Paul Troglia

Hi Tom, Thanks for your answer, Tom. One thing more: In your view, if Oswald did it alone, would everything else be the truth?

Thank you, Ron, for your response. For my own peace of mind, let me ask you: If conspirators were caught and charged, but did not satisfy your interpretation of the crime, would you continue the academic exercise? By the way, your earlier post saying that solving the crime is an honorable and worthwhile endeavor and the least we can do for Kennedy, was well said. And something I think we both agree on.

Hi Antti, I think your first reason is probably going to come out as the big one for most people. The more you read, the more it seems like something else, and the more interesting it becomes. Let me ask you, would you continue to explore the assassination if it got boring? Thanks Antti, you have been most helpful, as have the other members. PT

It would be interesting to know why it was refused to take Ruby to Washington. If they were really looking for answers from Ruby and, as I did read somewhere, he said he would talk but not in Dallas what were the reasons not to take him to Washington? IMO the lie dedector test is even today a very argumentative technique and many countries over here do not allow the results in court and it can not be ordered by a prosecuter (e.g. Germany). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi George, You're right about the effectiveness of lie detectors. As I read the transcript provided by Jim Root, you can see that what words are used in the questions affect the result. For instance, if someone said to me, while I was connected to a lie detector, "Did you ever cut diamonds?" I would answer yes, only because I mowed the lawn for our baseball team. The result would be a truthful statement, which would raise suspicion on the part of the investigators. Paul Troglia

Paul, First of all, several of the significant players are still alive. Secondly, I won't give a speech about truth, justice and the American way(well, maybe justice). What bothers me the most is that several agencies of the United States government and its employees were either involved, had prior knowledge of the event, or knew what happened after the fact, and did or said nothing. For me there is nothing spiritual about it. The President was murdered as a result of a conspiracy, for political reasons, whatever they may be. Everyone has their own opinion as to why, and I have mine, but the basic fact of the matter is that there are conspirators running around free, the US government knows it, and in many cases, has protected them and covered up their deed for 41 years. It's about time the lies stop, and those responsible are identified and dealt with. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________--- I am not sure what Paul and now RJS is referring to, if I ever used the word "spiritual" in any contxt with the assassination of jfk it could only have to do with the fact that I equate "spreading the TRUTH about the conspiracy of the assassination" to "spreading the Gospel". For me it is all the same thing. Lisa Pease and I had a great email exchange about this right after Gary Webb died . She referred to someone at the memorial saying that (and this is a parphrase) their God is Jusitce, or perhaps it was Truth, forget the exact words, but it lead to a series of emails with Lisa and I on this subject. Being TRUTH and it's importance, no matter what the subjcet. How the Republicans in the WH lie and call themselves Godly men and how ugly that is. SO I do not have time to find the post now referred to twice, but if I used the word "spiritual" it was in that sense. That for me trying to educate people to the fact that we have a government and media of liars is a spiritual experience for me. Sorry if this is not as coherent as I would like. Late for court and will be gone all day so wanted to respond to this. Dawn ps Paul Why do you keep starting threads on this forum since you have made clear that you believe LHO did it alone????? thanx in advance for your response.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because it's supposed to be a debate. PT

