JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Steve Howsley on July 18, 2018, 01:06:06 AM
-
When forming a plan to commit a major crime it makes sense to limit the number of people required. That number could range from two individuals to dozens if not hundreds of people. The more people involved the greater the risk that loose lips could see the plan either fail in the lead up or fail in the execution. Even if the plan is successful there's a risk that those involved will be exposed in the subsequent investigation or through loose lips or a conspirator coming forward with evidence of their involvement and naming names.
An unwitting participant (someone who had a small but important part to play) could come forward once they realise that without their actions the crime could not have been carried out.
If you do have a preferred conspiracy it would be interesting to hear how many people (minimum) would be required either directly and/or indirectly in the execution and aftermath.
What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?
-
When forming a plan to commit a major crime it makes sense to limit the number of people required. That number could range from two individuals to dozens if not hundreds of people. The more people involved the greater the risk that loose lips could see the plan either fail in the lead up or fail in the execution. Even if the plan is successful there's a risk that those involved will be exposed in the subsequent investigation or through loose lips or a conspirator coming forward with evidence of their involvement and naming names.
An unwitting participant (someone who had a small but important part to play) could come forward once they realise that without their actions the crime could not have been carried out.
If you do have a preferred conspiracy it would be interesting to hear how many people (minimum) would be required either directly and/or indirectly in the execution and aftermath.
What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?
Two 8)
-
Two 8)
If that's to be taken seriously then what role did they play? If both were shooters then you discount any altering of medical evidence/wounds etc? If you believe there was medical tampering then you must think there was a shooter and a bent surgeon. Is that it?
-
If that's to be taken seriously then what role did they play? If both were shooters then you discount any altering of medical evidence/wounds etc? If you believe there was medical tampering then you must think there was a shooter and a bent surgeon. Is that it?
He's not a Conspiracy Theorist from what I understand, maybe he's saying, it takes 2 at a minimum for any conspiracy to work. Obviously.
-
He's not a Conspiracy Theorist, maybe he's saying, it takes 2 at a minimum for any conspiracy to work. Obviously.
Yes, I've now had to look at a couple of Mitch's posts to see what he's been saying on other issues. Often a single word response to a question comes over as ambiguous or negative. His point that it takes two minimum to make a conspiracy is certainly a truism.
-
When forming a plan to commit a major crime it makes sense to limit the number of people required. That number could range from two individuals to dozens if not hundreds of people. The more people involved the greater the risk that loose lips could see the plan either fail in the lead up or fail in the execution. Even if the plan is successful there's a risk that those involved will be exposed in the subsequent investigation or through loose lips or a conspirator coming forward with evidence of their involvement and naming names.
An unwitting participant (someone who had a small but important part to play) could come forward once they realise that without their actions the crime could not have been carried out.
If you do have a preferred conspiracy it would be interesting to hear how many people (minimum) would be required either directly and/or indirectly in the execution and aftermath.
What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?
Based on the typical responses of any number of CT's at a least a Hundred, but ask any of these same CT's how big the Conspiracy was and they will always say it was only a small conspiracy! Go figure?
Caprio, Weidmann and Iacoletti are classic examples of this Tardis like logic.
JohnM
-
Based on the typical responses of any number of CT's at a least a Hundred, but ask any of these same CT's how big the Conspiracy was and they will always say it was only a small conspiracy! Go figure?
Caprio, Weidmann and Iacoletti are classic examples of this Tardis like logic.
JohnM
Another Mytton like lie.
I have never claimed to know how many people were involved in a conspiracy if there has been one and Mytton can't prove otherwise.
-
Another Mytton like lie.
I have never claimed to know how many people were involved in a conspiracy if there has been one and Mytton can't prove otherwise.
Roger roger, no worries!
JohnM
-
Roger roger, no worries!
JohnM
Ah another Mytton obsession rears it`s ugly head
-
Two.
-
Ah another Mytton obsession rears it`s ugly head
I don't understand, please explain?
JohnM
-
Two.
Their roles?
-
It is interesting in mentioning this that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a plot involving? What about 6-8 persons at that. I'm definitely not saying this though, from any perspective of expertise.
-
Their roles?
1.) Killer
2.) Conspirator
-
1.) Killer
2.) Conspirator
So that eliminates lots of the usual CT conspirators. No bent surgeons or bent cops, no extra shooters and the Paine's are in the clear as are Wesley and his sister. That's all very refreshing. What role do you think a second conspirator would have played?
-
Two 8)
Yep: Oswald* + Kennedy
;)
* Feel free to name your own shooter
-
Two.
1) Shooter
2) Victim
-
It's only fair that I state my own opinion; there wasn't a conspiracy as Oswald acted alone.
The only 'doubt' I have (and it's only a very slight one) is that Oswald may have said something to someone that with hindsight should have been reported to authorities. The Silvia Odio story and the visits to the embassies in MC are points of concern though I don't believe that if anyone (hypothetically) heard Oswald say that someone should kill Kennedy that that then makes them a conspirator.
In so far as the actual shooting(s) I have no doubt Oswald acted alone and that there was much arse covering going on after the event that has provided scraps of stuff that has fed 55 years of speculation that's resulted in a dog's breakfast of theories.
BTW yesterday I heard a guy in a pub say that the best thing that could happen in the USA right now is for someone to take a potshot at Trump. I didn't report it. I hope that doesn't make me a conspirator at some point. :-X
-
It's only fair that I state my own opinion. I think there wasn't a conspiracy and that Oswald acted alone.
The only 'doubt' I have (and it's only a very slight one) is that Oswald may have said something to someone that with hindsight should have been reported to authorities. The Silvia Odio story and the visits to the embassies in MC are points of concern.
I don't believe that if anyone (hypothetically) heard Oswald say that someone should kill Kennedy and not then report it makes that person a conspirator.
In so far as the actual shooting(s) I have no doubt Oswald acted alone and that there was much arse covering going on after the event that has provided scraps of stuff that has fed 55 years of speculation that's resulted in a dog's breakfast of theories.
BTW yesterday I heard a guy in a pub say that the best thing that could happen in the USA right now is for someone to take a potshot at Trump. I didn't report it. I hoe that doesn't make me a conspirator at some point. :-X
There were 3 shooters + 5 conspirators
???
Shooters:
1) Lee
2) Harvey
3) Oswald
Conspirators:
1) Lee
2) Harvey
3) Oswald
4) O.H. Lee*
5) Alex Hidell**
*In charge of safe-house procurement
** In charge of weapon procurement
8)
-
Yep: Oswald* + Kennedy
So you believe JFK contracted Oswald. Not a novel idea funny enough.
-
So you believe JFK contracted Oswald. Not a novel idea funny enough.
Dirty* Harvey conspired with Oswaldovitch
*Marina says Oswald changed after living in Russia
-
Dirty* Harvey conspired with Oswaldovitch
*Marina says Oswald changed after living in Russia
Changed.....underwear?.......light bulb?......personality?.......attitude?
How would she know......she only knew him from living in Russia onward.
-
Changed.....underwear?.......light bulb?......personality?.......attitude?
How would she know......she only knew him from living in Russia onward.
'How would she know... she only knew him from living in Russia onward'
>>> Huh? She was concerned about his drawers?
LOL
>>>You have a point, though: Dirty Harvey already was a bullying, dirty little prick.
After all, how was she to know that about him when she married him in Russia.
???
-
It's only fair that I state my own opinion; there wasn't a conspiracy as Oswald acted alone.
The only 'doubt' I have (and it's only a very slight one) is that Oswald may have said something to someone that with hindsight should have been reported to authorities. The Silvia Odio story and the visits to the embassies in MC are points of concern though I don't believe that if anyone (hypothetically) heard Oswald say that someone should kill Kennedy that that then makes them a conspirator.
In so far as the actual shooting(s) I have no doubt Oswald acted alone and that there was much arse covering going on after the event that has provided scraps of stuff that has fed 55 years of speculation that's resulted in a dog's breakfast of theories.
BTW yesterday I heard a guy in a pub say that the best thing that could happen in the USA right now is for someone to take a potshot at Trump. I didn't report it. I hope that doesn't make me a conspirator at some point. :-X
I think I heard someone say something like that as well about some politicians in those parties like Labour and the Tories.
-
I think I heard someone say something like that as well about some politicians in those parties like Labour and the Tories.
If you recall what exactly was said I'd like to hear it. Thumb1:
-
Yes, I've now had to look at a couple of Mitch's posts to see what he's been saying on other issues. Often a single word response to a question comes over as ambiguous or negative. His point that it takes two minimum to make a conspiracy is certainly a truism.
Something like that. It's always fun to ask some of the wilder truthers how they think it was done from a to z, then have the[m] figure up how many people it would take to do that. Most of these people swear "it would have been a small plot," but have never stopped to really figure out the cast they would need.
-
Two.
Thumb1: (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Of course we can only comment relating to conspiracies, successful or not that have been eventually unveiled. One might argue that the most successful conspiracies have never been discovered.
-
Of course we can only comment relating to conspiracies, successful or not that have been eventually unveiled. One might argue that the most successful conspiracies have never been discovered.
And you lot are just the ones to dream them up.
To wit, the accused:
42 groups
84 shooters
214 people
Yield: SFA
-
Based on the typical responses of any number of CT's at a least a Hundred, but ask any of these same CT's how big the Conspiracy was and they will always say it was only a small conspiracy! Go figure?
Caprio, Weidmann and Iacoletti are classic examples of this Tardis like logic.
No, that would be the strawman conspiracy that the ODIA nuts like to pretend that a conspiracy would have to be.
-
5) Alex Hidell**
** In charge of weapon procurement
Alex? Mr. "does his research" strikes again!
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Ok, here we go, minimal:
Allen Dulles - 1
James Angleton - 1
-CIA underlings (Oswald/de Mohrenschildt/etc.)- ~10
J. Edger Hoover - 1
-FBI underlings - ~20
-DPD stooges - ~6
-SS sellouts - ~5
Lyndon Johnson - 1
Assassins - 5
========
Total = ~50
-
Ok, here we go, minimal:
Allen Dulles - 1
James Angleton - 1
-CIA underlings (Oswald/de Mohrenschildt/etc.)- ~10
J. Edger Hoover - 1
-FBI underlings - ~20
-DPD stooges - ~6
-SS sellouts - ~5
Lyndon Johnson - 1
Assassins - 5
========
Total = ~50
No Ruby?
No bent doctors?
No mother and son impersonators?
No Paine's or Wes Frazier and sister?
No Truly?
-
No Ruby?
No bent doctors?
No mother and son impersonators?
No Paine's or Wes Frazier and sister?
No Truly?
He thinks Oswald was "sheep dipped." So we have the CIA handlers/trainers/operatives who knew about his activity prior to the assassination. It couldn't just be Angleton. Others such as, let's say, David Phillips et al.
Then the WC coverup.
I like how under "LBJ" it's just one: him. No underlings? I thought Katzenbach was part of it?
It's fascinating how they try to make it small but when they're asked for details and specifics it grows exponentially.
-
He thinks Oswald was "sheep dipped." So we have the CIA handlers/trainers/operatives who knew about his activity prior to the assassination. It couldn't just be Angleton. Others such as, let's say, David Phillips et al.
Then the WC coverup.
I like how under "LBJ" it's just one: him. No underlings? I thought Katzenbach was part of it?
It's fascinating how they try to make it small but when they're asked for details and specifics it grows exponentially.
It's also simply not credible to think that everyone involved either directly or indirectly* has remained silent for over 5 decades. Except of course for a couple of incorrigible liars in Hunt and Ventura. Surely someone would say something to clear their conscience and attempt to see some form of justice by having the official record corrected.
* i.e. not made aware of the master plan but soon realised how they were duped yet still decide to remain silent forever. I'd imagine many of these would be honest people living ordinary lives who have a natural sense of right and wrong.
-
It's fascinating how they try to make it small but when they're asked for details and specifics it grows exponentially.
Yes this!
Just their version of the rifle requires a massive cast.
1. fake writing on rifle ad.
2. fake posting details
3. fake money order
3. fake kleins records
4. fake crescent firearms records.
5. fake backyard photos.
6. lying eyewitnesses
So someone organised it, employed handwriting forgers, photo forgers, new photos of Oswald's were taken, document collectors for handwriting comparisons, had Kleins co-operate, had Crescent Firearms co-operate, created a money order with the appropriate legal stamps which again required in depth research and obviously Holmes, Feldsott and Waldman lied and etc etc etc.
JohnM
-
It's also simply not credible to think that everyone involved either directly or indirectly* has remained silent for over 5 decades. Except of course for a couple of incorrigible liars in Hunt and Ventura. Surely someone would say something to clear their conscience and attempt to see some form of justice by having the official record corrected.
