult, and related, reality that the original conspirators would have to overcome. Let?s assume, for example, that the CIA was behind the assassination. After the assassination, how could the CIA have gotten the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, the autopsy doctors, indeed, the Warren Commission itself, to go along with the horrendous crime the agency had committed and do the great number of things the conspiracy theorists say these various groups and people did to cover up the CIA?s complicity in Kennedy?s murder? Wouldn?t that be an impossible task?* The only way (there is no other way) that agencies and people like the FBI, autopsy doctors, et cetera, would all agree to cover up the murder of the president of the United States for the CIA (or mob, FBI, military-industrial complex, etc.) would be if they themselves were part of the original conspiracy to kill Kennedy. And again, no rational person can possibly believe that these groups and people all got together to murder the president. The bottom line is that conspiracy musings of the conspiracy theorists are outrageously hallucinatory and bear no relation to reality.
RHVB
JohnM
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ULq9Ha7aKO8/hqdefault.jpg)
32. Even though there?s not a lick of evidence that the CIA, mob, FBI, or any other group conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy, if the conspiracy theorists could at least show that he had an association or connection with any of these groups, they would then have something to talk about. But here, other than explainable contacts (e.g., the FBI interviewing Oswald when he returned to the United States from Russia, and his very limited attempt to infiltrate anti-Castro Cuban exiles), after the most extensive investigation of a single individual ever conducted, no one has ever come up with any evidence of an association, relationship, or contact that Oswald had with any of these groups. The reason there?s no evidence is that no such evidence exists. As I have said before in this book, it?s all just sublime silliness.
Since we know that Oswald killed Kennedy, and since there is no evidence that Oswald had any relationship with groups like organized crime, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, or any other group, this fact alone removes these groups from any suspicion of being complicit in the assassination.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #31
Yet another round of "The conspiracy that I just made up would have been done this way. Isn't that silly? Therefore there was no conspiracy."
-
Who is "we"?
Royal we.
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #32
Nobody can show that Oswald had any association or connection with any of these groups, except for those times that he did. Oh, but those are "explainable". And anything else is "not credible". Because . . . because . . . Oswald did it alone. After all, "we know this".
It's mind boggling that anybody actually buys into this painful exercise in circular argumentation.
-
"Common sense" is the last refuge of someone without sufficient evidence for their beliefs.
-
Bugliosi is absoutely correct, no evidence of CIA contacts, mafia contacts at all. I know, some relative of LHO's was in organized crime or something like that and Lee talked to him on the phone. One hears all kinds of things.
-
No, it's all inclusive. CTs put in the mafia, the CIA, etc. etc. in their plots. As a generalization, he is addressing that.
-
Royal we.
Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #32
Nobody can show that Oswald had any association or connection with any of these groups, except for those times that he did. Oh, but those are "explainable". And anything else is "not credible". Because . . . because . . . Oswald did it alone. After all, "we know this".
It's mind boggling that anybody actually buys into this painful exercise in circular argumentation.
Tell us the groups with which Oswald had connections
By the way, in case you should try to claim Fair Play for Cuba as a one of your 'groups', pretty sure a 'group'' needs more than one hombre to qualify as such.
Oh, wait... Lee, Harvey, Oswald, O.H. Lee, and Alex Hidell can certainly qualify as a group of sorts in CT Wonderland... where anything at all can happen and doesn't have to be proven; just dreamed up by people who for the most part should be under psychiatric care.
Oh, by the way.... I haven't seen any indication that you have resolved your charge of plagiarism against me, while at the time giving a free pass to Sorenson who also posted an uncited article from the same source.
Is this where you use your recent favorite chickensh*t word 'deflection' now, John?
-
If that's the case, then the fallacy is:
"I'm going to take every conspiracy theory I've ever heard, mash them all up into one giant inclusive conspiracy, pretend that every CT believes in the mashup and point out how silly I think that is. Therefore there was no conspiracy."
-
Tell us the groups with which Oswald had connections
By the way, in case you should try to claim Fair Play for Cuba as a one of your 'groups', pretty sure a 'group'' needs more than one hombre to qualify as such.
Where did you get the silly idea that Fair Play for Cuba only had one "hombre"?
Oh, wait... Lee, Harvey, Oswald, O.H. Lee, and Alex Hidell can certainly qualify as a group of sorts in CT Wonderland...
Still trying to figure our where from your wonderland you plucked the name Alex Hidell. Must be that "research" we hear so much about.
Oh, by the way.... I haven't seen any indication that you have resolved your charge of plagiarism against me, while at the time giving a free pass to Sorenson who also posted an uncited article from the same source.
Is this where you use your recent favorite chickensh*t word 'deflection' now, John?
It absolutely is deflection. You post another person's words without attribution and your chickensh*t response is "somebody else did it once too".