Paul, First of all, several of the significant players are still alive. Secondly, I won't give a speech about truth, justice and the American way(well, maybe justice). What bothers me the most is that several agencies of the United States government and its employees were either involved, had prior knowledge of the event, or knew what happened after the fact, and did or said nothing. For me there is nothing spiritual about it. The President was murdered as a result of a conspiracy, for political reasons, whatever they may be. Everyone has their own opinion as to why, and I have mine, but the basic fact of the matter is that there are conspirators running around free, the US government knows it, and in many cases, has protected them and covered up their deed for 41 years. It's about time the lies stop, and those responsible are identified and dealt with. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________________--- I am not sure what Paul and now RJS is referring to, if I ever used the word "spiritual" in any contxt with the assassination of jfk it could only have to do with the fact that I equate "spreading the TRUTH about the conspiracy of the assassination" to "spreading the Gospel". For me it is all the same thing. Lisa Pease and I had a great email exchange about this right after Gary Webb died . She referred to someone at the memorial saying that (and this is a parphrase) their God is Jusitce, or perhaps it was Truth, forget the exact words, but it lead to a series of emails with Lisa and I on this subject. Being TRUTH and it's importance, no matter what the subjcet. How the Republicans in the WH lie and call themselves Godly men and how ugly that is. SO I do not have time to find the post now referred to twice, but if I used the word "spiritual" it was in that sense. That for me trying to educate people to the fact that we have a government and media of liars is a spiritual experience for me. Sorry if this is not as coherent as I would like. Late for court and will be gone all day so wanted to respond to this. Dawn ps Paul Why do you keep starting threads on this forum since you have made clear that you believe LHO did it alone????? thanx in advance for your response.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello Dawn, This is your reference to spirituality I mentioned. SO forums do matter. YOu find others who care as much as you do. And some who just say they do. You develop the instinct to know the difference. It's virtual spiritual warfare. But then, look at the damn wold....duh. Dawn..

Hello to all: I am the guy who started the string called "Why Was the Assassination Necessary?" I asked that question as a challenge to conspiracy theories, not as justification for them. I think Oswald did it alone. What has emerged from the give and take of that discussion offers, at least to me, a topic worthy of a parallel string. And that is this: Why do you care? That may sound blunt, and maybe the answer (I assume it is for Truth, Justice and the American Way) is obvious, but there must be something else. The erudition, the detail, the credible fine-tuning of analysis, and the passion you bring to the debate is beyond the obvious to me. We're in the third generation since the assassination, the significant players are all dead, the "usual suspects" are all dead (Castro must mainline St. John's Wort), everything but a confession has been wrung out of the few witnessses alive today, certainly "The Conspiracy" is dead. Kids point to the evidence on field trips to the archives and giggle--a bloody shirt, Exhibit 399, a Manlicher-Carcano-- and, yes, I know, you can see the autopsy on the Internet. I believe if someone were to give a death-bed confession to everything while connected to a lie detector, the pursuit still would not end. One of the members in this forum, Dawn Meredith, said something in one of her posts that was intriguing. She thought the passion was spiritual. Is that it? I have to know. The answer may be the only pure, clean thing to come out of that dreadful day so many years ago.

Hello again Jim, I read your post vis a vis Ruby and the lie detector, and I am impressed with your analysis. You definitely don't allow inconsistencies, regardless of how minor they seem to be, escape you. I say that as a compliment. But to me, the greater "truth" in the whole test was the revelation that Ruby was capable of and had been violent (beating up the anti-Semite) in the past and lied about it. Why he would lie about having been in trouble before, when the "trouble" he was in now blew that off the map, is revealing of his character. For me, it reinforces the notion that the guy had trouble with reality, or, at least, proportion. But to your question, did Ruby's religion play a part in the death of Lee Harvey Oswald: Yes. But I'm not saying Judaism, or any Jewish cabal, or Israel. It was a factor in his personality, and his defensiveness about it and his sensitivity to it, I believe, were critical in his hair-trigger mood swings. By the way, and I know you know this, but Ruby was in line in a telegraph office before he shot Oswald. One more customer in front of him, and he would have missed the transfer. I think it shows Ruby didn't "plan" the killing per se, just lost it, as he had before, and, well, the rest we know.