* i.e. not made aware of the master plan but soon realised how they were duped yet still decide to remain silent forever. I'd imagine many of these would be honest people living ordinary lives who have a natural sense of right and wrong.
That's an easy one for CTers: They were all bumped off.
Except for the ones who weren't... a big 'oops' moment for CTrolls.
-
Yes this!
Just their version of the rifle requires a massive cast.
1. fake writing on rifle ad.
2. fake posting details
3. fake money order
3. fake kleins records
4. fake crescent firearms records.
5. fake backyard photos.
6. lying eyewitnesses
So someone organised it, employed handwriting forgers, photo forgers, new photos of Oswald's were taken, document collectors for handwriting comparisons, had Kleins co-operate, had Crescent Firearms co-operate, created a money order with the appropriate legal stamps which again required in depth research and obviously Holmes, Feldsott and Waldman lied and etc etc etc.
JohnM
I counted a bare bones cast of at least 14 to put that part of the 'conspiracy' in place. It would require experienced employees in the various businesses to be party to that scheme. That means that everyone who was approached to participate was agreeable to play their role. Remember that if someone was asked and declined they (considering what they now know) become someone who could unzip the operation and therefore need to be dealt with.
It's all very high risk stuff and therefore total nonsense.
-
It's also simply not credible to think that everyone involved either directly or indirectly* has remained silent for over 5 decades. Except of course for a couple of incorrigible liars in Hunt and Ventura.
Nice way to have it both ways. Nobody has come forward, except for those who have. But they are all liars because Oswald did it alone.
-
Just their version of the rifle requires a massive cast.
I think what you mean is that your strawman version of the rifle requires a massive cast.
-
All you need to know to reply to this thread:
As one commenter on the above page said: "That's what's so frightening about it. Once you've seen this footage it's hard to think of him as the killer of President Kennedy, he seems genuinely scared."
This is nothing like Tim McVeigh, who you can reasonably compare to a supposed Lone Nut like Oswald. And one of the first things out of McVeigh's mouth when the FBI visited him in jail: "Is this about the bombing?" And he had a tyrants shirt on. And him coming out of the courthouse, chin jutted outward.
Compare and contrast. The thing that gets me about people who still believe the nonsense of the WC is they all hate Kennedy or the Kennedys which creates a huge amount of bias regarding this case. The Kennedys were too this or too that. In other words, "XXXX the Kennedys...of course Oswald did it!"
Ask yourself - if John McAdams loved the Kennedys, do you really think he'd be a pro-WC apologist? No.
So there you have it.
-
If you go that route, then Oz held up the "worker's fist"...
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald2.gif)
All of these coincidences, by themselves, proving nothing.
-
All you need to know to reply to this thread:
As one commenter on the above page said: "That's what's so frightening about it. Once you've seen this footage it's hard to think of him as the killer of President Kennedy, he seems genuinely scared."
This is nothing like Tim McVeigh, who you can reasonably compare to a supposed Lone Nut like Oswald. And one of the first things out of McVeigh's mouth when the FBI visited him in jail: "Is this about the bombing?" And he had a tyrants shirt on. And him coming out of the courthouse, chin jutted outward.
Compare and contrast. The thing that gets me about people who still believe the nonsense of the WC is they all hate Kennedy or the Kennedys which creates a huge amount of bias regarding this case. The Kennedys were too this or too that. In other words, "XXXX the Kennedys...of course Oswald did it!"
Ask yourself - if John McAdams loved the Kennedys, do you really think he'd be a pro-WC apologist? No.
So there you have it.
What's your excuse for Bugliosi? He wanted to press charges against George W. Bush for war crimes, Bugliosi was hardly a Kennedy hater.
Yes, we got it.
Patsy, Schmatsy, nothing dictates we understand that in a certain way, except the FBI watched him, doesn't he also say something about "because my wife is Russian"? Nice to take things out of context.
-
I think what you mean is that your strawman version of the rifle requires a massive cast.
Do you even have a theory? You seem to be like 99% of CTers who like to go to the CT supermarket and pick whatever you need to suit whatever argument you want at any particular time. You have no credibility. You chop and change but never put your cards on the table because you aren't even in the game. You're just a heckler in the background bleating BS.
So, here's a chance for you to participate rather than act as a tosser; how many people as a minimum make up your conspiracy?
-
Do you even have a theory? You seem to be like 99% of CTers who like to go to the CT supermarket and pick whatever you need to suit whatever argument you want at any particular time. You have no credibility. You chop and change but never put your cards on the table because you aren't even in the game. You're just a heckler in the background bleating BS.
So, here's a chance for you to participate rather than act as a tosser; how many people as a minimum make up your conspiracy?
I don't think you've been around long enough to have the slightest clue about what I think. When have I ever "chopped and changed"? What does that even mean?
If you guys spent anywhere near the time demonstrating that what you believe on faith is actually true as you do making up strawmen to argue against, you might get somewhere.
-
I don't think you've been around long enough to have the slightest clue about what I think. When have I ever "chopped and changed"? What does that even mean?
If you guys spent anywhere near the time demonstrating that what you believe on faith is actually true as you do making up strawmen to argue against, you might get somewhere.
So, in short, you've got nothing.
-
So, in short, you've got nothing.
You mean I've got no response to your contrived question. You've got nothing besides a lot of unsubstantiated claims and contrived questions like "What?s the minimum number of people required for your CT to work?"
Mitch knocked it out of the park in the first reply on the thread. Two. And then you started deciding what "conspiracy theory" should mean to conspiracy theorists.
-
You mean I've got no response to your contrived question. You've got nothing besides a lot of unsubstantiated claims and contrived questions like "What?s the minimum number of people required for your CT to work?"
Mitch knocked it out of the park in the first reply on the thread. Two. And then you started deciding what "conspiracy theory" should mean to conspiracy theorists.
So can I take it that you subscribe to a total of two in the conspiracy? I'm not asking for a definition of what constitutes a conspiracy in minimum numbers as two as a minimum is simply a truism.
You will not not step up to the mound and pitch the ball. You simply sit in the stands bleating nonsense.
Here's you chance to provide an answer to the question but let's make it easy for you. Is the minimum number less that 40?
-
You mean I've got no response to your contrived question. You've got nothing besides a lot of unsubstantiated claims and contrived questions like "What?s the minimum number of people required for your CT to work?"
Mitch knocked it out of the park in the first reply on the thread. Two. And then you started deciding what "conspiracy theory" should mean to conspiracy theorists.
C'mon John grow some balls, either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy and the conspiracy that you have suggested involves crooked cops, planted evidence, lying officials, faked evidence and the list goes on and on but now when called on it, you try and fence sit, what a Joke!
JohnM
-
You will not not step up to the mound and pitch the ball. You simply sit in the stands bleating nonsense.
True to form, you?re here to play games rather than determine the truth.
Here's you chance to provide an answer to the question but let's make it easy for you. Is the minimum number less that 40?
I don?t have a conspiracy theory. Sorry. Are you going to take your ball and go home?
-
C'mon John grow some balls, either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy
False dichotomy. You haven?t demonstrated Oswald did it at all.
and the conspiracy that you have suggested involves crooked cops, planted evidence, lying officials, faked evidence and the list goes on and on but now when called on it, you try and fence sit, what a Joke!
I haven?t suggested anything of the kind. You?re the one smoking wacky terbacky, it seems.
All this wringing of hands to distract from the fact that you believe on faith a conclusion that you can?t demonstrate is actually true. Why is that?
-
False dichotomy. You haven?t demonstrated Oswald did it at all.
I haven?t suggested anything of the kind. You?re the one smoking wacky terbacky, it seems.
False dichotomy. You haven?t demonstrated Oswald did it at all.
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
There can be no argument, either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy.
I haven?t suggested anything of the kind. You?re the one smoking wacky terbacky, it seems.
It's no coincidence John that I'm not alone in this conclusion, maybe you should read some of your posts.
JohnM
-
There can be no argument, either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy.
Or somebody else did it alone. Or there was a conspiracy not involving Oswald. I think that covers the possibilities.
It's no coincidence John that I'm not alone in this conclusion, maybe you should read some of your posts.
Feel free to quote me ever saying that there was a conspiracy involving crooked cops, planted evidence, lying officials, faked evidence, and an unspecified ?list that goes on and on?, or admit that you are lying yet again.
-
All you need to know to reply to this thread:
As one commenter on the above page said: "That's what's so frightening about it. Once you've seen this footage it's hard to think of him as the killer of President Kennedy, he seems genuinely scared."
This is nothing like Tim McVeigh, who you can reasonably compare to a supposed Lone Nut like Oswald. And one of the first things out of McVeigh's mouth when the FBI visited him in jail: "Is this about the bombing?" And he had a tyrants shirt on. And him coming out of the courthouse, chin jutted outward.
Compare and contrast. The thing that gets me about people who still believe the nonsense of the WC is they all hate Kennedy or the Kennedys which creates a huge amount of bias regarding this case. The Kennedys were too this or too that. In other words, "XXXX the Kennedys...of course Oswald did it!"
Ask yourself - if John McAdams loved the Kennedys, do you really think he'd be a pro-WC apologist? No.
So there you have it.
No, that's how you have it
-
Or somebody else did it alone. Or there was a conspiracy not involving Oswald. I think that covered the possibilities.
Feel free to quote me ever saying that there was a conspiracy involving crooked cops, planted evidence, lying officials, faked evidence, and an unspecified ?list that goes on and on?, or admit that you are lying yet again.
Or somebody else did it alone.
Sure, let's say;
Someone named Alec Hidell ordered the rifle
Had it sent to Oswald's PO box
Then somehow picked it up from Oswald's post office box.
Had Oswald pose with an Italian Carcano'
Put the rifle in the Paine garage.
Took the rifle out of the Paine garage.
Have Oswald leave most of his money and wedding ring behind with his wife
Have Oswald take a long package on the day of the assassination.
Get to the Sniper's nest to leave shells
Convince Marina that Oswald had a rifle
Get the rifle to the 6th floor of the depository.
Have Oswald leave straight away
Have Oswald frantically knock on the door of the bus while it was in the middle of the street.
Have Oswald jump off the bus and get in a cab
Have Oswald get out a few blocks after his rooming house
Have Oswald kill a cop'
Have Oswald try to kill more cops.
Plant the revolver on Oswald.
Plant shells at Tippit's murder scene.
Yeah, seems plausible!?
Feel free to quote me ever saying that there was a conspiracy involving crooked cops, planted evidence, lying officials, faked evidence, and an unspecified ?list that goes on and on?, or admit that you are lying yet again.
No worries John, so McDonald didn't lie, Markham didn't lie, Brennan didn't lie, Fritz didn't lie and again on and on it goes!
JohnM
-
Yeah, seems plausible!?
Of course your silly straw man doesn?t seem plausible. It?s the usual bogus nutter-defined conspiracy that directed and micromanaged everything that happened. Nobody believes in that.
And as usual, you haven?t demonstrated that most of the claims on your list are even true.
No worries John, so McDonald didn't lie, Markham didn't lie, Brennan didn't lie, Fritz didn't lie and again on and on it goes!
McDonald maybe. He had a hero complex and needed to cover his police misconduct ass. When did I ever say the others lied? By all means, keep going with your ?on and on?.
Do you ever get tired of making things up?
-
Of course your silly straw man doesn?t seem plausible.
Thank you, so your comment that somebody besides Oswald acting alone was you just trying to be funny!?
Anyway, we are back to where we started and we are left with my original comment which is Oswald acted alone or there was a HUGE conspiracy.
Johnm
-
I don?t have a conspiracy theory
Like I said, you've got nothing.
-
Like I said, you've got nothing.
That makes two of us! The difference is that you don't admit that you've got nothing.
-
That makes two of us! The difference is that you don't admit that you've got nothing.
Thank goodness you finally admit you've got nothing. It's been bleeding obvious for ages you've got nothing but it's good for you to finally make that admission.
-
Thank goodness you finally admit you've got nothing. It's been bleeding obvious for ages you've got nothing but it's good for you to finally make that admission.
Do you think it's some kind of virtue to just make up a story that you can't demonstrate is true?
Wait, of course you do.
-
When forming a plan to commit a major crime it makes sense to limit the number of people required. That number could range from two individuals to dozens if not hundreds of people. The more people involved the greater the risk that loose lips could see the plan either fail in the lead up or fail in the execution. Even if the plan is successful there's a risk that those involved will be exposed in the subsequent investigation or through loose lips or a conspirator coming forward with evidence of their involvement and naming names.
An unwitting participant (someone who had a small but important part to play) could come forward once they realise that without their actions the crime could not have been carried out.
If you do have a preferred conspiracy it would be interesting to hear how many people (minimum) would be required either directly and/or indirectly in the execution and aftermath.
