I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe the events of November 23rd were the product of the state of his marriage, the shift of his Marxist fantasies from the USSR to Cuba, the desperation flowing from his failed trip to Mexico City, the dumb luck that the Kennedy motorcade was going to pass directly beneath his window, and the last glimmers of hope to fulfill his destiny as a Great Figure In History (either in Cuba as the Revolutionary Hero Who Killed the American President or in the U.S. as the Great Marxist Thinker who used the assassination to give himself a forum for his grand views about all that is wrong with the world).

In short, I believe his life had reached a crescendo of desperation and that he was a bitter, angry and frustrated character who seized an opportunity that Fate seemed to have handed to him on a platter.

Perfect summary of the elusive motive that CTs are so concerned about.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Due to a group-think imposed on the publishing industry in 1967 by J. Edgar Hoover who leaned on all the publishers who inquired to him privately about all this conspiracy stuff.

So, it is your position that journalists honor this dictum from the long-dead Hoover to this day?

[Cliff Varnell]

28 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So, it is your position that journalists honor this dictum from the long-dead Hoover to this day?

No, it became a "group think" within academic/journalistic circles.  That group think prevails to this day.

The "critical community" dropped the ball when ambitious researchers marginalized the physical evidence, starting with Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas a/k/a" The Pet Theorists Handbook."

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Ever hear of Michael Yardley? He did it easily. Now, I will grant you that he was an expert and LHO was not. But what LHO accomplished (2 out of 3 hits in 8 or so seconds) was very possible given his ability.

http://www.positiveshooting.com/kennedyassassinationlatest.html

You know Tracy, your desire to present yourself as some kind of neutral arbiter simply does not work.

Did you even read the article, or you just don't give a GD what it says? 

He altered the rifle.  He also raised the time limit from the WC six seconds.

Keep this up and I will put you on ignore.

 

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I await the press conference announcing they have cracked the case. BTW Mathias, if you believe people like the ones you mention have reversed the WC and HSCA findings that LHO did it alone, how do you account for the fact that the mainstream media and the history book publishers have not picked up on this? Wouldn't this be the story of the century? Or could it be that the books are merely speculative in nature rather than scientific or legal proofs?

This one is even funnier.

Does Parnell read anything?  Paul Bleau did a very fine article for us on this issue.  The main authors of HS history textbooks were interviewed by Paul.  He asked them about their knowledge of things like the Church Committee, the HSCA, etc.  They said, words to the effect, "Didn't Posner cover that?"  "Didn't Bugliosi cover that?"  "Didn't Shenon cover that?" And this is now both they and the MSM work in tandem.  

I mean come on Parnell.  The MSM blew this case from the start.  In  1964, NBC proposed a special but they told the FBI they would follow their lead on the case. Roger Feinman and Bill Davy have proven that CBS hired McCloy and Dulles as their advisors on their 1967 special. This has all been documented by the ARRB and by the files Feinman got from CBS.  This is called an ethical journalistic violation.  One does not investigate a public controversy by having the people who perpetrated that scandal run the program you are preparing.  If that would have been fine, then why did CBS keep it a secret?  And then why did McCloy and Dick Salant then lie about it afterward to Roger?  And why did Roger then get fired for trying to expose how bad this really was?

Don't tell me you are ignorant of that one too?  The entire top management of CBS, Salant, Stanton and Paley, literally rolled over the middle management and producers who wanted to do a real inquiry into the WC, since they suspected it was a bunch of crapola, which is the case.  Imean this is the way that power works in this country.  Or are you not aware of that either?  Look at what happened to Gary Webb, Dick Sprague, Jim Garrison, Bob Parry, Judge Joe Brown etc.  And did you never hear of that great line by Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to make a journalist understand a point when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

He should know since the LA Times wrecked his candidacy for governor.   Just like they ruined Webb's career and life.

I mean, you need to read some stuff about how the Power Elite works.  Either that or you are feigning obtuseness. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

I'd forgotten Upton Sinclair ran for governor.  I think the Instructor or Professor mentioned it in discussion after we read The Jungle.  Or I read it somewhere later.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

He [Michael Yardley] also raised the time limit from the WC six seconds.

The conspiracy theorists never get tired of repeating this worn-out myth, do they James?

The fact is, however, that the Warren Commission never said that Oswald had only "six seconds" to get off his three rifle shots (or 5.6 seconds, which is the common fallacy uttered constantly by CTers). Read Page 117 of the Warren Report. The WC allows for the possibility of Oswald having up to 7.9 seconds for the three shots that he fired. But CTers will always ignore Page 117. I wonder why....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

Edited October 9, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

The conspiracy theorists never get tired of repeating this worn-out myth, do they James?