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer. Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ___________________________________-- Paul: Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone. Are you working for Posner??? I still think you are a put on. And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers). The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dawn, I will do just that--rent the video. And because it is you, I'll watch it with a keen eye. But I gotta tell ya, the Zapruder film, the real thing, has been analyzed more than "Citizen Kane" and with more than just a stop watch and eye loup. You mentioned in an earlier post that there is a spiritual aspect to all of this. I believe you have said it perfectly. That is the core of all conspiracy theories. The desire, the need, the craving to lead people out of a desert they believe they're in. Alas, it is all mirage, for he who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

Hi Tim, You're right about not calling someone a Communist (to the extent that it is bad to be a Communist), but I do not lose sleep calling Oswald a murderer (and a lot of other things, like twerp and wife-beater). In fact, he was a multiple murderer (Kennedy and Tippit). It is also a legal principle in this country that a statement is not libelous or slanderous if it is true. PS: The precise definition of "twerp" I'm not sure of but if you look it up in the dictionary, you'll probably see Oswald's picture. PPS: As a devotee of conspiracy theories, have you ever felt like a rat in a maze that never gets to the gumdrop?

Hi Jim, I have heard of David Marcus. He was buried at West Point after serving in the Israeli Army. Something of a historical oddity. Does he have connections to any of our cast of characters?

Okay Jim, you win. I am willing to concede the motivation for Oswald to kill the president is open to debate, and that in that arena, nobody is "wrong." But I must go along with the Commission that it was Oswald, to the exclusion of all others, who sat in the 6th floor window on Novemember 22, 1963-- no patsies, no accomplices in the sewers, nobody on the knoll, no Lyndon Johnson, no Texas oilmen or Cubans or Santos Trafficante or Haliburton-- just him and him alone. You're dedication to this 40 year old story is compelling. I don't know if this happens to you or not, but every time I think about this thing, it's as if it happened yesterday, as though the cast of characters is still around. We are talking about people, long dead, their stories buried long ago. And even if there was a conspiracy (there wasn't), it's dead too. So why are we playing with this stuff? And now Jim, tell me about Ruby.

To all people on the JFK Assassination Debate string: Anybody know how to get this string to not have so many repeating entries. Sometimes answers don't correspond to the original post, or copies of copies appear. It gets hard to follow. Same concerns, anyone? I tried Help, but no luck. Sorry for the break in the discussion.

Hi Jim, I will have to think about your premise, "The Warren Report as written does not work if Oswald does not take the shot at Walker." At last, a statement that has some teeth in it. They may be false teeth, but at least it's teeth. My gut reaction is to say OK, because the Warren Report is only one conclusion, albeit a sound one (from my point of view) based on the 26 volumes which include that "very slippery fellow." Maybe the lone assassin theory needs tweeking in that Oswald met Walker, a known Kennedy hater, who said something to him like, "Why don't you shoot the bastard." Not exactly a finely-honed conspiracy, but close enough, I guess. The problem for me is Walker was a right wing nut and Oswald a left wing nut who would have cross-threaded each other. The chance of them meeting and talking about anything seems slim to me. They probably would have shot each other on sight. But like I said, let me think on this.

I read your post about Walker, Jim, and I don't think the difference between Marina's telling of the shooting and the German newspaper knowledge means much of anything. Walker probably told a bunch of his lunatic fringe that somebody shot at him. That's a big deal in his circle. And as far as how the newspaper knew he was at the hotel. Frankly, they could call his office and ask. You have my utmost respect for having read the 26 volumes. By the way, I used to be on your side, a long time ago, when the books started coming. But what happened was I got to know more and more about less and less-- the wood in the window, the chicken in Oswalds stomach, the speed of Zapruder's camera, the color of Billy Lovelady's shirt, Ruth Paine's communist husband, the length of a curtain rod--and I ended up losing the picture in the mosaic for the accuracy of an individual tile. I guess all I'm saying is , okay, some of the little things didn't always add up, but the farther back I stood, the clearer the picture became.