What?s the minimum number of people required for your CT to work?
Hey, Steve. I'm part of a small group of CT's here who believe Oswald was involved
so for my theory to work, the minimum of people who participated in JFK's murder is 4.
The 3 who were in that station wagon as identified by Officer Craig which I firmly believe was captured
at Redbird Air Field by the police with some assassitance from some of the reserve SS agents just before 1 p.m.
The fourth was none other than Lee Harvey - no saint in my book - Oswald. Those captured were quickly identified
as having some direct or indirect connection with Cuba a/o a direct or indirect connection with a domestic agency.
Either way the government couldn't have told the truth so all roads had to lead to Oswald acting alone.
BTW ... i don't have much to support my claims but I do have statemnets in the Radio Traffic Relays
which were compiled as earlty as December 1963..
1. Off the top of my head - Did they head south? as stated by 67 to the Dispatcher to which the answer was Yes.
This was changed later on to appear as - Do you want me to head south - Yes. Redbird was indeed south of Dealy Paza.
Time - around 12:45 p.m.
2. Secret service ... outer perimiter .. they are being brought back. These were the SS agents who were guarding
Air Force 1 at Love Field. - the outer perimeter - so those being brought back were the assassins. Back to the greater Dallas area.
3. A misplaced page right before an arrest of some sort whereby, Officer Debenport was bringing persons
to the downtown jail. This was later changed to - prisoner.
Etc ....
-
Based on the typical responses of any number of CT's at a least a Hundred, but ask any of these same CT's how big the Conspiracy was and they will always say it was only a small conspiracy! Go figure?
Caprio, Weidmann and Iacoletti are classic examples of this Tardis like logic.
The KKK and right wing racist White Anglo Saxon Protestants had many groups and a lot of them played roles
JohnM
The KKK and right wing racist White Anglo Saxon Protestants had many groups and a lot of them played roles
-
It's also simply not credible to think that everyone involved either directly or indirectly* has remained silent for over 5 decades. Except of course for a couple of incorrigible liars in Hunt and Ventura. Surely someone would say something to clear their conscience and attempt to see some form of justice by having the official record corrected.
* i.e. not made aware of the master plan but soon realised how they were duped yet still decide to remain silent forever. I'd imagine many of these would be honest people living ordinary lives who have a natural sense of right and wrong.
Buell Frazier did say that he was duped, and asked people to walk a mile in his moccasins, the clip is on here somewhere
The KKK membership was secret, and these guys did not tell on the Klan, they were cops doctors judges you name the profession and the KKK had them in their membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
Second KKK
See also: Ku Klux Klan in Canada
KKK night rally in Chicago, c. 1920
In 1915, the second Klan was founded atop Stone Mountain, Georgia by William Joseph Simmons. While Simmons relied on documents from the original Klan and memories of some surviving elders, the revived Klan was based significantly on the wildly popular film, The Birth of a Nation. The earlier Klan hadn?t worn the white costumes or burned crosses; these were aspects introduced in the film. When the film was shown in Atlanta in December of that year, Simmons and his new klansmen paraded to the theater in robes and pointed hoods ? many on robed horses ? just like in the movie. These mass parades would become another hallmark of the new Klan that had not existed in the original Reconstruction-era organization.[30]
Beginning in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of using full-time paid recruiters and appealed to new members as a fraternal organization, of which many examples were flourishing at the time. The national headquarters made its profit through a monopoly of costume sales, while the organizers were paid through initiation fees. It grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions pitting urban versus rural America, it spread to every state and was prominent in many cities. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants; it opposed Jews, blacks, Catholics, and newly arriving Southern European immigrants such as Italians.[31] Some local groups threatened violence against rum runners and notorious sinners; the violent episodes generally took place in the South.[32] The Red Knights were a militant group organized in opposition to the KKK and responded violently to KKK provocations on several occasions.[33]
The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. During the resurgence of the second Klan during the 1920s, its publicity was handled by the Southern Publicity Association?within the first six months of the Associations national recruitment campaign, Klan membership had increased by 85,000.[34] At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4?5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[35] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926?28, where Klansmen denounced immigrants from Eastern Europe as a threat to Canada's British heritage.[36][37]
Third KKK
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by numerous independent local groups opposing the civil rights movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[38] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963.
-
They were established in the DPD as well.
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by numerous independent local groups opposing the civil rights movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[38] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963.
-
Hey, Steve. I'm part of a small group of CT's here who believe Oswald was involved ....
Hey Dan. Based solely on your belief that Oswald was involved makes you rise to the top of the pile of CTers in my estimation. Thumb1:
-
Do you think it's some kind of virtue to just make up a story that you can't demonstrate is true?
Wait, of course you do.
Thanks again John for admitting you've got nothing. Thumb1:
-
Come on Howsley you little W.A.S.P and deal with this large conspiracy, by your own fellow Country men. https://www.houseofnames.com/howsley-family-crest
They were established in the DPD as well.
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by numerous independent local groups opposing the civil rights movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[38] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963.
-
The KKK and right wing racist White Anglo Saxon Protestants had many groups and a lot of them played roles
Strange Fruit
-Billie Holiday
-
Do you think it's some kind of virtue to just make up a story that you can't demonstrate is true?
Wait, of course you do.
Do you think it's some kind of virtue for published conspiracy theorists to accuse 42 groups, 84 shooters and 214 people, none of which can be demonstrated to be true?
Of course you do...
-
Quote?
You don't know? It's been quoted forever. See if you can guess.
And look who's asking for quotes. Are you Iacoletti's pansy; just let him throw you under the bus?
-
Strange Fruit
-Billie Holiday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Fruit
Major players in the DPD
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by numerous independent local groups opposing the civil rights movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[38] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
-
Thanks again John for admitting you've got nothing. Thumb1:
Yet another delusional guy who thinks that his unsubstantiated explanation wins by default unless somebody proves otherwise.
-
Do you think it's some kind of virtue for published conspiracy theorists to accuse 42 groups, 84 shooters and 214 people, none of which can be demonstrated to be true?
Of course you do...
Whatever gave you that silly idea?
-
You don't know? It's been quoted forever. See if you can guess.
And look who's asking for quotes. Are you Iacoletti's pansy; just let him throw you under the bus?
LOL. Chapman makes a claim. Someone asks him for evidence for his claim and he gets all pissy. What else is new?
-
Yet another delusional guy who thinks that his unsubstantiated explanation wins by default unless somebody proves otherwise.
Let us know when you've actually got something. Until then it's fair to say you've got nothing.
BTW are you associated with the people who sit around the grave of St Oswald of Dallas every October 18 wishing him a happy birthday?
-
Let us know when you've actually got something. Until then it's fair to say you've got nothing.
BTW are you associated with the people who sit around the grave of St Oswald of Dallas every October 18 wishing him a happy birthday?
They are all homeless and sleep in that park
-
Let us know when you've actually got something. Until then it's fair to say you've got nothing.
Let us know when you come up with something other than faith to show that the "something" you think you've got is actually true. Until then, it's fair to say that you're just blowing smoke. That's the difference between you and me. I don't just make up an answer and cling to it.
BTW are you associated with the people who sit around the grave of St Oswald of Dallas every October 18 wishing him a happy birthday?
No, but I have visited his grave. What difference does it make?
-
Let us know when you come up wit something other than faith to show that the "something" you think you've got is actually true. Until then, it's fair to say that you're just blowing smoke. That's the difference between you and me. I don't just make up an answer and cling to it.
No, but I have visited his grave. What difference does it make?
Two commissions later and you don't even have a theory. Like I said you've got nothing just as you've admitted.
-
You sure are repetitive.
Almost 55 years later and you still can't demonstrate that your conclusion is true. It must be so frustrating after all this time to have nothing besides a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof over and over again to try to hide your repeated failures. Why are you so arrogant to think that you are just automatically right by default? You actually believe that it's better to have a "theory" that you can't justify than to just admit that you don't know.
-
You sure are repetitive.
Almost 55 years later and you still can't demonstrate that your conclusion is true. It must be so frustrating after all this time to have nothing besides a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof over and over again to try to hide your repeated failures. Why are you so arrogant to think that you are just automatically right by default? You actually believe that it's better to have a "theory" that you can't justify than to just admit that you don't know.
55 years later with a large stack of conspiracy books to fall back on and you still haven't got the courage to argue for a theory. You have nothing. You simply bleat BS day after day. Here's an idea; stand up, be a man not a mouse; make a positive statement with an ounce of evidence as to how the assassination unfolded. I know why you won't; it's because you have nothing at all that will stand up to scrutiny. Zilch, zero, diddly, zippo is the sum of your conviction.
-
55 years later with a large stack of conspiracy books to fall back on and you still haven't got the courage to argue for a theory. You have nothing. You simply bleat BS day after day. Here's an idea; stand up, be a man not a mouse; make a positive statement with an ounce of evidence as to how the assassination unfolded. I know why you won't; it's because you have nothing at all that will stand up to scrutiny. Zilch, zero, diddly, zippo is the sum of your conviction.
"Courage" - LOL
It's called intellectual honesty. Perhaps you should look into it. You are not honest enough to admit that your BS doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so all you can do is deflect. You have yet to provide an ounce of evidence for your own "manly" conviction. All you can do is talk trash. Why is that?
-
Driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking to the back of the limousine until Kennedy is shot, and braking at the wall corner, but then giving a lame explanation of his braking, claiming he thought there might have been a flat tire
Hoover stating in a memo only hours after the assassination, how important it was to convince the public that Oswald killed the president
LBJ's mistress testifying that LBJ hated Kennedy, and suggesting LBJ attended a meeting prior to the assassination that was possibly a briefing of events about to happen
Orville Nix claiming that his film didn't look the same when it was returned from the FBI and other signs of film/photo tampering (Were there some on site assigned to document those who had cameras and film to confiscate?)
A higher than expected percentage of deaths among those who might have had insider info, as some researchers have suggested
and etc...
It could have been a very large group of conspirators, indeed... but no one knows how large...
SS agent, Bill Greer, looking back toward the president, until JFK is shot...
(https://image.ibb.co/dBekb8/ezgif_com_crop_40.gif)
-
"Courage" - LOL
It's called intellectual honesty. Perhaps you should look into it. You are not honest enough to admit that your BS doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so all you can do is deflect. You have yet to provide an ounce of evidence for your own "manly" conviction. All you can do is talk trash. Why is that?
Again you fail. You've got nothing as you have already admitted. What you do have is a truck load of sweet FA. Come on John, put something forward or admit that you refuse to even step onto the ground preferring instead to sit in the bleachers where you can pretend to know more than the coaches and claim that you could perform better than the players if only you weren't addicted to hot dogs.
Pathetic.
-
Again you fail. You've got nothing. Sweet FA. Come on John, put something forward or admit that you refuse to even step onto the ground preferring instead to sit in the bleachers where you can pretend to know more than the coaches and claim that you could perform better than the players if only you weren't addicted to hot dogs.
Pathetic.
You know what's really pathetic, Steve? 160 posts and no citation of a single piece of evidence to support your opinion.
Not
A
Single
Piece
You're either hopelessly ignorant about the case, or you're afraid to confront the house of cards your opinion is built upon.
So much for "being a man".
-
You know what's really pathetic, Steve? 160 posts and no citation of a single piece of evidence to support your opinion.
Not
A
Single
Piece
You're either hopelessly ignorant about the case, or you're afraid to confront the house of cards your opinion is built upon.
So much for "being a man".
I support the majority of the findings reached by two major commissions into the assassination where one concluded that Oswald acted alone and the other where he was identified as a key player and the only doubt raised was a recording thought to be sounds from the plaza but was later found to be from the trade mart. The evidence collected supports Oswald's heavy involvement. I acknowledge that Oswald may have had encouragement or even some support but I think the likelihood of that is extremely remote (less than .001%) and will can never be proved 100% either way.
What is it that you believe again remembering of course your admission that you've got nothing?
-
SS agent, Bill Greer, looking back toward the president, until JFK is shot...
(https://image.ibb.co/dBekb8/ezgif_com_crop_40.gif)
I don't know about you but I wouldn't knowingly drive into your triangulation of snipers for even a billion dollars, was Greer insane?
JohnM
-
I don't know about you but I wouldn't knowingly drive into your triangulation of snipers for even a billion dollars, was Greer insane?
JohnM
I don?t think Greer was insane...
It is possible he was part of some conspiracy... braking at the corner of the wall... looking back as though he?s waiting until the dirty deed is done....
-
I don?t think Greer was insane...
It is possible he was part of some conspiracy... braking at the corner of the wall... looking back as though he?s waiting until the dirty deed is done....
