JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on September 22, 2020, 04:57:43 PM

Title: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on September 22, 2020, 04:57:43 PM
I am of the opinion that LHO acted alone and assassinated JFK for reasons that apparently only he knew (for certain). Your mileage may vary.

Here is an article that I find interesting:

https://apple.news/Ac728Ls6KQrWpg79xUeivTg

MC apparently still believes, 40-years after he assassinated John Lennon, that infamy equals glory. And he states that that is why he did it.

My opinion is that LHO also had similar thoughts. But that he was also motivated to help Castro and his regime. At any rate, the article appears to support the concept of some misguided soul seeking glory as a motive for murder.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 22, 2020, 05:08:02 PM
I am of the opinion that LHO acted alone and assassinated JFK for reasons that apparently only he knew (for certain). Your mileage may vary.

Here is an article that I find interesting:

https://apple.news/Ac728Ls6KQrWpg79xUeivTg

MC apparently still believes, 40-years after he assassinated John Lennon, that infamy equals glory. And he states that that is why he did it.

My opinion is that LHO also had similar thoughts. But that he was also motivated to help Castro and his regime. At any rate, the article appears to support the concept of some misguided soul seeking glory as a motive for murder.

Lee Harvey Nobody didn't like his name, so he changed it to Lee Harvey Somebody.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on September 23, 2020, 03:54:43 PM
Lee Harvey Nobody didn't like his name, so he changed it to Lee Harvey Somebody.

And everybody gets the Lee Harvey they deserve+
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 23, 2020, 09:26:57 PM
Mark David Chapman (related to Bill?) never denied doing it.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on September 23, 2020, 09:47:05 PM
Mark David Chapman (related to Bill?) never denied doing it.

Quote from Wikipedia:

“As Lennon walked into the building's archway with his wife Yoko Ono, Chapman fired five shots at Lennon from several meters away with a .38 Special revolver. ... Chapman remained at the scene reading J. D. Salinger's novel The Catcher in the Rye until he was arrested by police.”

Good point. However, if MDC had had an opportunity (like the one that apparently fell into LHO’s lap) to conceal himself and fire a rifle from a distance, would he have been more likely to try an escape and, if the escape was successful, then deny it if caught later?

LHO was escaping from his aunt’s house at night when others were asleep when he was very young. His flight after the JFK assassination was a challenge to his Houdini skills.

Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on September 23, 2020, 09:59:35 PM
Chapman was examined by a dozen or so psychiatrists and psychologists and was diagnosed as psychotic, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and manic depression, with severe personality disorders. He had the habit of staring at TVs broadcasting the 'snow' or whatever it is called that appears in between channels or after regular programing ends.

His explanation for killing Lennon was to promote the reading of The Catcher in the Rye.

I don't think Oswald was as deranged or delusional as Chapman.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 23, 2020, 10:24:28 PM
Good point. However, if MDC had had an opportunity (like the one that apparently fell into LHO’s lap) to conceal himself and fire a rifle from a distance, would he have been more likely to try an escape and, if the escape was successful, then deny it if caught later?

No reason to think so.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on September 24, 2020, 09:10:42 PM
No reason to think so.

Yep, it appears that MDC wanted to be caught for his infamy and perceived glory. His motive was simply that.

On the other hand, it appears that LHO had more than infamy as motive. Political ideology and revolution were apparently his main goals.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Larry Chambliss on December 17, 2020, 07:24:59 PM
But could LHO have been a part of the Cuban ring/team? Acting in concert with those shooters?
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 17, 2020, 07:46:04 PM
Yep, it appears that MDC wanted to be caught for his infamy and perceived glory. His motive was simply that.

On the other hand, it appears that LHO had more than infamy as motive. Political ideology and revolution were apparently his main goals.
He went to his rooming house - showing no interest at all along the way as to what happened to JFK - changed clothes, got his loaded revolver and took five extra bullets. He shot Tippit. Tried to shoot it out at the theatre.

He was trying to go down in a shootout but was stopped. After getting caught he wanted the communist lawyer John Abt to represent him. Abt was known for putting the government on trial and that's what he planned to do: plead a victim of capitalism. He said numerous times throughout his life that he hated the American political and economic systems. I think he didn't expect to survive - which is why he left his wedding ring and nearly all of his money with Marina - but having done so he would play the victim card.

So his motives were probably - given his makeup -  a mix of personal desire for fame, for notoriety and politics.