Hey Paul the problem I have with the "Lone gunman" theory. If LHO was that cold- blooded hitman why did he miss Gen. Walker who was an easy target, sitting in a well lighted room at his desk. Compared to the moving JFK , this target was only good for "warming up" . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He missed. He missed one out of three with Kennedy, too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is this "group of people" other than Oswald? Where is the evidence other than supposition. If "simple as that" is your criterion, then the simplest of all is one man--Oswald-- and no conspirators other than his own sociopathic demons. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> /quote] Paul, you are a correct that the simplest solution would be a single shooter, Oswald. Unfortunately, the evidence, even the evidence accepted by the Warren Commission, points toward the likelihood of a second shooter. A second shooter implies a conspiracy, "a group of people." If you go to the JFK online seminars section of this forum, you will find my seminar on the autopsy photos, and why I believe they show evidence of a second shooter. Please read. Elsewhere in this thread you have cited the Neutron Activation analysis done by Vincent Guinn, (performed for the HSCA, by the way) which supposedly proved the so-called "magic bullet" had passed through the wrist of Governor Connally, and thus, the single bullet theory. I contend it actually proves nothing, and suggests the opposite conclusion than what was given. Here is a summary of Guinn's results, taken from his testimony before the HSCA. sample antimony sample silver sample copper 6001c2 1235 141oswald 22.4 6002d 4516 6001c 1218 573 walker 20.6 6001a 2766 6001c3 1156 6001b2 16.6 842 wrist 994 6001c rt 1139 6003a 15.9 6001c1 391 6001c1 1062 6003a rt 15.9 6000a 372 6002b2 *1007 6001b 15.3 6003a2 257 6002b1 *990 6001b1 15.3 6000b 167 6002a1 *983 6001b4 15 6001d 147 6002b *949 6001b3 13.9 6002c 120 6002b4 946 6000b 13.5 573 walker 100 6002b3 942 6001a 12.2 6001c rt 67 6002a3 882 6000a 11.8 6003b 62 6002a2 *869 6001d 11.6 399 magic 58 399 magic **833 6002b4 10.7 6002a2 58 842 wrist **797 6002a1 10.3 6001c 48 6001b4 *791 6002a3 10.2 6002a rt 45 6001b *732 6002b2 10.1 840a floor 44 6003a *730 6001c2 10.1 840b floor 42 6003a rt***667 6002a2 9.9 567 seat 40 840b floor***647 6002b3 9.8 843 brain 40 6001b2 ****646 6003a3 9.8 6003c 36 6001b3 ****646 842 wrist 9.8 6002a1 34 840a floor*****638 6002b 9.7 6002a 30 843 brain****621 6002b1 9.7 6002a3 30 6001b1 ****621 6003a1 9.6 6003a1 28 567 seat***602 6001c1 9.5 6003a rt 27 6003c *464 6001c3 9.2 6002b 25 6003a3 *441 6002a 9.1 6002b3 24 6003a1 *395 6002a rt 9.1 6002b4 24 6002a *385 6003c 8.8 6001b 23 6003a2 *363 6003d 8.7 6001c3 23 6002a rt*358 840a floor 8.6 141oswald 22 6000b *261 6001c 8.5 6003a 21 6003d *240 6001c rt 8.5 6001b4 20 6000a **173 6003a2 8.3 6001c2 20 6001d **161 6002d 8.3 6001b2 19 6001a **158 567 seat 8.1 6001b1 19 6002d 121 843 brain 7.9 6001b3 18 6003b 80 6003b 7.9 6003d 17 6002c **24 840b floor7.9 6003a3 16 573 walker**17 399 magic7.9 6002b1 16 141oswald**15 6002c 6 6002b2 10 * denotes within 36 ppm of one other sample ** denotes within 36 ppm of two other samples *** denotes within 36 ppm of three other samples **** denotes within 36 ppm of four other samples ***** denotes within 36 ppm of five other samples Guinn initially tested the recovered bullets and fragments on 8 elements. Unfortunately, of all the items tested, the wrist fragment was the least like the magic bullet. He then narrowed it down to just three elements, antimony, silver, and copper, and tested a number of other 6.5 mm M/C bullets for comparison. He found here that the magic bullet and wrist fragment sit side by side on antimony, and decided from this that therefore it was highly probable they were from the same bullet. Unfortunately, if one were to use this same logic, that residing within 36ppm on antimony is an indication that two fragments come from the same bullet, then over half of the other bullets tested were highly probable to be the same bullet as another bullet tested, even though it might be from another test lot, from another year. In short, his results were gobbledy-gook. He found there was little uniformity when doing repeat tests of the same bullet, and from slice to slice within the same bullet. In fact, if anything, his tests showed that the wrist fragment is most likely NOT from the "magic bullet." When one looks at the fragments found in Kennedy's brain and in the car, one finds that these 4 fragments have a variance of 45 on antimony, .7 on silver, and 4 on copper. The 2 other items purported to be related, the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, have a variance of 36 on antimony, 1.9 on silver, and 946 on copper. Since the variance of 4 related items should be much greater than the variance of 2 related items, this is a strong argument that the magic bullet and the wrist fragment came from separate sources. But even this argument is questionable due to the unreliability of neutron activation analysis when applied to M/C ammunition. Bullets 6001b and 6003a, for example, came within 2ppm on antimony, .6 on silver, and 2ppm on copper, making them nearly identical, even though they came from different lots from different years, and were shown to be quite different through repeated tests. The only conclusion possible is that Guinn saw what either he wanted to see or what he was told to see; his report shows that no scientific match between the magic bullet and the wrist fragment exists. I urge you to go back and read the reports by the Government "experts" and not rely on the likes of Lattimer and Posner. Every report I've studied, from Guinn to Baden to Canning to Sturdivan, has been so full of holes it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. P.S. Sorry about the weird appearance of the chart. There were supposed to be three columns. I'm not sure why all the spaces were removed between the columns, but they were. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You certainly do get specific, Pat, and I applaud your perserverance in actually trying to get some facts. But if a different bullet caused Connolly's wrist injury, unless it was a piece of a bullet, it would have blown his wrist off. That didn't happen. And the best video of all, the Zapruder film, doesn't show any violent reaction. So it makes sense that a fragment, fired in the same time sequence as the first shot, struck Connolly. Hey, you don't suppose there is some conspiracy to mess up your chart, do you?