Highly possible that he was involved, I would say, because he was a member of the Orange order, and although born in Ireland him and his people were against J.F.K and all he stood for, they classed themselves as British and the hatred that they had towards catholics was on a par with the KKK's hatred towards Africans It would be safe to say that both right wing racist terrorist groups the KKK& O.O would be very well alligned then and probably still to this day.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/crime/tyrone-born-jfk-driver-mired-in-conspiracy-was-in-orange-order-1-5699969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order
-
I support the majority of the findings reached by two major commissions into the assassination where one concluded that Oswald acted alone and the other where he was identified as a key player and the only doubt raised was a recording thought to be sounds from the plaza but was later found to be from the trade mart.
Translation: you support their conclusions, but you don't even know why.
The evidence collected supports Oswald's heavy involvement.
Still haven't provided even a single piece.
-
I don't know about you but I wouldn't knowingly drive into your triangulation of snipers for even a billion dollars, was Greer insane?
JohnM
But I guess you would drive into a parade route where a guy is up on the 6th floor aiming an ancient Italian gun with a scope that was not even aligned correctly, and aiming 60 degrees downward where he missed wildly on the first shot, then scored two bulls eye shots?
Uh huh. Sounds about right.
-
But I guess you would drive into a parade route where a guy is up on the 6th floor aiming an ancient Italian gun with a scope that was not even aligned correctly, and aiming 60 degrees downward where he missed wildly on the first shot, then scored two bulls eye shots?
Uh huh. Sounds about right.
But I guess you would drive into a parade route where.....
I just got through telling you that no sane man would drive an open Limo down a street where someone in their car was going to be shot.
JohnM
-
I don?t think Greer was insane...
It is possible he was part of some conspiracy... braking at the corner of the wall... looking back as though he?s waiting until the dirty deed is done....
That doesn't change anything, Greer was still in an open limo and you reckon that he was just waiting for someone to take a shot at essentially what could potentially be him?
I don't think that Connally was a target but he was still shot and according to some CTs Connally was shot multiple times.
JohnM
-
Translation: you support their conclusions, but you don't even know why.
You really are an ignoramus
Still haven't provided even a single piece.
Read the reports. You have nothing by your own admission. The mouse that roared.
-
But I guess you would drive into a parade route where a guy is up on the 6th floor aiming an ancient Italian gun with a scope that was not even aligned correctly, and aiming 60 degrees downward where he missed wildly on the first shot, then scored two bulls eye shots?
Uh huh. Sounds about right.
Bullseye shots? Far from bullseyes Michael.
-
Bullseye shots? Far from bullseyes Michael.
Apparently he thinks the shooter was, for some reason, aiming one shot for JFK's back.
That, of course, makes no sense; but in conspiracy world things don't have to make sense; they just have to fit in with the conspiracy du jour.
-
Read the reports.
"Read the reports". That's your evidence. LOL.
Still.
Not.
A.
Single.
Piece.
-
Apparently he thinks the shooter was, for some reason, aiming one shot for JFK's back.
Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.
-
Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.
Dirty Harvey hated America and wanted to show his displeasure by shooting holes in the flags on the limo. He missed his target.
-
Dirty Harvey hated America and wanted to show his displeasure by shooting holes in the flags on the limo. He missed his target.
Isn't storytime fun?
-
Isn't storytime fun?
You should know; you lot have the storytelling market cornered. Since the get-go
:D
You walked into that one, John
(You guys make such great straight men)
-
You should know; you lot have cornered the storytelling market
You walked into that one, John
(You guys make such great straight men)
Unlike you, I don't make up stories without any basis and pretend that they are factual.
-
Unlike you, I don't make up stories without any basis and pretend that they are factual.
THAT market is cornered by the CTroll#FAIL#ARMY
Oh, by the way: BUMP
-
THAT market is cornered by the CTroll#FAIL#ARMY
Sigh...typical Chapman. "I know you are but what am I?"
Oh, by the way: BUMP
LOL. You still don't understand what "bump" means.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bump (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bump)
bump
In message board terms, to move a post to the top of the forum with a pointless reply, usually to one's own thread.
John likes to bump his threads because he wants more replies to his post.
Quote me ever making up a story without any basis and stating it as if it were factual.
Or (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stfu.png)
-
THAT market is cornered by the CTroll#FAIL#ARMY
Oh, by the way: BUMP
We believe an angry, disaffected individual took a rifle and shot the president.
They believe legions of people - waitresses, shoe salesmen, steam fitters, bus drivers, used car salesmen, warehouse workers along with multiple government agencies - conspired to kill JFK and lie about Lee Oswald.
Which side is telling stories again?
-
They believe legions of people - waitresses, shoe salesmen, steam fitters, bus drivers, used car salesmen, warehouse workers along with multiple government agencies - conspired to kill JFK and lie about Lee Oswald.
Sounds a lot like the K.K.K you might be onto something here, just like Milteer he did say they would throw someone similar to Oswald out there to put the public off course. and dopes like you are still falling for it.
Brewer lied for sure about not seeing Oswald before the 22/11 when he had in fact previously sold him the very shoes which he had on him that day
-
We believe an angry, disaffected individual took a rifle and shot the president.
Great. Now all you have to do is prove it.
They believe legions of people - waitresses, shoe salesmen, steam fitters, bus drivers, used car salesmen, warehouse workers along with multiple government agencies - conspired to kill JFK and lie about Lee Oswald.
Who believes that? Be specific.
-
"Read the reports". That's your evidence. LOL.
Still.
Not.
A.
Single.
Piece.
You have nothing as you have admitted. I refer you to the volumes of the two major commissions. If you think you are on equal terms then you are a bigger fool that I suspected. You can't even piece together a sketch of what happened over that November weekend. Your complete argument is that a man was shot then another man was shot, then two funerals took place and nothing else can be established with any certainty.
Here's an example from a few hours ago of your pathetic effort to get to the truth
Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.
You really are the king of kooks.
-
You have nothing as you have admitted. I refer you to the volumes of the two major commissions. If you think you are on equal terms then you are a bigger fool that I suspected. You can't even piece together a sketch of what happened over that November weekend. Your complete argument is that a man was shot then another man was shot, then two funerals took place and nothing else can be established with any certainty.
Here's an example from a few hours ago of your pathetic effort to get to the truth
Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.
You really are the king of kooks.
Well, in his defense (sort of) there has been the theory suggested (most notably by James Reston, Jr.) that Oswald was aiming at Connally because he, as Secretary of the Navy, had turned down Oswald's request to change his discharge status.
Of course, just because someone offered it and someone was willing to publish it doesn't mean it's implausible plausible. Impossible? I guess not.
But I think it's absurd to think that if the sniper was shooting at JFK that he would try to hit him in the back and not kill him.
-
You have nothing as you have admitted.
Says the guy who has never posted a single piece of evidence to support his conclusion, but thinks that the fact he has a conclusion is a virtue in and of itself.
I refer you to the volumes of the two major commissions.
Cop out. What is it in the volumes that convinces you that your conclusion is true?
If you think you are on equal terms then you are a bigger fool that I suspected.
And then you throw in an insult as if that somehow demonstrates that you are correct.
You can't even piece together a sketch of what happened over that November weekend.
As if that somehow demonstrates that you are correct.
Here's an example from a few hours ago of your pathetic effort to get to the truth
Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.
So you think you're a mindreader now. This keeps getting better and better.
You really are the king of kooks.
...and another insult. Admit it -- you don't know anything about this case, do you?
-
Well, in his defense (sort of) there has been the theory suggested (most notably by James Reston, Jr.) that Oswald was aiming at Connally because he, as Secretary of the Navy, had turned down Oswald's request to change his discharge status.
Right -- assuming that Oswald was aiming anything at anybody, which of course is pure speculation.
-
Right -- assuming that Oswald was aiming anything at anybody, which of course is pure speculation.
Of course Oswald was aiming at something. He was trying to shoot out the tail lights and being a terrible shot he screwed up big time. It was only a prank gone wrong.
-
Right -- assuming that Oswald was aiming anything at anybody, which of course is pure speculation.
There's lot of evidence - physical, circumstantial and eyewitness - indicating Oswald shot JFK.
And shot Tippit.
You think all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied, all of the physical evidence against him is useless, and all of the scientific evidence implicating him is bogus. Finger print experts are wrong, handwriting experts are wrong, forensic experts are wrong, photographic experts are wrong and on and on. Then you play defense attorney and argue that any other evidence should be dismissed because of legal technicalities.
There is no other event in history where people examine what happened the way you do. It would be absurd to do so. But you're welcome to your absurdities since you have an endless supply of them.
-
Well IF CE 399 is actually the single bullet that went thru both JFK and JC (and that's a REALLY BIG IF) then its possible for this to be a simple conspiracy that someone set up, knowing Oswald was a compulsive nut who would likely act if a VIP like the POTUS JFK could be presented as an easy target in proximity to the nuts place of work.
If LBJ is the master planner, however, he surely would not just rely on some probability of the nut acting, but would have added a few extra accomplices, like his hit man Malcom Wallace, to make sure the job gets done, should the nut, Oswald not fully act. In which case, then Oswald can be easily set up anyway, as Wallace and a 2nd shooter, using the nuts rifle, accomplish the task.
Or they just set up Oswald from the start, stole his rifle, but thats a very complicated scenario to keep Oswald free of having an alibi, so it would require Oswald kept hidden from sight between 12:17 and 12:31:30. Maybe Oswald was told during sometime that day, to meet someone in a car out back of TSBD at 12:15 if he wanted to make a quick $100. And so Oswald was in that car until just after the shots were complete, then they let him out, and Oswald the idiot went back into TSBD, via back door, and went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a coke, just before Adams and Styles came down the staircase from 4th floor.
-
Well IF CE 399 is actually the single bullet that went thru both JFK and JC (and that's a REALLY BIG IF) then its possible for this to be a simple conspiracy ...
It's equally likely it points to a LN.
Throw in the truck load of other evidence and it is an overwhelming case for Oswald's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
-
You think all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied, all of the physical evidence against him is useless, and all of the scientific evidence implicating him is bogus. Finger print experts are wrong, handwriting experts are wrong, forensic experts are wrong, photographic experts are wrong and on and on. Then you play defense attorney and argue that any other evidence should be dismissed because of legal technicalities.
I never said any of that. Try again.
What is this "lot of evidence - physical, circumstantial and eyewitness - indicating Oswald shot JFK"? Be specific. You guys never are because it falls apart under the slightest amount of scrutiny. Just as an example: what eyewitnesses do you think you have for Oswald shooting JFK?
-
I don't have the quotes on me but sometimes, people are convicted of murder just on what appears to be little evidence. I think Marina as an eyewitness would have been enough to convict LHO back then. Then, all of the other evidence, HSCA largely echoes the Warren Report and it's conclusion is similar. Senator Frank Church, a Democrat, would not have wanted this to be just a snow job, sweep it under the rug.
Enough evidence, that perhaps life imitates art per some of the ways your mystery detectives solve their cases. It's fiction but it seems to happen.
-
I don't have the quotes on me but sometimes, people are convicted of murder just on what appears to be little evidence.
I completely agree. Henry Wade alone had 29 people he railroaded later exonerated. I have no illusions that LHO would have gotten a fair trial. Especially with no money to pay for decent representation.
-
Nutters like to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then say, "isn't that ridiculous? Therefore Oswald did it".
"Mytton" recently started 32 new forum threads consisting of nothing but Vince Bugliosi making this same argument over and over again.
-
I would not speculate on the number of people who participated in the assassination. But an interesting insight might be gained by watching the movie Valkyrie concerning the failed assassination of Hitler on 20 July 44 (during a full solar eclipse). Many were involved and were soon executed.
-
It's only fair that I state my own opinion; there wasn't a conspiracy as Oswald acted alone.
The only 'doubt' I have (and it's only a very slight one) is that Oswald may have said something to someone that with hindsight should have been reported to authorities. The Silvia Odio story and the visits to the embassies in MC are points of concern though I don't believe that if anyone (hypothetically) heard Oswald say that someone should kill Kennedy that that then makes them a conspirator.
In so far as the actual shooting(s) I have no doubt Oswald acted alone and that there was much arse covering going on after the event that has provided scraps of stuff that has fed 55 years of speculation that's resulted in a dog's breakfast of theories.
BTW yesterday I heard a guy in a pub say that the best thing that could happen in the USA right now is for someone to take a potshot at Trump. I didn't report it. I hope that doesn't make me a conspirator at some point. :-X
By definition it takes a minimum of two Culprits working together to make a conspiracy.
I personally am about 50/50 or so on the Conspiracy question in the Kennedy assassination.
What I mean is I accept the plausibility of Oswald alone shooting JFK BUT, there?s enough Doubt in the evidence for me to entertain alternative scenarios. I don?t have a Conspiracy Theory. I?m just not convinced that Oswald acted alone.