Or he was innocent and all of these people lied to frame him. People in the FBI and Dallas Police and CIA and waitresses and cab drivers and steamfitters and shoe salesmen and ticket takers and on and on and on.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Duncan MacRae on December 17, 2020, 08:05:31 PM
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 18, 2020, 03:01:22 AM
He went to his rooming house - showing no interest at all along the way as to what happened to JFK - changed clothes, got his loaded revolver and took five extra bullets. He shot Tippit. Tried to shoot it out at the theatre.

Cool story, bro. Too bad there’s no evidence for it.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 18, 2020, 05:25:35 AM
Not everybody needs a motive to kill beyond just doing it for kicks. Some murderers have said they did it just for the hell of it

But nobody beats Richard Kuklinski in the 'cold-blooded' department


Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 18, 2020, 04:21:19 PM
No evidence at all - none - for Oswald shooting Tippit. That's the statement. Not that the evidence is mixed or inconclusive or not dispositive. But none at all.

This is exactly like the Trump supporters and voter fraud. The Oswald defenders are remarkably like the hardcore Trump defenders. It's a cultish thinking.

A good reminder of the 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy.
The Cult of Oswald writ large.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 18, 2020, 05:05:43 PM
A good reminder of the 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy.
The Cult of Oswald writ large.

Anybody using "appeal to rebellion" as an argument must also believe that;

- Nixon didn't have plumbers who broke into Elsberg's office and the Democratic headquarters at Watergate
- Reagan did not sell arms to Iran and gave the money to the sandinistas in Nicaragua
- Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction as claimed by George W. Bush
- That Trump is telling the truth about voter fraud

and so on....
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 19, 2020, 08:36:37 PM
Appeal to rebellion: Conspiracy theory logical fallacies
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

Most conspiracy theories don't make sense nor withstand any scrutiny. They usually involve operations so immense that it's basically impossible for them to be kept secret, and all the proof given by conspiracy theorists usually have a very simple explanation (usually much simpler than the explanation given by the theorists).

Yet conspiracy theories are very popular and appealing. Even when they don't make sense and there's just no proof, many people still believe them. Why?

Here are some typical logical fallacies used by conspiracy theorists:

One big reason for this is that some conspiracy theorists are clever. They use psychology to make their theories sound more plausible. They appeal to certain psychological phenomena which make people to tend to believe them. However, these psychological tricks are nothing more than logical fallacies. They are simply so well disguised that many people can't see them for what they are.

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory: "In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"

In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!

 
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 19, 2020, 11:02:05 PM
What Chapman in his infinite wisdom refuses to admit is that the WC hypothesis has its own set of logical fallacies.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 19, 2020, 11:41:36 PM
Appeal to rebellion: Conspiracy theory logical fallacies
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

Most conspiracy theories don't make sense nor withstand any scrutiny. They usually involve operations so immense that it's basically impossible for them to be kept secret, and all the proof given by conspiracy theorists usually have a very simple explanation (usually much simpler than the explanation given by the theorists).

Yet conspiracy theories are very popular and appealing. Even when they don't make sense and there's just no proof, many people still believe them. Why?

Here are some typical logical fallacies used by conspiracy theorists:

One big reason for this is that some conspiracy theorists are clever. They use psychology to make their theories sound more plausible. They appeal to certain psychological phenomena which make people to tend to believe them. However, these psychological tricks are nothing more than logical fallacies. They are simply so well disguised that many people can't see them for what they are.

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory: "In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"

In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!
As Oswald's late brother Robert once said (paraphrasing): "Asking questions about what happened is good, it's fine to challenge things. But after the tenth time, the twentieth.....it's over, let it go...."

Good faith questions are fine, are necessary. But these aren't good faith questions. When we have people saying there's "no evidence" that Oswald shot JFK  or "no evidence" he shot Tippit - no evidence at all - then we're not dealing with rational people or people engaged in good faith. We're dealing with a sort of cult mentality that is simply not reachable. It's useless. You can go over it again and again and again and you'll get denial after denial.

As to the "official story": You don't have to believe "the government." The assassination was investigated by major news organizations. They interviewed all of the key witnesses. Yes, they had to rely in part on evidence provided to them, e.g., the rifle, et cetera. But they conducted their own investigation and came to the same conclusions.

But they all lied. Or something. The fact that they found no conspiracy - that Oswald likely shot JFK - is just proof of the need for more investigations. And more questions.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 20, 2020, 01:38:09 AM
As Oswald's late brother Robert once said (paraphrasing): "Asking questions about what happened is good, it's fine to challenge things. But after the tenth time, the twentieth.....it's over, let it go...."