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer. Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ___________________________________-- Paul: Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone. Are you working for Posner??? I still think you are a put on. And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers). The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Dawn, My goodness, no, I don't know the rules of evidence, voir dire or any of those legal skills. My assertion that I'd love to prosecute the case was meant only as reference to which side has the most evidence, hard facts, to support its case. And while I understand why so many people think there was a conspiracy, I just think a proper debate should have the opposite side presented. There are certainly others much more qualified than I to do that, but I guess I'm all you've got. I don't work for Posner--he thought I was too much of a conspiracy buff (just kidding).

Thanks, Jim. Be glad to read it. You're good.

AND nearly as long, the Conspiracy side of the story... how's that for staying power? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The conspiracy side is not a side, it is a thousand sides, accusing everyone and everything of taking part in the assassination. For heaven's sake, someone on this sight is even blaming Haliburton! No, don't close the sight down, but please, don't become the Flat Earth Society either.

Hey Paul the problem I have with the "Lone gunman" theory. If LHO was that cold- blooded hitman why did he miss Gen. Walker who was an easy target, sitting in a well lighted room at his desk. Compared to the moving JFK , this target was only good for "warming up" . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He missed.

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer. Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt?

Tim, you're absolutely right. The worst part of the whole Kennedy Assassination epic (not counting, of course, the assassination itself) is the murder of Oswald. What answers we might have been given at a trial! So now, we are left to conduct the trial ourselves. But I tell you what, I'm glad I have the role of prosecutor in the case against Oswald than defense attorney.

I bow to your expertise, Jim, and your dedication to researching the likes of that nefarious duo, General Walker and Maxwell Taylor. And the travels of Oswald have been studied more than those of Ulysses. So I'm asking, what evidence is there that those two guys, or anyone else for that matter, put Oswald in the window on November 22, 1963.

Who is this "group of people" other than Oswald? Where is the evidence other than supposition. If "simple as that" is your criterion, then the simplest of all is one man--Oswald-- and no conspirators other than his own sociopathic demons.