Given that there?s so much we don?t know and so much circumstantial evidence, I don?t understand why it bothers people that so many aren?t convinced that Oswald acted alone...
-
By definition it takes a minimum of two Culprits working together to make a conspiracy.
I personally am about 50/50 or so on the Conspiracy question in the Kennedy assassination.
What I mean is I accept the plausibility of Oswald alone shooting JFK BUT, there?s enough Doubt in the evidence for me to entertain alternative scenarios. I don?t have a Conspiracy Theory. I?m just not convinced that Oswald acted alone.
Given that there?s so much we don?t know and so much circumstantial evidence, I don?t understand why it bothers people that so many aren?t convinced that Oswald acted alone...
If one believes Oswald did kill JFK then it's difficult to see how he had any help. How did this help manifest itself? Where does it show up? Either pre-assassination, during it, or afterwards.
Look at Oswald's post assassination behavior. He leaves the TSBD within three minutes, gets on a bus, leaves the bus, gets in a cab, goes BACK to his rooming house to retrieve his gun. That's someone, it seems to me, who is just winging it, someone in flight with no plan.
Then he leaves his rooming house - on foot since he didn't tell the cab to wait - and going where? He's got about $15 in his pocket.
I just don't see any plan, anyone helping him in this act, any purpose or direction after he shoots JFK.
-
If one believes Oswald did kill JFK then it's difficult to see how he had any help. How did this help manifest itself? Where does it show up? Either pre-assassination, during it, or afterwards.
Look at Oswald's post assassination behavior. He leaves the TSBD within three minutes, gets on a bus, leaves the bus, gets in a cab, goes BACK to his rooming house to retrieve his gun. That's someone, it seems to me, who is just winging it, someone in flight with no plan.
Then he leaves his rooming house - on foot since he didn't tell the cab to wait - and going where? He's got about $15 in his pocket.
I just don't see any plan, anyone helping him in this act, any purpose or direction after he shoots JFK.
I agree with much of the above. IMO Oswald acted alone. The mechanics of what he achieved on that day are so very simple; take his rifle to work, hope to have the SE corner of the 6th all to himself, aim and fire.
Even a child would know that if a secret is shared with a large number of people it won't remain a secret for long. For anyone to say "Who cares how big it (the conspiracy) was? Why does that matter?" is on a par with another saying in reference to significant information "I don't care". Both comments as excellent examples of wilful ignorance.
-
I agree with much of the above. IMO Oswald acted alone. The mechanics of what he achieved on that day are so very simple; take his rifle to work, hope to have the SE corner of the 6th all to himself, aim and fire.
Even a child would know that if a secret is shared with a large number of people it won't remain a secret for long. For anyone to say "Who cares how big it (the conspiracy) was? Why does that matter?" is on a par with another saying in reference to significant information "I don't care". Both comments as excellent examples of wilful ignorance.
The mechanics are or were indeed simple - as JFK said, if someone wanted to shoot him from a tall building with a rifle and didn't care about being caught there's nothing that can be done about it - but Oswald clearly got lucky.
It's been more than half a century. If there was a larger conspiracy behind the act the evidence for it for me would have been found somewhere at some time. But it hasn't. This has been the most studied event in US history. We've had multiple government investigations, multiple investigations by the news media along with 50+ years of investigations/books/studies by various authors, e.g,. Caro, Weiner et al. into the major figures at that time, e.g., LBJ, Hoover, et cetera. And all of that shows nothing. The conspiracy crowd likes to harp on the failures of the WC and ignore all of these other investigations.
Look at the evidence pointing towards Oswald. And the lack of evidence pointing elsewhere. One can only reasonably conclude that Oswald alone killed JFK. In order to argue otherwise one has to engage in some fanciful thinking.
-
The mechanics are or were indeed simple - as JFK said, if someone wanted to shoot him from a tall building with a rifle and didn't care about being caught there's nothing that can be done about it - but Oswald clearly got lucky.
It's been more than half a century. If there was a larger conspiracy behind the act the evidence for it for me would have been found somewhere at some time. But it hasn't. This has been the most studied event in US history. We've had multiple government investigations, multiple investigations by the news media along with 50+ years of investigations/books/studies by various authors, e.g,. Caro, Weiner et al. into the major figures at that time, e.g., LBJ, Hoover, et cetera. And all of that shows nothing. The conspiracy crowd likes to harp on the failures of the WC and ignore all of these other investigations.
Look at the evidence pointing towards Oswald. And the lack of evidence pointing elsewhere. One can only reasonably conclude that Oswald alone killed JFK. In order to argue otherwise one has to engage in some fanciful thinking.
Kennedy also said an assassin could, on a dark rainy night in a crowd, walk up to him with a gun in a briefcase shoot him, then disappear into the crowd.
And I'm sure that people remember Squeaky Fromme getting to within arm's length of President Ford only to have her weapon jam.
-
If one believes Oswald did kill JFK then it's difficult to see how he had any help. How did this help manifest itself? Where does it show up? Either pre-assassination, during it, or afterwards.
Look at Oswald's post assassination behavior. He leaves the TSBD within three minutes, gets on a bus, leaves the bus, gets in a cab, goes BACK to his rooming house to retrieve his gun. That's someone, it seems to me, who is just winging it, someone in flight with no plan.
Then he leaves his rooming house - on foot since he didn't tell the cab to wait - and going where? He's got about $15 in his pocket.
I just don't see any plan, anyone helping him in this act, any purpose or direction after he shoots JFK.
Looking at it in isolation you?re right but that?s not the way I look at it.
I take everything into consideration from the weaknesses in the forensic evidence to the strange coincidences throughout Oswald?s life. Also, humans are inherently screw-ups. Oswald and his alleged co-conspirators could just as easily had to abruptly change plans due to some unforseen circumstance.
Again, I would never argue that Oswald couldn?t have done it all alone and I haven?t seen many plausible arguments that he was framed. At a minimum, Oswald was part of a conspiracy which makes him Guilty in my eyes.
There?s a high level of uncertainty in the forensic evidence and lots of legit reasons to speculate that others may have been involved. So it makes sense to me that many are still unconvinced that there was no conspiracy.
-
The mechanics are or were indeed simple - as JFK said, if someone wanted to shoot him from a tall building with a rifle and didn't care about being caught there's nothing that can be done about it - but Oswald clearly got lucky.
It's been more than half a century. If there was a larger conspiracy behind the act the evidence for it for me would have been found somewhere at some time. But it hasn't. This has been the most studied event in US history.
If someone came forward today claiming to have been part of a conspiracy to kill JFK would you believe the person? Probably not.
At this point, people are pretty Dug into their own theories about what happened. Plus the various law enforcement agencies involved would never admit that they lied or were wrong in their conclusions.
We've had multiple government investigations, multiple investigations by the news media along with 50+ years of investigations/books/studies by various authors, e.g,. Caro, Weiner et al. into the major figures at that time, e.g., LBJ, Hoover, et cetera. And all of that shows nothing. The conspiracy crowd likes to harp on the failures of the WC and ignore all of these other investigations.
The various law enforcement agencies were never completely cooperative and there?s lots of holes in the evidence. Even the CIA no longer denies that there was a Cover-up. We can?t possibly know the whole truth given those circumstances.
Look at the evidence pointing towards Oswald. And the lack of evidence pointing elsewhere. One can only reasonably conclude that Oswald alone killed JFK. In order to argue otherwise one has to engage in some fanciful thinking.
The evidence doesn?t conclusively prove that:
- Only three shots were fired
- all shots were fired from the weapon found in the Book Depository
- Oswald had a motive
- Oswald had no accomplices
It?s fine if you?re satisfied with the evidence that we have but don?t criticize others who are rightfully skeptics about the situation
-
... At a minimum, Oswald was part of a conspiracy which makes him Guilty in my eyes.
There?s a high level of uncertainty in the forensic evidence and lots of legit reasons to speculate that others may have been involved. So it makes sense to me that many are still unconvinced that there was no conspiracy.
Kudos for concluding that Oswald was involved. I take it you don't support either an apology from the US government or the erection of a monument to St. Oswald Of Dallas. Thumb1:
-
Nutters like to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then say, "isn't that ridiculous? Therefore Oswald did it".
"Mytton" recently started 32 new forum threads consisting of nothing but Vince Bugliosi making this same argument over and over again.
The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.
To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.
-
If someone came forward today claiming to have been part of a conspiracy to kill JFK would you believe the person? Probably not.
At this point, people are pretty Dug into their own theories about what happened. Plus the various law enforcement agencies involved would never admit that they lied or were wrong in their conclusions.
The various law enforcement agencies were never completely cooperative and there?s lots of holes in the evidence. Even the CIA no longer denies that there was a Cover-up. We can?t possibly know the whole truth given those circumstances.
The evidence doesn?t conclusively prove that:
- Only three shots were fired
- all shots were fired from the weapon found in the Book Depository
- Oswald had a motive
- Oswald had no accomplices
It?s fine if you?re satisfied with the evidence that we have but don?t criticize others who are rightfully skeptics about the situation
So LNers shouldn't be allowed a voice here. Got it.
Maybe try the EdForum
-
The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.
To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.
He actually thinks it's the "nutters" who promote convoluted scenarios behind the assassination. We're just creating these made up theories to make the conspiracy crowd look bad. Claims such as: two Oswalds, JFK body alteration, switched caskets, multiple witnesses killed. That's all made up by us.
There's a movie that made millions and won wide acclaim: it was called "JFK." That wasn't made by a "nutter."
Just examine his views: he says all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied: Markham lied, Brennan lied, McDonald lied, Brewer lied, Postal lied et cetera. Then he says all of the physical and scientific evidence is fraudulent: the fingerprint evidence is fake, the handwriting evidence is useless, the forensic evidence can be dismissed, the photographic evidence is phony. All of this happened - these people all lied and the experts are all not credible - but it's unfair to claim that Oswald defenders like himself believe in convoluted theories.
Sure he doesn't.
-
So LNers shouldn't be allowed a voice here. Got it.
Maybe try the EdForum
I welcome your opinions even when I disagree with you.
-
The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.
To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.
That's a Bugliosi strawman. Quote anybody ever actually proposing this or (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stfu.png)
-
He actually thinks it's the "nutters" who promote convoluted scenarios behind the assassination. We're just creating these made up theories to make the conspiracy crowd look bad. Claims such as: two Oswalds, JFK body alteration, switched caskets, multiple witnesses killed. That's all made up by us.
What is made up by the nutters is the idea that every single conspiracy theory ever proposed by anybody is collectively embraced by every person who doubts the official narrative.
Just examine his views: he says all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied: Markham lied, Brennan lied, McDonald lied, Brewer lied, Postal lied et cetera. Then he says all of the physical and scientific evidence is fraudulent: the fingerprint evidence is fake, the handwriting evidence is useless, the forensic evidence can be dismissed, the photographic evidence is phony. All of this happened - these people all lied and the experts are all not credible - but it's unfair to claim that Oswald defenders like himself believe in convoluted theories.
Sure he doesn't.
Who is "he"? The only person lying here is Steve Galbraith.
-
And then we have the ad hominem in response.
To repeat: the same person who says the eyewitnesses like Brennan, Markham, Brewer et cetera against Oswald lied, that the physical and scientific evidence against Oswald can be summarily dismissed - handwriting experts have no credibility, the photographic experts are wrong et cetera - and then argues that other evidence should be dismissed because of legal reasons (remember: this is a historic event we are discussing not a trial) says he wants to discuss the evidence and he's not, no he's not, a conspiracy believer.
Right, someone is telling stories here alright. Although he probably believes them.
Just to put a bow on this: this is the same person who says Oswald leaving nearly all his money to Marina ($170 or about $1200 in today's dollars) the day of the assassination can be explained away because Oswald always left money for her.
Of course Marina said it was always a "few dollars", that she was shocked at the amount, and that he would leave her money on Mondays not Friday.
But again, this Oswald apologist at any costs says it was just Oswald following his usual routine.
-
And then we have the ad hominem in response.
To repeat: the same person who says the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied, that the physical and scientific evidence against Oswald can be summarily dismissed - handwriting experts have no credibility, the photographic experts are wrong et cetera - and then argues that other evidence should be dismissed because of legal reasons (remember: this is a historic event we are discussing not a trial) says he wants to discuss the evidence and he's not, no he's not, a conspiracy believer.
Quote me or anybody else here saying that "the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied" or you too can (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stfu.png).
Do you guys ever get tired of making up strawmen to argue against?
How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder? Apparently it is when that's all you've got.