-
If that's the case, then the fallacy is:
"I'm going to take every conspiracy theory I've ever heard, mash them all up into one giant inclusive conspiracy, pretend that every CT believes in the mashup and point out how silly I think that is. Therefore there was no conspiracy."
So John: What conspiracy (to murder JFK) do you believe in?
-
"We" refers to those of us with common sense.
The thing about 'common sense' is that it's not 'common' at all. Yet both sides use the term as if it is.
-
So John: What conspiracy (to murder JFK) do you believe in?
None. The time to believe a claim like "Oswald murdered JFK" or "there was a conspiracy to murder JFK" is when there is sufficient reason to do so. Bugliosi's arguments are still fallacious.
-
I noticed you didn't cite your post so assumed that everyone posting on this thread knew about the affidavit. My bad, though, for getting lazy about it.
Rotten tomatoes should be hurled at Iacoletti for throwing one of his own under the bus, in an abundantly transparent attempt to belittle LNers at all costs.
Iacoletti only comes here to gaslight.
I didn't throw anybody under the bus. Since a large percentage of your posts are lazy cut-and-paste jobs, the least you could do is give credit to the people who did the work.
-
None. The time to believe a claim like "Oswald murdered JFK" or "there was a conspiracy to murder JFK" is when there is sufficient reason to do so. Bugliosi's arguments are still fallacious.
So John, you are:
- a fence sitter?
- a contrarian?
-
So John, you are:
- a fence sitter?
- a contrarian?
I?m a skeptic. I see way too much handwaving and conjecture in the official explanation and not nearly enough evidence.
-
If that's the case, then the fallacy is:
"I'm going to take every conspiracy theory I've ever heard, mash them all up into one giant inclusive conspiracy, pretend that every CT believes in the mashup and point out how silly I think that is. Therefore there was no conspiracy."
I maintain that the opportunity & circumstances presented a perfect storm for Oswald to make the attempt.
-
I?m a skeptic. I see way too much handwaving and conjecture in the official explanation and not nearly enough evidence.
'too much handwaving'
>>> Sounds like the Trump WH
-
I maintain that the opportunity & circumstances presented a perfect storm for Oswald to make the attempt.
And that is evidence of.....what, exactly?
-
'too much handwaving'
>>> Sounds like the Trump WH
Here's some hand waving hours after Oswald had been put in his coffin. A member of the media describing what happened after he had seen the Z film (but not a single person in the general public had been given the opportunity to see said film to allow him/her to draw their own conclusions).
Funnily enough he completely eliminates the back and to the left body slam as we have all seen ourselves. Yet, he actually describes JBC's being shot and totally destroys the eventual Single Bullet Theory that neatly ties everything together. You know, as in one bullet...one shooter. As he describes it, Kennedy had already been shot when JBC exposes his chest and then *he* gets shot. I guess we're expected to believe that the back-throat bullet paused in mid-air to give JBC plenty of time to dramatically expose his chest - LOL.
So you see, a "conspiracy" doesn't have to be an arena full of people. But a little wink or a nod and some hand waving is equally conspiratorial.
-
....that members of a group like the CIA or mob or military-industrial complex, needing to make sure that Kennedy was killed would let their hit man try to carry out the biggest murder ever with anything other than a very high-quality rifle? The fact that Oswald used the type of rifle he did is almost, by itself, prima facie evidence that he acted alone and there was no conspiracy. .. we know Oswald fired three rounds, and only one cartridge was found in the chamber
The real question is how did the FBI know about the ordering of the suspect rifle and how it came to be 'traced' so quickly--the very evening of the day of the assassination.
I'll bet that they find dozens of guns everyday [even now in 2018] and they don't know where in hell they came from.
Mr. BELIN. Were you at any time on that date contacted by any law enforcement agency with regard to a particular rifle, Serial No. C-2766?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And could you tell us the circumstances surrounding this?
Mr. SCIBOR. I got a call Friday evening, November 22, asking if it would be possible to get at the records---at our records to see if that gun had been in our possession or sold by us. I got permission from one of the executives to open the store and view our records, and I came down here somewhere between 10 and 11 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. And what did you do when you got down here?
Mr. SCIBOR. We went in with the Government men and--just before we went in, Mr. Waldman came down and we came in and he took over as far as getting-- trying to find the information that we needed.
Mr. BELIN. How did you try to find that information?
Mr. SCIBOR. By looking in our microfilm records of sales of merchandise for that particular gun.
The FBI furnished us with information stating that we had received the gun from Crescent Firearms.
***************************
An article by Martha Moyer called 'Ordering the Rifle'
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf
Supposedly, Oswald [for some oddball reason] kept the ad clipped out of the 'American Rifleman'.
That was for a 36 inch Carcano.
Why the ad for a 36" and then send a 40".
They ran out of 36"s...? BS:
They would have declined any such order if that were really true and besides...sending weapons to a PO Box is dubious anyway.