Good faith questions are fine, are necessary. But these aren't good faith questions. When we have people saying there's "no evidence" that Oswald shot JFK  or "no evidence" he shot Tippit - no evidence at all - then we're not dealing with rational people or people engaged in good faith. We're dealing with a sort of cult mentality that is simply not reachable. It's useless. You can go over it again and again and again and you'll get denial after denial.

As to the "official story": You don't have to believe "the government." The assassination was investigated by major news organizations. They interviewed all of the key witnesses. Yes, they had to rely in part on evidence provided to them, e.g., the rifle, et cetera. But they conducted their own investigation and came to the same conclusions.

But they all lied. Or something. The fact that they found no conspiracy - that Oswald likely shot JFK - is just proof of the need for more investigations. And more questions.
 


'Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy. Unless you ask a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist, that is. And if you ask enough Kennedy conspiracy theorists, you'll eventually reach the conclusion that Oswald was the only person alive in 1963 who wasn't involved.' — Steve Shives
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 20, 2020, 01:50:50 AM
What Chapman in his infinite wisdom refuses to admit is that the WC hypothesis has its own set of logical fallacies.

Nothing to admit: How would I know about any WC logical fallacies, since I apparently 'don't know the first first thing about the assassination' according to you. Not like you're contradicting yourself by trying to have it both ways.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 20, 2020, 07:34:20 AM
Nothing to admit: How would I know about any WC logical fallacies, since I apparently 'don't know the first first thing about the assassination' according to you. Not like you're contradicting yourself by trying to have it both ways.

Not only is that a false quote (shame on you), but there’s no contradiction either. You can be ignorant about something and still refuse to admit it.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Zeon Mason on December 21, 2020, 05:12:35 AM
IDK why LN have concluded that conspiracy is out of the question

The  theory that iF Oswalds is the one and only assassin , that his motive may be due to OCD and or schizophrenia is certainly a possibility.

The high school counselor thought Oswald might have had delusions of grandeur. However, it’s not  really unusual that teenagers may exhibit such symptoms.

There were the incidents of Oswald supposedly shooting himself in the USMC and the incident supposedly of attempting to slit his wrists in the USSR.

Not really sure myself if these events happened or not , however, EVEN IF they did and EVEN IF this can be posited as some kind of “evidence” to support a lone gunman theory, there is STILL a possibility of a conspiracy to USE this mentally unstable person and place him in proximity to JFK offered  on a silver platter, totally exposed,  and knowing just by arranging that simple proximity event, that the mentally unstable USMC defector will very likely act on his impulse.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 21, 2020, 05:51:35 AM
Not only is that a false quote (shame on you), but there’s no contradiction either. You can be ignorant about something and still refuse to admit it.

You've always said that I don't know anything about the assassination, in one way or another. Here's a variant:

(https://i.postimg.cc/28nbk8nb/no-nothing.png)

There are several more variants in my files and I'll be posting them as I come across them. For all to see.

Run, Johnny... run.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 21, 2020, 04:31:35 PM
You've always said that I don't know anything about the assassination, in one way or another. Here's a variant:

“Variant”, LOL.

I guess that’s your way of apologizing for falsely quoting me earlier. Apology accepted!
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 21, 2020, 07:14:24 PM
“Variant”, LOL.

I guess that’s your way of apologizing for falsely quoting me earlier. Apology accepted!

Guess again

Variant: something that is slightly different from other similar things
And you forgot my 'in one way or another' qualifier

Go ahead, ignore my cite

You're so easy to catch out
You're not running fast enough
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 22, 2020, 02:58:36 AM
What Chapman in his infinite wisdom refuses to admit is that the WC hypothesis has its own set of logical fallacies.
infinite indefinable wisdom....there-- fixed it for you(https://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/tiphat.gif)
 
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 22, 2020, 07:55:02 AM
Go ahead, ignore my cite

Your “cite” of me saying something different from what you quoted me as saying?

You really suck at this, don’t you?
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 22, 2020, 10:01:31 AM
Your “cite” of me saying something different from what you quoted me as saying?

You really suck at this, don’t you?