-
That's a Bugliosi strawman. Quote anybody ever actually proposing this or (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stfu.png)
You'd love me to shut up
Seems some ppl here are getting under your skin
Oh yeah, everybody that disagrees with you
-
You'd love me to shut up
Seems some ppl here are getting under your skin
Oh yeah, everybody that disagrees with you
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't quote anyone ever in the history of assassination lore who ever claimed that JFK was assassinated by 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators.
And neither can Bugliosi.
But anything to distract from your inability to prove your case.
-
Quote me or anybody else here saying that "the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied" or you too can (http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stfu.png).
Do you guys ever get tired of making up strawmen to argue against?
How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder? Apparently it is when that's all you've got.
"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"
>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?
-
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't quote anyone ever in the history of assassination lore who ever claimed that JFK was assassinated by 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators.
And neither can Bugliosi.
But anything to distract from your inability to prove your case.
LOL
Where did Bugliosi claim or imply that all 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators were involved? Or that ANY were involved? Are you that stupid? Bug is pro-Oswald-lone-killer-no-conspiracy-needed. FFS.
The point is that there are so many CT-claimed conspiracies, claimed conspirators, and claimed shooters emanating from thousands of conspiracy books .... ALL leading nowhere.
-
"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"
>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?
Again, he characterizes Oswald leaving nearly all of his money - $1200 in today's dollars - as simply a husband leaving his wife money. And he did so the day of the assassination and not, as Marina said he usually did, on Monday. He was, she said, going to see her that weekend. So, why not leave it on the Monday? Per the usual routine?
And then he isolates this act out of the other evidence of Oswald's behavior and activity. And says how does this - and this alone - prove anything. Even though no one said this and this alone proves he shot JFK.
We are trying to reason with someone who looks at the evidence this way.
It can't be done.
-
Again, he characterizes Oswald leaving nearly all of his money - $1200 in today's dollars - as simply a husband leaving his wife money.
And then he isolates this act out of the other evidence of Oswald's behavior and activity. And says how does this - and this alone - prove anything. Even though no one said this and this alone proves he shot JFK.
We are trying to reason with someone who looks at the evidence this way.
It can't be done.
That's 'GeeItsFunToTrollHereJohnny' for you.
-
The point is that there are so many CT-claimed conspiracies, claimed conspirators, and claimed shooters emanating from thousands of conspiracy books .... ALL leading nowhere.
As does the claim that Oswald shot JFK. What's your point?
But where did you pull the "42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators" nonsense from?
-
Again, he characterizes Oswald leaving nearly all of his money - $1200 in today's dollars - as simply a husband leaving his wife money. And he did so the day of the assassination and not, as Marina said he usually did, on Monday. He was, she said, going to see her that weekend. So, why not leave it on the Monday? Per the usual routine?
I'll ask again, because you're determined to avoid the question. How is this evidence of murder?
And then he isolates this act out of the other evidence of Oswald's behavior and activity. And says how does this - and this alone - prove anything. Even though no one said this and this alone proves he shot JFK.
Even in combination, your argument is "I don't believe an innocent person would do X, therefore he killed JFK". That's not evidence, it's rhetoric. You can't "reason" your way into making evidence of something that is not evidence.
-
As does the claim that Oswald shot JFK. What's your point?
But where did you pull the "42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators" nonsense from?
From your hero
"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused at one time or another in various conspiracy scenarios"[2]
-
From your hero
"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused at one time or another in various conspiracy scenarios"[2]
You're contradicting yourself, Bill.
Where did Bugliosi claim or imply that all 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators were involved?
-
.
???
did he say it or not?
While Bill tries to figure that out, let me point out that just because Bugliosi has "estimated" something, that doesn't make it true. Did he name these 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators, and who proposed them, or is this just his usual made-up rhetoric?
-
I'll ask again, because you're determined to avoid the question. How is this evidence of murder?
Even in combination, your argument is "I don't believe an innocent person would do X, therefore he killed JFK". That's not evidence, it's rhetoric. You can't "reason" your way into making evidence of something that is not evidence.
By leaving out the ring this time (arguably the most important part of the ring-money thing), you are minimizing in order to foolishly claim that LNers think that merely giving his wife money would convict.
-
By leaving out the ring this time (arguably the most important part of the ring-money thing), you are minimizing in order to foolishly claim that LNers think that merely giving his wife money would convict.
:D :D :D :D
Two things that are not evidence of murder, when combined would somehow "convict".
-
"How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?"
>>>On its own? Where did anyone say that?
That comes straight from your beloved cult leader.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JfJABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=JfJABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false)
"But in the Kennedy case, all the evidence, without exception, points toward Oswald?s guilt. In Reclaiming History, I set forward fifty-three separate pieces of evidence that point toward his guilt".
-
:D :D :D :D
Two things that are not evidence of murder, when combined would somehow "convict".
Again, why avoid the ring, John? No clue into Oswald's state of mind... good, bad or ugly?
-
Again, why avoid the ring, John? No clue into Oswald's state of mind... good, bad or ugly?
I didn't "avoid" anything. Steve mentioned the money as "evidence", and didn't mention the ring. So why would I bring it up in my reply?
But since you asked, at least Michael's supposition is actually based on the knowledge that Lee and Marina were quarreling the night before and that she refused to move back in with him. Your supposition is based on FA.
-
You're contradicting yourself, Bill.
Nah, Bug clearly meant these people had their own pet theories
And note the quote I used was not directly from Bug; the third party used 'claimed'
This is more accurate:
At one time or another, doubters of the lone gunman theory "have accused 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people of being involved in the assassination," said author Vincent Bugliosi.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/16/us/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theories-debunked/
-
Nah, Bug clearly meant these people had their own pet theories
What people? What theories? Bugliosi doesn't say. It's all meaningless rhetoric.
-
I have already said (some time ago) that the defence could bring that factor up as a strong point. It's not rocket science. However, that would only blow up in their faces since a prosecution would leverage that into an Oswald's state-of-mind deal.
Would the prosecution ever get around to presenting something that is actually evidence?
-
I have already said (some time ago) that the defence could bring that factor up as a strong point. It's not rocket science. However, that would only blow up in their faces since a prosecution would leverage that into an Oswald's state-of-mind deal.
Marina said that Lee told her he would see her and the children again that weekend. He wouldn't stay on Friday since he stayed Thursday (and Ruth Paine said she was surprised to see him on Thursday since he always - her word - called if he was going to visit in the middle of the week). Marina said they planned to work out their living arrangements over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Nothing, absolutely nothing about them divorcing or separating. In fact, just the opposite: they were going to try and work things out.
The first excuse was he always gave her money. Then when it was pointed out that it was nearly all of his money and he gave it on a Friday and not the usual Monday, we have the "they were separating" excuse.
Now that that's been proven wrong what will they come up with? It's always excuse after excuse after excuse. As I said before, there isn't another event in history that people discuss where one side engages in this type of defensive excuse making. They don't want to work out what happened; they want to clear Oswald. It's bizarre.
-
What people? What theories? Bugliosi doesn't say. It's all meaningless rhetoric.
You expect him to name all these people every time he writes or speaks?
-
Marina said that Lee told her he would see her and the children again that weekend. He wouldn't stay on Friday since he stayed Thursday (and Ruth Paine said she was surprised to see him on Thursday since he always - her word - called if he was going to visit in the middle of the week). Marina said they planned to work out their living arrangements over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Nothing, absolutely nothing about them divorcing or separating. In fact, just the opposite: they were going to try and work things out.
The first excuse was he always gave her money. Then when it was pointed out that it was nearly all of his money and he gave it on a Friday and not the usual Monday, we have the "they were separating" excuse.
Now that that's been proven wrong what will they come up with? It's always excuse after excuse after excuse. As I said before, there isn't another event in history that people discuss where one side engages in this type of defensive excuse making. They don't want to work out what happened; they want to clear Oswald. It's bizarre.
Yes, I've read that before.
Well these guys are attempting to gaslight here
-
Marina said that Lee told her he would see her and the children again that weekend.
Sorry....when did she say that it was going to be that weekend?
He wouldn't stay on Friday since he stayed Thursday (and Ruth Paine said she was surprised to see him on Thursday since he always - her word - called if he was going to visit in the middle of the week). Marina said they planned to work out their living arrangements over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Nothing, absolutely nothing about them divorcing or separating. In fact, just the opposite: they were going to try and work things out.
When did Marina ever say "they planned to work out their living arrangements over the Thanksgiving holiday"? You're reading things into the situation that she never even said. And even if Marina did think they could work things out, it doesn't just follow that Lee thought so too.
The first excuse was he always gave her money. Then when it was pointed out that it was nearly all of his money and he gave it on a Friday and not the usual Monday, we have the "they were separating" excuse.
Are you ever going to get around to explaining how any of this is evidence of murder?
Now that that's been proven wrong what will they come up with? It's always excuse after excuse after excuse. As I said before, there isn't another event in history that people discuss where one side engages in this type of defensive excuse making. They don't want to work out what happened; they want to clear Oswald. It's bizarre.
"Proven wrong". LOL. All you've done is declare that your mindreading conjecture is somehow better than anyone else's conjecture.
There isn't another event in history that people discuss where one side engages in this type of rhetoric and pretend that it constitutes evidence.
-
You expect him to name all these people every time he writes or speaks?
Even one time would be nice.
-
Even one time would be nice.
Nice but still rhetoric, right?
-
Nice but still rhetoric, right?
Yes, because it really has no bearing on his argument that LHO killed Kennedy. But if he was in the habit of supporting his wild claims with anything but rhetoric, this would be included.
-
Yes, because it really has no bearing on his argument that LHO killed Kennedy. But if he was in the habit of supporting his wild claims with anything but rhetoric, this would be included.
Wow. Talk about circular arguments. You always circle back to 'how does [whatever] prove Oswald guilty'.
Pretty sure you challenged me to prove Bug confirmed his numbers in an actual quote. The talk was about the great number of conspiracy groups, shooters and ppl claimed in conspiracy lore. Not that Oswald was guilty or not.
Bug was mocking these conspiracies. He went after every conspiracy even the silliest and you can bet he kept score.
-
Wow. Talk about circular arguments. You always circle back to 'how does [whatever] prove Oswald guilty'.
Pretty sure you challenged me to prove Bug confirmed his numbers in an actual quote. The talk was about the great number of conspiracy claims, shooters and ppl involved in conspiracy lore. Not that Oswald was guilty or not.
Bug was mocking these conspiracies. He went after every conspiracy even the silliest and you can bet he kept score.
Obviously he was mocking -- that's what Bugliosi does. He thinks that saying "isn't that ridiculous?" constitutes a rebuttal to the points raised. It's what lawyers do when they have no real rebuttal.
However, it goes deeper than that. Bugliosi just threw out some numbers with no indication of where they came from or exactly what he counted. He didn't "confirm" anything. He just made a claim with no supporting evidence. Like he always does.
And you, his sycophant, accepts it unquestioningly. Like you always do.
-
Obviously he was mocking -- that's what Bugliosi does. He thinks that saying "isn't that ridiculous?" constitutes a rebuttal to the points raised. It's what lawyers do when they have no real rebuttal.
However, it goes deeper than that. Bugliosi just threw out some numbers with no indication of where they came from or exactly what he counted. He didn't "confirm" anything. He just made a claim with no supporting evidence. Like he always does.
And you, his sycophant, accepts it unquestioningly. Like you always do.
You claim there is no viable evidence
Like you always do.
You are attacking Bug's idiosyncratic manner as you do with HelenM
Read Bug's book and do your own count
-
You claim there is no viable evidence
Like you always do.
Says the guy who's never presented any evidence whatsoever.
You are attacking Bug's idiosyncratic manner as you do with HelenM
Read Bug's book and do your own count
So I have to prove Bugliosi's claim is wrong? Gee, where have we heard that before?
-
13 people+ the shooters. This is my list on who I think was behind the assassination. After 36 years of studying the assassination. I could be wrong.
1 The head of ZR/Rifle project William Harvey he would recruit the assassination team and their backups.
2 Mafia don Carlos Marcello provided the funding
3 Either the Hunts or Clinton Murchison because Texas was their playground and both hated Kennedy.
4 David Phillips help in framing Oswald
5 James Jesus Angleton again false info on Oswald
6 E. Howard Hunt says he was involved
7 David S?nchez Morales work with Harvey
8 Need help from some agents in the FBI(Hoover)
9 Military Curtis LeMay hated Kennedy with a passion would like to see him gone anything about military went though him.
10 Persons in the Dallas police force recruited by the Hunts or Murchison.
11 Ed Lansdale Military voice in Dallas
12 Allen Dulles controlled all info in dealings about the CIA
13 George de Mohrenschildt Controlled Oswald
The reason Harvey wanted JFK dead is because he saw JFK as weak and knowing nothing on how the world really worked.
Marcello easy. Hated the Kennedys with a passion. Was embarrassed by RFK and wanted revenge.