The fact is, however, that the Warren Commission never said that Oswald had only "six seconds" to get off his three rifle shots (or 5.6 seconds, which is the common fallacy uttered constantly by CTers). Read Page 117 of the Warren Report. The WC allows for the possibility of Oswald having up to 7.9 seconds for the three shots that he fired. But CTers will always ignore Page 117. I wonder why....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

Count David.  One thousand one, one thousand two...one thousand 8 (7.9).  Watch the Zapruder film, again.  Do you Really Think the flurry of shots Kellerman described took that long?

[David Von Pein]

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Do you really rhink the flurry of shots Kellerman described took that long?

Roy Kellerman's "flurry" testimony is easily (and reasonably) explained within the context of Oswald being the lone gunman....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Roy+Kellerman's+Flurry

[Cory Santos]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The physical evidence in a homicide case is the sun around which all other evidence revolves.

Any citizen investigating a homicide who doesn't first examine the evidence found with the body should do the world a favor and find another hobby.

You acknowledge the jacket was elevated "a little bit"!

It's over, David.

LOL, why do I even enter into the fray, Cliff is right on this.  Its so right its actually funny, kinda.  

[Cory Santos]

10 hours ago, François Carlier said:

You are wrong.
You seem not to know very much about the single bullet.
Serious studies have been made about the single bullet. Researchers have used measurements, complex calculations, computer reenactments, and all that sort of things.
To name just three of them :
2003 : the computer animation made by Dale Myers ("The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy")
2004 : the reenactment in "JFK. Beyond the magic bullet", Discovery Channel
2013 : "Cold Case JFK". Nova
They used forensic science and their expertise and showed a re-enactment that goes a long way in proving that the single bullet theory is indeed valid.
Indeed, they did the best they could : they duplicated the path of travel of the bullet.
What is important to underline here is that those people are not from the CIA, or FBI or some type of "hidden government". They are just honest citizens. And they have brought independent confirmation. That's very important !
The single-bullet theory is not just a theory invented by the Warren commission to fool the American people (if it was, it would be easy to disprove it), but it is the most reasonable explanation of the shooting sequence and it has been repeatedly confirmed over the years, by independent people wo didn't know each other. That's very powerful !
See also this very interesting video (interview) :
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=documentary+the+single+bullet+theory&view=detail&mid=319DBF144FED8377E724319DBF144FED8377E724&FORM=VIRE

LOL, again, you do realize the computer simulation is based on math put into the computer?  Yes or no?

LOL, again, you do realize that if you put incorrect information into the computer the simulation is incorrect?  Yes or no?

LOL, again, you do realize that the information put into his simulation was based on incorrect information?  Yes or no?

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 7:25 AM, François Carlier said:

Mister DiEugenio,
You remind me of the movie JFK when Judge Haggerty says : "If that's your case, you didn't have a case !".
Indeed, if one of the "strongest" part of your case is the make-believe idea that Ruby shot Oswald on a mission, then, as David Von Pein puts it, it shows how lousy your case is !
Let me reply to you.
First of all, I did not cut off your post in order to avoid anything. I am easily ready to deal with anything you say, as it is wrong 99% of the time…
(Which is sad, as you are a hard-working person. You could spend your time working on true historic mysteries, instead of wasting it on a wild-goose chase. Anyway…)
Was Ruby "stalking" Oswald ? I don't know, and you don't either. Yes, Ruby was at the DPD that week-end, nobody denies it. For one thing, he lived in Dallas, which made it easy for him to be at the DPD. I'm sure that a lot of Americans would have loved to be there too, just as much as Jack Ruby, but those living in California or Florida, for instance, would have found the "commuter" trip a bit time-consuming !
Secondly, there were quite a few people who wanted Lee Oswald dead that fateful week-end. You know that there had been death threats against Oswald. He was despised. He had killed the President. Some people shouted "revenge" ! Jack Ruby may have been such a person.
I do believe that Jack Ruby came down the main ramp. I say so in my book. I went there myself more than once.
Remember that the Commerce Street exit ramp was blocked by a truck at that moment. Therefore a DPD officer (I forgot his name, and I am not writing from my desk right now) had to drive out through the main ramp, which is normally an entrance. Therefore (and that is important) the police officer who was guarding the main ramp entrance (his name was Vaughn, I think, I am not sure and can't check, so please bear with me) had to stop the traffic, because a car going out of the DPD building there and merging into traffic was something unusual and unexpected. So, when the police officer went to stop traffic, it would have been easy for Ruby to walk down the ramp unnoticed.
That's easy to understand.
Having said, that, I have no problem with the idea of Ruby taking another path and walking through stairs and doors which may not have been as secured as we had been told.
Though I doubt it, since he himself said that he recognized the driver of the police car that went up the main street ramp.
One way or another, he went there on an impulse.
Again, you are grasping at straws. When Jack Ruby arrived at the DPD that day, Lee Oswald was supposed to have already left.
Some plot…
Besides, as some researchers have said, the conspirators decide to have Oswald silenced by Ruby. Then, someone has to silence Ruby. And then someone has to silence the guy who silenced Ruby.
I mean, silencing Oswald at the DPD, being certain to be arrested on the spot by the police ? Some plot…
Now, wait a minute. Are you denying that Ruby went to the Western Union office ?
If not, why did he go there ? Was it part of the plot ? "Go and kill Oswald in front of the whole police department, please, but make sure you send a non-important telegram beforehand !".
Some plot…
If you admit that Ruby did go to the Western Union office, how did he know how long it would take, and how many customers were in front of him waiting in line ?
As to the rest of your post, well, as far as the interviews being rigged by the FBI, well, I wonder what was not rigged in the investigation, according to you.
You are conveniently setting aside the fact that Jack Ruby did not talk only to FBI agents. He talked to a lot of people over the years. A lot. He even talked to his brother and his rabbi. So whatever the FBI rigged could not prevent us from knowing what Ruby had to say.
Lastly, I see that you take hand-picked bits of sentences by witnesses to try to prove your point, when you know very well that there were hundreds of people who gave testimony, amounting to thousands of sentences. A good researcher should know about the vulnerability of human memory.
A good researcher should not only collect information, he should synthetize that information !
The key is to get the general picture, no to hand-pick some tiny bits here and there out of context just because they suit your preconceived beliefs.
You should understand that by now !