Also found by Det. Stovall was a cut-out portion of a
magazine advertisement from Kline [sic] Department Store in
Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon. All
these items were confiscated along with other items and marked
for evidence.....
The Backyard photos along with the mag ad for the rifle were not listed among the items received by the FBI from the Dallas Police.
Michael Paine testified that he saw the Backyard pictures the night before they were officially discovered.
"Someone was arranging rifle information to implicate Oswald"
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xhChaM6qO1U/VcB6lfUofkI/AAAAAAABG2k/2C9pH2Y8hQs/s690/Remembering-Vincent-Bugliosi-Logo.png)
After over forty years of the most prodigiously intensive investigation and examination of a murder case in world history, certain powerful facts exist which cannot be challenged: Not one weapon other than Oswald?s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle has ever been found and linked in any way to the assassination. Not one bullet other than the three fired from Oswald?s rifle has ever been found and linked to the assassination. No person other than Oswald has ever been connected by evidence, in any way, to the assassination. No evidence has ever surfaced linking Oswald to any of the major groups suggested by conspiracy theorists of being behind the assassination. And no evidence has ever been found showing that any person or group framed Oswald for the murder they committed. One would think that faced with these stubborn and immutable realities, the critics of the Warren Commission, unable to pay the piper, would finally fold their tent and go home. But instead, undaunted and unfazed, they continue to disgorge even more of what we have had from them for over forty years?wild speculation, theorizing, and shameless dissembling about the facts of the case.
The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, paying for his own bullets. And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations. I believe this book has achieved both of these goals.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Gov Connally said a lot of things but one thing he (almost) ALWAYS said was "the force of the blow (to his back) bent me over."
We can CLEARLY see that John Connally was only bent over only ONE TIME in the Z film and it is easy to see exactly when that happened. IF you want to solve the JFK assassination shooting "mystery", it is no more difficult than STARTING with identifying EXACTLY WHEN Gov. Connally is bent over by the bullet hitting him in the back. (time 0:33 in this video)
Not a valid vimeo URL
Eventually, the editors of Connally's Warren Comm testimony show him being bent over but it is well after they say he was shot, in other words, Connally was shot in the back seconds after most everyone thinks he was shot in the back.
One of the reasons we are still reviewing the JFK assassination decades later is that many of the witnesses' recollections DOES NOT MATCH THE WARREN COMM's conclusions.
What this or any other video says or shows does NOT prove Connally was shot in the back at a different time than when Bugliosi concluded he was shot but it does give a starting point. I was shot in a hunting accident about the time of the assassination of JFK and I remember in detail some of my incident just like Connally remembered his incident. Fortunately, there is other evidence that allows us to PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT EXACTLY when Connally was shot in the back.
Start with these thoughts and you will soon find out how easy it is for the US gov't to fool the public.
-
So John, you are:
- a fence sitter?
- a contrarian?
I would suggest lazy, closet CTer. The laziest position for a CTer is to suggest they are not a CTer at all but are merely taking issue with the evidence against Oswald which they then universally attribute as the product of fakery and intentional lies. What the rest of us would consider a conspiracy position but without having to provide any explanation or evidence to support these baseless fantasies. Like Inspector Clouseau, John apparently suspects everyone and no one to maintain his circle of lunacy.
-
"Reclaiming History": An exercise in arrogant verbosity and logical fallacies.
After over forty years of the most prodigiously intensive investigation and examination of a murder case in world history, certain powerful facts exist which cannot be challenged:
Of course your "facts" can be challenged, Vince.
Not one weapon other than Oswald?s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle has ever been found and linked in any way to the assassination.
"Oswald?s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle". LOL.
Not one bullet other than the three fired from Oswald?s rifle has ever been found and linked to the assassination.
Not one bullet from ANY rifle has ever been found and linked to the assassination.
No person other than Oswald has ever been connected by evidence, in any way, to the assassination.
Other than Roscoe White, E. Howard Hunt, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, James Files, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Joseph Milteer, Gerry Hemming, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Lawrence Howard . . .
It's Bugliosi and his shameless sycophants who are engaging in "wild speculation, theorizing, and shameless dissembling about the facts of the case" and have been doing so since November 22, 1963.
-
I would suggest lazy, closet CTer. The laziest position for a CTer is to suggest they are not a CTer at all but are merely taking issue with the evidence against Oswald which they then universally attribute as the product of fakery and intentional lies. What the rest of us would consider a conspiracy position but without having to provide any explanation or evidence to support these baseless fantasies. Like Inspector Clouseau, John apparently suspects everyone and no one to maintain his circle of lunacy.
Says the guy who has never provided a single scrap of evidence to support his baseless fantasy. Just a repetitive litany of baseless claims about the evidence.
-
It was a political assassination.
Would it be said that the USA was just another Banana Republic?
So it was covered up from the top down.