Hunts & Murchisons They hated JFK?S view on civil rights Also maybe on doing away with the oil depletion allowance which would have cost them millions of dollars.
Phillips He rose to become the CIA's chief of all operations in the Western hemisphere. He would have known about plots to kill Castro and the use of the mafia Again hated JFK views on Cuba and the Soviet Union.
James Jesus Angleton was chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterintelligence Staff from 1954 to 1975. His official position within the organization was "Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI)". ? If? Oswald was even a low level asset he would have known.
E. Howard Hunt said that he in evolved in the Plot.
Morales he worked with Harvey and have no qualms in killing JFK also may had a hand in killing RFK.
FBI
LaMay saw Kennedy as weak and a ineffective president.
Some members of the Dallas P,D to control things with Oswald.
Lansdale. He was an operator in coup's around the globe photo?s may show him in the Plaza. Also he was denied several post he wanted.
Dulles was fired by JFK. He could control all info from the cia.
De Mohrenschildt may have been a low lever cia agent he could had guided Oswald since he got back from the Soviet Union.
-
2 Mafia don Carlos Marcello provided the funding
3 Either the Hunts or Clinton Murchison because Texas was their playground and both hated Kennedy.
Actually, Hunt and Murchison provided most the funding.
-
Says the guy who's never presented any evidence whatsoever.
So I have to prove Bugliosi's claim is wrong? Gee, where have we heard that before?
The burden of proof is yours since you are the one making the claim that the WC is wrong.
-
The burden of proof is yours since you are the one making the claim that the WC is wrong.
Thanks for the laugh?.. I needed that. Better than comedy central
-
Says the guy who's never presented any evidence whatsoever.
So I have to prove Bugliosi's claim is wrong? Gee, where have we heard that before?
Don't trust Bug? So read the conspiracy-monger books, like Bugliosi did, to get his count.
-
Thanks for the laugh?.. I needed that. Better than comedy central
Logic has never been Chapman's forte.
-
Logic has never been Chapman's forte.
Your twisted interpretation of the evidence and rabid insistence on trying the case piecemeal either disqualifies you outright, or shifts the burden
-
Your twisted interpretation of the evidence and rabid insistence on trying the case piecemeal either disqualifies you outright, or shifts the burden
Let's talk about shifting the burden:
"Name your shooter" -- Bill Chapman about a zillion times.
-
Let's talk about shifting the burden:
"Name your shooter" -- Bill Chapman about a zillion times.
No. lets see why you avoided the fact that cases are not tried piecemeal
They are tried on the accumulated evidence, no matter how much all y'all want to shuck & jive.
Anyway I took pity on you lot last time, letting you off the hook by asking only for a probable shooter
After all, the WC said probably, the HSCA said likely
-
Paul, can you show a zoomed out version of the photo where you suspect the blast from a rifle is, so that I can get my bearings? Also do you have an approximate Z-time for this shot?
-
Let's talk about shifting the burden:
"Name your shooter" -- Bill Chapman about a zillion times.
Listen closely you are not Oswald's defence lawyer, this site that you come to work at, first thing every Monday morning is called "www.jfkassassinationforum.com" and has deliberately not got Oswald in its title therefore the focus is and must be on who killed Kennedy so your "shifting the burden" comment is not only unnecessary but unwarranted!
JohnM
-
Thanks much Paul. I was looking at the wrong window on Elm, now I understand the location and timing. It looks very possible if not probable, as well as the other locations. Thanks for the compliment on Zapruder. Are you referring to the sequence after Z313? Of course many of us appreciate your work on the SN. Outstanding. Thanks.
-
No Paul, I don't think I have the chart you were looking for, but will keep my eyes open. In the meantime, here' another one, but you are probably already aware of it. Maybe others aren't. It is regarding the missed shot which hit Tague. The mapmaker drew a line from the DalTex to Tague. It looks about right. I then plotted a red line from the "SN" to Tague. It intersects the motorcade at a much further distance and appears to be incorrect.
(https://i.imgur.com/gjNFrinh.jpg)
-
Paul, here are some other random DalTex occurrences:
F. Lee Mudd later reported that he thought one or more of the shots came from the direction of the Dal-Tex Building. Standing at the north curb of Elm Street, he dropped to the ground when the shots were fired and looked toward the Elm/Houston corner.
He looked around him [the FBI report relates], and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noted several broken windows on the fourth floor of the Dal-Tex Building, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows . . . [He] stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the DalTex Building (24H538).
It should be pointed out that within minutes of the assassination a young man was arrested by police in the Dal-Tex Building.15 The police report states only that the suspect "had been up in the building across the street from the book depository without a good excuse" and that he had been taken to the Sheriff's Office (20H499). Curiously enough, the Sheriff's Office interrogation reports show no record of this man or what alibi he gave (19H526-527). He apparently arrived at the Sheriff's Office and then disappeared in the confusion of the moment. Eyewitness Charles Brehm told the FBI that "it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets" (22H837)16
15. The Willis family described to me the arrest of this young man. Dressed in a black leather jacket and black gloves, he was led out of the building by two uniformed police officers. To the catcalls of the assembled crowd he was ushered into a waiting police car, which quickly drove off (Taped interview; Nov. 29, 1966).
16. Holland, we recall, indicated that some of the shots appeared to come "from the north end of Elm Street" (Taped interview; Nov. 29, 1966).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&relPageId=556&search=2108 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&relPageId=556&search=2108)
From Hood
THE ARRESTS Position "A"---The Dal-Tex Building -Three known arrests and a possible fourth took place around end in the Tal-Tex building. 1.) JIM BRADEN: WA!, age 49, from Beverly =Tills, California -.Braden claims he was -trying to get a cab on Elm qt. shortly after the shooting occured -he then entered the '?al-Tex building and attempted to use a phone on the 7rd. floor but found it was out of order -on returning to the ground floor, Braden was reported to the Police as a stranger in the building -he was taken by the arresting officer(name unknown) to the Sheriff's office where he Was "interrogated" by the officers ouperior -approximate time of arrest was 1:00 p.m. -Deputy C.L. Lewis states that 3raden had been in town only 2 days and was in the DalTex building when the shooting occured (19F469) (19E527) 2.) WILLIAM SHARP: W/M, 7479 Detonta St., Dallas -was arrested in the Dal-Tex building, "without a good excuse" (time:12:45) -Sharp had been detained by an unknown no. of uniformed Dallas officers -J.R.Leavelle than took charge of Sharp and took him to the Sheriff's office -what happened next to Sharp is unknown (20H499) LARRY FLORER: W/M, age 27, 7609 Patomic, Dallas -was arrested by officers W.u.nenham and W.T.Trenthael after using the telephone on the 7rd floor of the Dal-Tax building -was detained for "behaving in a suspicious manner" -Florer was frisked outside the 'el-Tex building and then taken to the Sheriff's office -approximate time, 12:50-1:00 p.m. (19H476) 19H517) (19H527) -this entire incident was also recorded on film by photo rsphers 711lien Allen and JAr?95 (2) 4.) The arrest of a fourth an outside of the Dal-Tex building was recorded on film by amateur photographer Phil Willis -the man has not been identified as any of the previously mentioned three elide 13) (Richard Sprague) Position "B"---Elm and Houston -professional photoEe'aphers Jack Beers,Dallas Mor
SHARP, , WILLIAM WHEELER Was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on October 9, 1923 and died in Dallas, Texas on July 11, 2007. Private graveside services were held at Highland Cemetery in Melissa, Texas. He was the son of William Wheeler Sharp, Sr. and Jennie V. Benson Sharp. Bill graduated from high school in Sinton, Texas in 1941, and subsequently entered the University of Texas at Austin. His college career was interrupted when he enlisted in the Air Force during WW II, serving in the Pacific Theater. After the war, he reentered the University of Texas at Austin, earning a B.S. in Geology in 1950 and a M.S. in 1951. After completing his education, he worked in the area of petroleum exploration in Texas, Venezuela, Canada, Alaska, Australia and Louisiana. While in Venezuela, Bill worked for Creole Petroleum Corp., originally mapping a large portion of the Andean mountain range. His work in Louisiana for ARCO included the discovery of large oil and gas fields at Bayou Boullion, Bayou Salle, Chandeleur Sound and in Beaureguard Parish. He was a director of the Lafayette Geological Society. He returned to Dallas in 1977, working as a research geologist until his retirement in 1985. During his career, he authored a number of articles and frequently testified as an expert witness at contested hearings before the Louisiana Oil and Gas Commission. Additionally, he served as President of the Lafayette, La. Tennis Advisory Committee, President of Oakbourne Country Club Tennis Association, Director of the U.S.T.A. Lafayette Open and Closed Tennis Tournaments. In 1971 he was awarded the "Key to the City" of New Orleans and declared an Honorary Citizen. He was a member of the Towne House Club and Mardi Gras Krewe, and the Petroleum Club. Bill was an avid competitive tennis player, participating in more than 75 U.S.T.A. tournaments as a finalist or 1st place winner. Additionally in 1976 he organized the U.S.T.A. National Boy's Tennis Tournament in Lafayette, La. Bill enjoyed hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, music and history. He was a past director of Jr. Achievement and United Fund projects. He contributed to the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg, Texas, the National Museum of the Pacific War, the National World War II Memorial and the Benson Latin America Library at U.T. Austin. he was a member of the V.F.W., the American Legion, Lovers Lane United Methodist Church. His biographical sketch has been frequently included in publications such as "Who's Who in America." Bill is survived by his wife of 48 years, Rubylin Slaughter Sharp; daughter, Kimberly Sharp of Dallas; daughter, Staci Sharp Johnson and son-in-law, Byron Johnson of McKinney; and grandchildren Mollie and Samuel Johnson; 3 sisters; and numerous nieces and nephews. In lieu of usual remembrances, the family requests contributions be made to the charity of the donor's choice.
-
No. lets see why you avoided the fact that cases are not tried piecemeal
They are tried on the accumulated evidence, no matter how much all y'all want to shuck & jive.
Feel free to lay out an "accumulated" case that doesn't rely on rhetorical nonsense like Oswald preferring Dr. Pepper over Coke as somehow being evidence of murder.
Anyway I took pity on you lot last time, letting you off the hook by asking only for a probable shooter
After all, the WC said probably, the HSCA said likely
What's pitiful is that you think this makes your conclusion somehow more correct.
-
Listen closely you are not Oswald's defence lawyer, this site that you come to work at, first thing every Monday morning is called "www.jfkassassinationforum.com" and has deliberately not got Oswald in its title therefore the focus is and must be on who killed Kennedy so your "shifting the burden" comment is not only unnecessary but unwarranted!
Yawn.
Listen closely, you are not Oswald's prosecuting attorney. And if you're going to run around making definitive statements about who killed Kennedy then you should be prepared to actually support your claims instead of stamping your feet and demanding to be proven wrong.
-
Feel free to lay out an "accumulated" case that doesn't rely on rhetorical nonsense like Oswald preferring Dr. Pepper over Coke as somehow being evidence of murder.
What's pitiful is that you think this makes your conclusion somehow more correct.
Show us where I claim that any one of the Bug53, in isolation, proves Oswald guilty
Show us where I claim that an accumulated Bug53 would be needed to convict
Show us where Bugliosi himself claimed that his accumulated Bug53 was needed to convict
Show us where I ever said I could prove Oswald guilty
Show us where I said my conclusion was 'somehow more correct'
Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'
;)
-
Show us where I claim that any one of the Bug53, in isolation, proves Oswald guilty
Show us where I claim that an accumulated Bug53 would be needed to convict
Show us where Bugliosi himself claimed that his accumulated Bug53 was needed to convict
Show us where I ever said I could prove Oswald guilty
Show us where I said my conclusion was 'somehow more correct'
Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'
;)
Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'
BS... your posting history clearly shows that you absolutely believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you are too much of a coward to come out and say it, because the implication of that would be that you need to provide supporting evidence for your claim and you know full well you haven't got any.
And so, you hide behind the word "probably". Pathetic
-
Show us where I claim that any one of the Bug53, in isolation, proves Oswald guilty
Show us where I claim that an accumulated Bug53 would be needed to convict
Show us where Bugliosi himself claimed that his accumulated Bug53 was needed to convict
Show us where I ever said I could prove Oswald guilty
Show us where I said my conclusion was 'somehow more correct'
Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'
;)
I didn't say anything about evidence "needed to convict". So why do you think Oswald probably did it?
-
I didn't say anything about evidence "needed to convict". So why do you think Oswald probably did it?
You can do it yourself... just strip the Bug53 down to those that wouldn't be admitted as evidence in your opinion. Just don't run your broken-record piecemeal schtick again.
'What's pitiful is that you think this makes your conclusion somehow more correct'.