You're more desperate than you used to be
And Weidmann seems evermore 'thirsty'
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 23, 2020, 02:02:30 PM
James Taylor, the musician, is one of my most favorite. We saw him live in concert a few years back and it was great. Here (from an article in the AARP magazine) is what James Taylor had to say about the murder of John Lennon:

I lived between 73rd and 74th on Central Park West, and the Dakota was the next building down. The day before John was murdered, I stood right in front of the Dakota and a guy attached himself to me in a manic and alarming way. He just started talking a mile a minute at me. Eventually I just sort of scraped him off. I got out of the conversation as soon as possible and made it impact my doorman into the safety of my building. But in fact, that was Mark DAvid Chapman, the guy who killed John.

The next night, I;m talking on the phone, sitting in a window that looks out onto the back of the Dakota, when I heard five shots. The shots just reverberated through that courtyard. Booming shots, like from a large caliber weapon, like a .38. I thought to myself, That’s a police shooting right there. I told my friend on the phone, “You think things are crazy in Los Angeles, I just heard the cops shoot somebody down on the street.”

We signed off, said goodbye. Twenty minutes later she called me back and said, “That wasn’t a police shooting, James. That was John Lennon.”



Anyway, I thought this was an amazing example of what MDC has said his motive was. And I can only imagine how James Taylor must have felt when he realized that MDC just might have murdered him for the same motive. Wow!
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2020, 02:40:33 PM
Two of my favorite things about Oswald did it is his wearing his military ring the day he was arrested. I guess he forgot to chuck it in the Trinity River. It makes no sense.

And two - they have all of this great evidence about how he bought his pistol and rifle but where did he get the bullets? No evidence of that at all. There were three spent shells in the nest (snickers) and one in the rifle. You buy ammunition by the box - you know 20-50 rounds per box. Yet, no boxes found. No extra bullets found at, the Paine house? His rooming place? No extra rounds in his pockets to shoot his way out of the Depository. After all, he wanted infamy/glory right?

So, so funny.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 23, 2020, 02:53:58 PM
Two of my favorite things about Oswald did it is his wearing his military ring the day he was arrested. I guess he forgot to chuck it in the Trinity River. It makes no sense.

And two - they have all of this great evidence about how he bought his pistol and rifle but where did he get the bullets? No evidence of that at all. There were three spent shells in the nest (snickers) and one in the rifle. You buy ammunition by the box - you know 20-50 rounds per box. Yet, no boxes found. No extra bullets found at, the Paine house? His rooming place? No extra rounds in his pockets to shoot his way out of the Depository. After all, he wanted infamy/glory right?

So, so funny.


Shoot his way out of the Depository? The Sheriff’s office was cater-corner across the street, hence numerous police officers were in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD practically all the time. And LHO had to know this. He would have had more bullets in him than Bonnie and Clyde put together if he had tried to shoot his way out. His best chance to escape the TSBD was to blend-in and that is exactly what he did.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 23, 2020, 04:15:02 PM

Shoot his way out of the Depository? The Sheriff’s office was cater-corner across the street, hence numerous police officers were in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD practically all the time. And LHO had to know this. He would have had more bullets in him than Bonnie and Clyde put together if he had tried to shoot his way out. His best chance to escape the TSBD was to blend-in and that is exactly what he did.
Can you imagine - let's try for a second but just one - a defense lawyer stating in court that his client couldn't have shot the victim Smith because no box for the ammunition he used was found? Or that the police couldn't find where he purchased that ammunition?

I don't believe a jury would find that dismissive of the other evidence.

No box for the revolver bullets found on Oswald was discovered either. Nor did they find out where he purchased them. Does that mean the shells never existed? He didn't have them? What exactly?

Some people have an almost emotional need to exonerate Oswald. Mr. Walton has stated before that Oswald obviously didn't go to Mexico City since he denied going there. So the evidence that he did go there e.g., physical, eyewitness, circumstantial, is dismissed because he denied going there? Sorry, I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2020, 04:18:42 PM
You're missing my point, Charles. The topic here is Glory and Infamy.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BvjBPO1zYUs/X-NdVKS-xoI/AAAAAAAAFpY/xkHXSN-IqaoPJFJEkiXfniNaXfdFxkw0gCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/SHOOT-HIS-WAY.jpg)

And care to comment on why a supposed Marxist would be wearing his military ring? Don't just pick something that you have an easy answer for. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why he had that ring on, not only when he was arrested but also in the backyard photos.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2020, 04:24:03 PM
I think it would matter, Steve. And care to comment on the ring wearing? Because that ring goes against everything Oswald supposedly believed in.