Impulse?  Ruby shot him on impulse?  Sir, you probably therefore have not interviewed people that personally knew Ruby.  I have.  Ruby was smarter than some impulse drive baboon.  I note you fail to mention where he ate dinner before he shot Oswald.  Have you concluded how he knew Oswald was in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?  No, you apparently have not.  Aw, mentioning Judge Hagerty.  Well, lets examine that.  If Garrison had the photo of Owsald with Ferrie, if Garrison had been given access to certain witnesses, if he had been given access to certain evidence, if Garrision's investigation was not being watched and actually interfered with, perhaps the outcome would have been different.  Certainly, it could not come out that Shaw had an extensive and well connected intelligence background, among other connections I shall not discuss.

I think your attacks on Jim show you to lack the ability to debate an issue.  Rather, personal insults seem proper.  Jim needs no protection from me.  Your comment about silencing, it is from Bugliosi, don't pretend its your thinking.  

Lets dissect that shall we.  Lets speculate (since your above comments are speculation) Ruby meets for dinner at the Egyptian Lounge (great food by the way).  He is told, well, Oswald was not killed by Tippit, you guaranteed us the job would get done.  You do it or else.  Its really that simple.  Not impulse as you suggest, fear.  BTW, he is told, you will be protected, our lawyers will help you, and, the public will support you.  

So, he does it.  Silence is golden when you realize what you are against.  Oswald did not realize that.

Then something happens, which you fail to mention, on appeal, the Court sends it back down for retrial.  Also, he starts talking to Dorothy Kilgoran.  Uh oh.  Problem.

Your logic about having to silence people is fantasy.  In reality, there would be no assassinations or coups because under your theory, the shooters and plotters must be killed.

In reality, people know to keep quiet.  If they are smart.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

BTW, you lone nutters realize Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy right?

I mean, when I was in school I was merely told JWB did it.  Nothing about a conspiracy.  Wonder why that was left out of the textbooks?

Maybe those who vilify conspiracy-which so much of what happens is some way or another- are just desperate snowflakes hoping to feel safe like they did when they were kids and spoon fed lies.

Jim, is that what is going on here?

[James DiEugenio]

Its called denial Cory.

 

BTW, why did that idiot Thompson call his book Six Seconds in Dallas?

[James DiEugenio]

And Cory, I went through all that stuff, but you took it back to the Egyptian and Campisi.  BTW, was he not the first guy to talk to Ruby after he was incarcerated?

Don Flusche did not mean anything to these deniers. And the fact that the DPD kept him from the WC means less.  

 Neither did Griffin blowing up at Dean--and this was the WC!!  Even Griffin knew Dean was lying.

Flunk your lie detector test--even though you wrote the questions--does not mean anything either.  Pass your polygraph with flying colors, like Vaughn, so what?

The FBI rigs Ruby's polygraph, hey says lawyer Payette, what do you want to make of that?  Well Lancel, how about that the WC fell for it, hook, line and sinker.  And Jean Davison did not note it even though her book was published four years after the HSCA.  This is the kind of scholarship DVP likes. 

The HSCA concludes that Ruby came in the back way, and Dean lied about that door being secured.  Big deal says the lawyer.  Its just perjury.  DVP says oh really where did they say that?

BTW, the last really did happen.  DVP did not even know that was in the HSCA volumes.  This is objective reasoning says Lance.

Geez, 

Edited October 9, 2018 by James DiEugenio