>>> Again, show us where I ever claimed that my conclusions are 'more correct' than anyone else's
'I didn't say anything about evidence "needed to convict'
>>> Then why describe the coke/dr pepper thing as if was needed as evidence of murder? You are playing with words so as to avoid having to show where I ever said any separate Bug53 item could prove anything at all in and of itself.
'So why do you think Oswald probably did it?'
>>> Yawn. Rinse & repeat. You must be behind on your quota.
-
Oswald probably did it
Just sayin'
BS... your posting history clearly shows that you absolutely believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you are too much of a coward to come out and say it, because the implication of that would be that you need to provide supporting evidence for your claim and you know full well you haven't got any.
And so, you hide behind the word "probably". Pathetic
'coward'
LOL
Others here claim they 'know' this or that
If anything, seems to me that I'm cutting your boy a little slack here
;)
-
'coward'
LOL
Others here claim they 'know' this or that
If anything, seems that I'm cutting your boy a little slack here
;)
He's not "my boy" and the use of the word "seems" is absolutely correct, because in reality you are not cutting anybody a little slack?.
You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....
-
He's not "my boy" and the use of the word "seems" is absolutely correct, because in reality you are not cutting anybody a little slack?.
You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....
Not even a probable shooter yet, Martin?
What... too soon?
-
You can do it yourself... just strip the Bug53 down to those that wouldn't be admitted as evidence in your opinion. Just don't run your broken-record piecemeal schtick again.
You haven't been paying attention. What anyone thinks "would be admitted as evidence" is irrelevant. Why didn't Bugliosi strip down his own list instead of padding it with nonsense? The answer is obvious: there'd be very little left.
Again, show us where I ever claimed that my conclusions are 'more correct' than anyone else's
Great - we have your opinion with no reasons given for believing that your opinion is true or likely to be true, or has any merit whatsoever. Ok, enjoy your baseless opinion.
Then why describe the coke/dr pepper thing as if was needed as evidence of murder?
Because Bugliosi claims that it is evidence of murder, and you keep crowing about considering everything (which includes the Dr Pepper rhetoric) in combination as if that somehow makes it all relevant.
You are playing with words so as to avoid having to show where I ever said any separate Bug53 item could prove anything at all in and of itself.
Bugliosi did. By defending his list, you're defending his inclusion. If you don't defend what he calls "evidence" then just say so.
'So why do you think Oswald probably did it?'
>>> Yawn. Rinse & repeat. You must be behind on your quota.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You have your belief and have never provided any justification for it. At all. Ever.
-
You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....
Bill is "probably right" until you can come up with a different "probable" answer. Why? Just 'cause.
:D
-
Not even a probable shooter yet, Martin?
What... too soon?
Running home to LN central?
-
Why didn't Bugliosi strip down his own list instead of padding it with nonsense? The answer is obvious: there'd be very little left.
Bug used what he himself calls 'overkill' for a reason:
Many other readers, he [Bugliosi] writes, will say to themselves, Why does he keep piling one argument upon another to prove his point? He's already made it 12 ways from Sunday, so why go on?. To those readers I say that the Warren Commission also made its point, and well, over 40 years ago, yet today the overwhelming majority of Americans do not accept its conclusion. ... Hence, the overkill in this book is historically necessary. -- Bryan Burrough
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html
-
Bug used what he himself calls 'overkill' for a reason:
?Many other readers,? he [Bugliosi] writes, ?will say to themselves, ?Why does he keep piling one argument upon another to prove his point? He?s already made it 12 ways from Sunday, so why go on?? To those readers I say that the Warren Commission also made its point, and well, over 40 years ago, yet today the overwhelming majority of Americans do not accept its conclusion. ... Hence, the overkill in this book is historically necessary.?-- Bryan Burrough
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html
So, what is the reasoning here?
The WC failed to convince the majority of the people so Bugs piles on more weak, selfserving, speculative BS arguments and he hopes that will convince people after all...... really?
What a load of crap! All Bugs overkill really proves is that the basic case is so weak that he feels he needs to throw everything and the kitchen sink on top of it in a desperate attempt to somehow make it covincing....
-
Bug used what he himself calls 'overkill' for a reason:
?Many other readers,? he [Bugliosi] writes, ?will say to themselves, ?Why does he keep piling one argument upon another to prove his point? He?s already made it 12 ways from Sunday, so why go on?? To those readers I say that the Warren Commission also made its point, and well, over 40 years ago, yet today the overwhelming majority of Americans do not accept its conclusion. ... Hence, the overkill in this book is historically necessary.?-- Bryan Burrough
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html
And by "overkill" he means piling on a bunch of rhetorical crap that has nothing to do with the assassination and calling it "evidence".
-
So, what is the reasoning here?
The WC failed to convince the majority of the people so Bugs piles on more weak, selfserving, speculative BS arguments and he hopes that will convince people after all...... really?
What a load of crap! All Bugs overkill really proves is that the basic case is so weak that he feels he needs to throw everything and the kitchen sink on top of it in a desperate attempt to somehow make it covincing....
Show us one poll that asked if Oswald was the killer. The polls ask if Oswald had help or not.
-
Show us one poll that asked if Oswald was the killer. The polls ask if Oswald had help or not.
Pay attention!
Nobody said anything about a poll or what was asked, so there is no need for me to show anything.
You, on the other hand, just made the wild claim about what the polls ask.... please provide proof for that claim?
-
LOL. It took me 5 seconds on Google to find one.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/uk-world/533778/poll-jfk-files-think-assassinated-president-john-f-kennedy-articleisfree/ (https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/uk-world/533778/poll-jfk-files-think-assassinated-president-john-f-kennedy-articleisfree/)
-
LOL. It took me 5 seconds on Google to find one.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/uk-world/533778/poll-jfk-files-think-assassinated-president-john-f-kennedy-articleisfree/ (https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/uk-world/533778/poll-jfk-files-think-assassinated-president-john-f-kennedy-articleisfree/)
As of today July 22, 2020.... The US elite 63.38% (90 votes)-----Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone 14.79% (21 votes)
-
Well, look at the Iran-Contra conspiracy, since that's a conspiracy that virtually all historians acknowledge. Most of the participants had no idea that they were aiding a conspiracy, and most of them did not grasp how their actions fit into the larger picture. Some of them had some idea, some understanding that their actions might be illegal, but they felt that they were just following orders, that it wasn't their place to question things, and that their superiors must have had good reasons for giving the orders. Others had no idea they were doing anything wrong, much less that they were aiding a conspiracy, until the Iran-Contra affair was exposed.
The reason that all the medical personnel who were involved with the autopsy were forced to sign strict and severe secrecy agreements was that only a few of them were knowingly aiding the cover-up of the facts about JFK's wounds. The vast majority of them were just doing what they were told, and many of them said they were very surprised that they were forced to sign secrecy agreements and were threatened with such dire consequences if they violated them.
The standard line that was used on many innocent participants in the cover-up was that the truth about JFK's assassination had to be concealed in order to avoid a catastrophic nuclear war that would kill tens of millions of people.
The JFK assassination conspiracy involved perhaps 20 high-level conspirators, a few dozen second-tier conspirators under them, and perhaps 10 high-level accessories who were aware of the plot, who wanted JFK dead, who did nothing to prevent it, and who did what they could to help cover up the crime. I think J. Edgar Hoover was an accessory. I think David Atlee Phillips was at least a second-tier conspirator. I think James Angleton was a high-level conspirator. I think J. Walton Moore was at least a second-tier conspirator. I think David Sanchez Morales was a second-tier conspirator. I think one or two of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were either accessories or high-level conspirators.
-
I don't have a "conspiracy theory".
But who impersonated Oswald on the Mexico City phone calls?
That person might have no idea why this was necessary., and was never told the purpose.
Conspirator? No.
-
The JFK assassination conspiracy involved perhaps 20 high-level conspirators, a few dozen second-tier conspirators under them, and perhaps 10 high-level accessories who were aware of the plot, who wanted JFK dead,
OMG, what an incredibly specific claim, that's over 60 people being involved in the crime of the century and still not a shred of evidence from a billion possibly sources has emerged that supports your endless conspiracy theories and that's why nobody can ever take you seriously.
JohnM
-
OMG, what an incredibly specific claim, that's over 60 people being involved in the crime of the century and still not a shred of evidence from a billion possibly sources has emerged that supports your endless conspiracy theories and that's why nobody can ever take you seriously.
Says the guy who thinks calling Oswald a “proven double murderer” is evidence.
-
Says the guy who thinks calling Oswald a “proven double murderer” is evidence.
Well at least Griffith doesn't try to hide behind his endless accusations and he has the balls to give some numbers supporting his absolutely massive conspiracy.
JohnM
-
Well at least Griffith doesn't try to hide behind his endless accusations and he has the balls to give some numbers supporting his absolutely massive conspiracy.
JohnM
Ok.
Mr Mytton:
This is a discussion board. Not a competition involving, uh, testicles. Plenty of " balls " being compared and discussed on other sites. Perhaps Grinder would be a better spot for you - and I mean that in the nicest way. I don't get into anyone's private life here.
And I make no judgements.
-
Back to the topic at hand:
Mr Mytton doesn't understand that being skeptical about the WC report does not require one to create an equally bizarre and unfounded "conspiracy " theory.
-
Back to the topic at hand:
Mr Mytton doesn't understand that being skeptical about the WC report does not require one to create an equally bizarre and unfounded "conspiracy " theory.
Nobody cares what you think, I was clearly responding to Mr Griffith who stated "The JFK assassination conspiracy involved perhaps 20 high-level conspirators, a few dozen second-tier conspirators under them, and perhaps 10 high-level accessories who were aware of the plot, who wanted JFK dead, who did nothing to prevent it, and who did what they could to help cover up the crime".
Bye!
JohnM
-
Nobody cares what you think, I was clearly responding to Mr Griffith who stated "The JFK assassination conspiracy involved perhaps 20 high-level conspirators, a few dozen second-tier conspirators under them, and perhaps 10 high-level accessories who were aware of the plot, who wanted JFK dead, who did nothing to prevent it, and who did what they could to help cover up the crime".
Bye!
JohnM
Actually, you were responding to Mr Iacoletti, and calling him out about, yes, testicles, or lack thereof.
You seem confused.
-
Actually, you were responding to Mr Iacoletti, and calling him out about, yes, testicles, or lack thereof.
Show me where in my response to Iacoletti where I specifically call out Iacoletti's lack of balls? Oops!
Well at least Griffith doesn't try to hide behind his endless accusations and he has the balls to give some numbers supporting his absolutely massive conspiracy.
JohnM
My original response to Griffith.
OMG, what an incredibly specific claim, that's over 60 people being involved in the crime of the century and still not a shred of evidence from a billion possibly sources has emerged that supports your endless conspiracy theories and that's why nobody can ever take you seriously.
JohnM
Btw next time read my posts carefully before you yet again make a fool of yourself.
JohnM
-
I don't have a "conspiracy theory".
But who impersonated Oswald on the Mexico City phone calls?
That person might have no idea why this was necessary., and was never told the purpose.
Conspirator? No.
I don't have a "conspiracy theory".
Why do you feel the need to tell the Forum that, and especially in this thread?
But who impersonated Oswald on the Mexico City phone calls?
How do you know Oswald was impersonated?
That person might have no idea why this was necessary., and was never told the purpose.
So you're saying someone impersonated Oswald under orders? Who and why?
Conspirator? No.
Why would anybody have the need to impersonate Oswald, where does that go?
JohnM
-
Actually, you were responding to Mr Iacoletti, and calling him out about, yes, testicles, or lack thereof.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I said, where did I use the word "testicles"?
courage and confidence:
You have to admit it - the woman's got balls!
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/balls
boldly aggressive or courageous:
a ballsy gal who isn't afraid of anyone.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ballsy
JohnM
-
Why do you feel the need to tell the Forum that, and especially in this thread?
How do you know Oswald was impersonated?
So you're saying someone impersonated Oswald under orders? Who and why?
Why would anybody have the need to impersonate Oswald, where does that go?
JohnM
'where does that go?'
Those four words describe the overarching problem, lo these many years, facing Oswald apologists.
-
Briefly, the Russian and Cuban embassies' phones were tapped, and recorded.
There was a tape of an "Oswald" speaking to these folks, and the transcribers note that this "Oswald" was different than the real Oswald. Hoover was aware of this.
Might want to do some research.
Or do you not have the "balls" to do that?
-
Why would anybody have the need to impersonate Oswald...?
The stupidest question in all the history of questions.
-
Why would anybody have the need to impersonate Oswald, where does that go?
Set up a false legend to make it look like Oswald was capable of the assassination.
It has happened in murder cases, though not as elaborate as might have happened in the JFK assassination.