There's nothing emotional about it, Steve. I advise you to read Accessories After the Fact. It's clear, concise and not a bit "emotional" and it was written by a woman to boot and it can be found free on the Internet. There have been miscarriages of justice all throughout history, Steve. It happens all of the time and Oswald simply did not have his day in court. It's as simple as that, Steve.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 23, 2020, 04:50:44 PM
You're missing my point, Charles. The topic here is Glory and Infamy.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BvjBPO1zYUs/X-NdVKS-xoI/AAAAAAAAFpY/xkHXSN-IqaoPJFJEkiXfniNaXfdFxkw0gCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/SHOOT-HIS-WAY.jpg)

And care to comment on why a supposed Marxist would be wearing his military ring? Don't just pick something that you have an easy answer for. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why he had that ring on, not only when he was arrested but also in the backyard photos.


It just might be... just maybe... perhaps it was because he actually was an ex-Marine. Joining the Marines was his ticket out of his mother’s house. Joining the Marines also was his ambition. He developed this ambition at least partially due to his older brothers’ military background. They were “training” him as early as age six with a piece of wood for a rifle.

Was LHO a gung-ho patriotic military man like a large percentage of the all-volunteer military members are today? Not no, but hell no. His Marxist beliefs were at odds with that idea. And his behavior while in the Marines and early exit from the Marines also indicate that he was not someone ready, willing, and able to sacrifice his life for his country.

However, LHO most definitely was someone with an over-inflated ego. And perhaps wearing the Marine Corps ring made him feel like people who noticed it would think he was more important or more noble, or something along those lines. Even if he was just secretly pretending to be something that he wasn’t.  Just a guess....
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 24, 2020, 04:27:52 AM
You're more desperate than you used to be
And Weidmann seems evermore 'thirsty'

I’m not the one jumping through hoops to try to excuse yet another error. Perhaps less time trying to be clever and more time verifying before you hit “post”.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 24, 2020, 04:30:55 AM
Anyway, I thought this was an amazing example of what MDC has said his motive was. And I can only imagine how James Taylor must have felt when he realized that MDC just might have murdered him for the same motive. Wow!

I’m confused. Nowhere in your James Taylor quote does he specify what Chapman said to him.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 24, 2020, 04:34:09 AM
Shoot his way out of the Depository? The Sheriff’s office was cater-corner across the street, hence numerous police officers were in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD practically all the time. And LHO had to know this. He would have had more bullets in him than Bonnie and Clyde put together if he had tried to shoot his way out. His best chance to escape the TSBD was to blend-in and that is exactly what he did.

And yet I’ve heard LNers also argue that the shooter chambered his fourth bullet in case he needed to shoot his way out.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 24, 2020, 04:39:57 AM
Can you imagine - let's try for a second but just one - a defense lawyer stating in court that his client couldn't have shot the victim Smith because no box for the ammunition he used was found? Or that the police couldn't find where he purchased that ammunition?

A defense lawyer doesn’t have to demonstrate that his client couldn’t have shot the victim.

Quote
No box for the revolver bullets found on Oswald was discovered either. Nor did they find out where he purchased them. Does that mean the shells never existed?

No, but it does make you wonder why they weren’t “found on Oswald” until hours after his arrest and detainment.

Quote
Some people have an almost emotional need to exonerate Oswald.

Sadly, far too many don’t feel any need (emotional or otherwise) to actually demonstrate with facts and reliable evidence that Oswald did it.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 24, 2020, 05:06:39 AM
Shoot his way out of the Depository? The Sheriff’s office was cater-corner across the street, hence numerous police officers were in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD practically all the time. 
So why would a shooter who was in a supremely elevated position not take them out too?---Be a real killer man. As fancy of a shot they say he was ...it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Answer--the whole thing was a big concocted story.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 24, 2020, 10:07:44 PM
I’m confused. Nowhere in your James Taylor quote does he specify what Chapman said to him.


MDC’s stated motive is in the article I linked to in the first post of this thread. That link doesn’t seem to be working right now. So here are some similar statements from a similar ABC article:


 https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mark-david-chapman-man-killed-john-lennon-parole/story?id=73149086 (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mark-david-chapman-man-killed-john-lennon-parole/story?id=73149086)


When asked if anything in this thinking had changed during the last 40 years of his incarceration about why he shot Lennon, Chapman said it boiled to glory.

"It was just self-glory, period," Chapman said. "It was nothing more than that. It boiled down to that. There's no excuses."

He had a list of three other potential targets in case Lennon did not work out.

"I came up with whatever famous people I could," the transcript said


One of the commissioners said, "You called it glory and some might call it infamy," to which Chapman replied, "Infamy brings glory.“



No James Taylor didn’t explicitly say in the AARP interview that he even knew MDC’s motive. However, it appears to me that James Taylor implied that he felt that he had had a close call with the same lunatic that murdered John Lennon because he was famous. James Taylor is also very famous and has plenty of devoted fans. JT isn’t stupid, MDC could have easily shot him instead.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 24, 2020, 10:46:39 PM
And yet I’ve heard LNers also argue that the shooter chambered his fourth bullet in case he needed to shoot his way out.


Using that last bullet in the rifle to shoot one of his coworkers that might either be on the sixth floor or come running onto the sixth floor from the stairwell is not the same as running away from the building carrying a rifle and attempting to shoot his way through a plethora of law enforcement officers.

He apparently wisely ditched the rifle once he reached the area near the stairwell. Blending in was his best chance of escape once he started encountering other people. And I believe that he instinctively knew that.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 24, 2020, 11:00:17 PM
So why would a shooter who was in a supremely elevated position not take them out too?---Be a real killer man. As fancy of a shot they say he was ...it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Answer--the whole thing was a big concocted story.

Answer--the whole thing was a big concocted story.


That’s what is called jumping to a conclusion.


The shooter in the University of Texas (a few years later) did that. But it doesn’t appear that LHO had that planned. However it is possible, I would guess, that he intended to go out with a bang. Shooting Tippit and pulling his gun on the officers in the Texas Theater indicate to me that he didn’t intend to go quietly.

Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 26, 2020, 12:00:23 AM
" the whole thing was a big concocted story."
That’s what is called jumping to a conclusion.

Actually...I didn't just jump to a conclusion. I came to a conclusion when I decided to not necessarily believe what I was told to believe but rather take an overall and objective look at motive, method and opportunity regarding the event.
 Believe what you wish .....if you believe in the story of Jack and the Beanstalk that would be OK because it is a more believable story than the Oswald did it [for no apparent reason at all] tale....
Which....I would almost have believed myself if he hadn't been silenced forever right there in the middle of the Dallas police station leaving everyone wondering--what really did happen?
This response should be the last word but I know it won't be....sheep have to always eat the very last blade of grass. 
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 26, 2020, 02:14:58 AM
" the whole thing was a big concocted story."
Actually...I didn't just jump to a conclusion. I came to a conclusion when I decided to not necessarily believe what I was told to believe but rather take an overall and objective look at motive, method and opportunity regarding the event.
 Believe what you wish .....if you believe in the story of Jack and the Beanstalk that would be OK because it is a more believable story than the Oswald did it [for no apparent reason at all] tale....
Which....I would almost have believed myself if he hadn't been silenced forever right there in the middle of the Dallas police station leaving everyone wondering--what really did happen?
This response should be the last word but I know it won't be....sheep have to always eat the very last blade of grass.


I would almost have believed myself if he hadn't been silenced forever right there in the middle of the Dallas police station leaving everyone wondering--what really did happen?

Yes, the murder of LHO by Jack Ruby was hard to swallow. You can see the visible expressions of exasperation on the faces of the DPD officers and other officials in photos and films taken in the immediate aftermath. I remember my own feelings (at 10-years of age) that that shouldn’t have happened. I still feel that way. But it did happen; and like most incidents that shouldn’t have happened, it appears to be the result of several different things. Bad decisions, insufficient security measures, and an emotional reaction all combined. I eventually came to understand and accept it.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 26, 2020, 07:30:05 AM
Answer--the whole thing was a big concocted story.


That’s what is called jumping to a conclusion.


The shooter in the University of Texas (a few years later) did that. But it doesn’t appear that LHO had that planned. However it is possible, I would guess, that he intended to go out with a bang. Shooting Tippit and pulling his gun on the officers in the Texas Theater indicate to me that he didn’t intend to go quietly.

Except he didn’t “pull his gun on the officers in the Texas Theater” and you don’t know that he shot Tippit. Speaking of jumping to conclusions...
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: Charles Collins on December 26, 2020, 12:28:27 PM
Except he didn’t “pull his gun on the officers in the Texas Theater” and you don’t know that he shot Tippit. Speaking of jumping to conclusions...



All you have is questions. When you come up with some reasonable answers, let us know.
Title: Re: Infamy = Glory??
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 26, 2020, 05:22:50 PM
All you have is questions. When you come up with some reasonable answers, let us know.

Making up an answer that you cannot demonstrate is actually true is not a virtue.