I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Mark Lawson]

42 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I'm with Bart Kamp on this -- LOCK IT UP

I respectfully request otherwise.  Yes, this discussion is often contentious and sometimes testy (or worse), but as a newbie to this quest for - by now ongoing since November of 1963 - I am learning much from the best of the researchers here.  Please be respectful - but please do  keep this message thread open.  ML

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said:

I respectfully request otherwise.  Yes, this discussion is often contentious and sometimes testy (or worse), but as a newbie to this quest for - by now ongoing since November of 1963 - I am learning much from the best of the researchers here.  Please be respectful - but please do  keep this message thread open.  ML

Mark, I'm just having some fun.

To me the only intellectually honest response to this thread is mirth and ridicule.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Mark Lawson]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

To me the only intellectually honest response to this thread is mirth and ridicule.

"Mirth and ridicule" to the *thread*, in toto, perhaps - but there still are some gold nuggets to be found here.  I will attempt to add some additional, first-hand observations later.  Stay tuned....  ML

[Rick McTague]

41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

The explosive force of the Z313 head shot was probably a pretty good sign to Oswald that he had hit (and killed) his target. There was no need to fire a 4th shot at all. So he didn't. (He chambered the fourth bullet, but decided he didn't need to kill the dead man again.) [IMHO]

David,

Your post brings to mind two questions I have:

1. Did LHO use the same type of ammo in those 4 rounds? (Type being full metal jacket, jacketed hollow point (JHP), or frangible, etc.)

2. Why didn't LHO load the MC clip full? It holds 6 rounds and there was evidence of only 4 in the TSBD.

Thanks

 

[David Von Pein]

James DiEugenio said:

You and the WC can make up all kinds of conditionals and improbabilities, but that is what is on the film. If you say the film is genuine, and you do, you are stuck with it. Are you really going to say that JFK was hit at 167 and he did not register a reaction until he is behind the sign?

No, I'm simply going to say that James Tague was probably not 100% accurate when it comes to his timeline for the shooting event in Dealey Plaza. Tague was, IMO, very likely struck by a fragment from the first (missed) shot. But he could possibly have been hit by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) instead. I'm not so stubborn to insist that it HAD to be the first shot that struck Tague on the cheek. Maybe it was a fragment from the third shot. The angle from Oswald's window to Tague's position near the Underpass is certainly a better angle for the third shot than it was for the first.

But you, Jim, seem to think that I (and the Warren Commission) are forced to believe that Tague was struck by the second shot and the first shot definitely hit JFK in the back. But I'm not going to box myself into those restrictions. A lot of people were wrong (IMO) when they said they thought Kennedy was struck by the first bullet. But after examining the totality of the evidence (and the statements made by the other victim in the limousine, John B. Connally), it's quite clear to me that JFK was not hit by the first shot. He and Connally were hit by the second bullet.
 

James DiEugenio said:

A major problem for the other side has always been that 6 second time frame. The WC itself used it for both sets of tests they ran. Which means they knew that was the time frame. Realizing what a problem it would pose when other people read the report, they stuck that page in it that DVP uses. Knowing that the Z film would wreck that qualification, but gambling that no one would go to DC to watch it. Because when you watch it, and when you understand what Tague said, the time frame is six seconds. And it gets even worse when you use the actual rifle--which as we know, is the wrong one.

And you've been presented a perfectly logical and rational explanation for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy in the rifle, haven't you Jim? Yes, you have, because I presented it to you (at the link below). You just refuse to budge an inch in your pathetic year-round efforts to take that Carcano rifle out of the hands of the person who so obviously ordered it---Lee H. Oswald.

Edited October 12, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

This thread is interesting reading, even though it has veered far off the original topic. I could easily respond to a dozen posts here and ask a dozen more questions on top of that, but I don't want to clutter things up.

I appreciate those who think LHO acted alone. Even though I believe otherwise, IMHO this case deserves the most thorough examination possible. Only by determined advocacy of the opposing side can the facts be examined in the clearest light.

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

David,

Your post brings to mind two questions I have:

1. Did LHO use the same type of ammo in those 4 rounds? (Type being full metal jacket, jacketed hollow point (JHP), or frangible, etc.)

Yes, the 4 rounds were all of one type --- FMJ / Western Cartridge Company / Mannlicher-Carcano / 6.5 mm. bullets.

 

Quote

2. Why didn't LHO load the MC clip full? It holds 6 rounds and there was evidence of only 4 in the TSBD.

Nobody can answer that question, Rick. Oswald took that info with him to his grave.

My guess is --- LHO was down to his last 4 bullets on 11/22/63. So he loaded his clip with as many bullets as he had available---four rounds.

Also....

It's quite possible that when Oswald went to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday night (11/21), he might have thought he had more than 4 bullets stored somewhere in Ruth Paine's garage (with the rifle). It could be that he only realized after he got to Ruth's house on Thursday night that he had only four bullets left. And by that time, it was too late to go out on his own and purchase some more. Unless he were to leave Ruth's house on foot or via a cab or bus in order to go out to a store to try and purchase a few more bullets.

Edited October 10, 2018 by David Von Pein

[W. Tracy Parnell]

24 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said:

I respectfully request otherwise.  Yes, this discussion is often contentious and sometimes testy (or worse), but as a newbie to this quest for - by now ongoing since November of 1963 - I am learning much from the best of the researchers here.  Please be respectful - but please do  keep this message thread open.  ML

Very good point Mark and thanks for bringing it up. As I write this, there are 12 members and 71 guests on the board. Many of these individuals could well be "newbies" and would benefit greatly from the discussions between the more knowledgeable members of the respective camps. I think some of the experts here may not think of that reality.

[Cliff Varnell]

9 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

This thread is interesting reading, even though it has veered far off the original topic. I could easily respond to a dozen posts here and ask a dozen more questions on top of that, but I don't want to clutter things up.

I appreciate those who think LHO acted alone. Even though I believe otherwise, IMHO this case deserves the most thorough examination possible. Only by determined advocacy of the opposing side can the facts be examined in the clearest light.

For 50+ years?

There has to be this perpetual back and forth over issues that intellectually were settled in 1966?

It's an asymmetrical discussion when one side makes stuff up.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Very good point Mark and thanks for bringing it up. As I write this, there are 12 members and 71 guests on the board. Many of these individuals could well be "newbies" and would benefit greatly from the discussions between the more knowledgeable members of the respective camps. I think some of the experts here may not think of that reality.

I regard the "lone nut" view on par with the "flat earth" view.

It's a denial of readily observable physical reality.

In other words, the fact of conspiracy belongs in the subtext -- or else this discussion is intellectually dishonest.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

information was withheld from the w.c.

As I have said that is a fact. However, if we revisit Paul Hoch's idea it changes the view. Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission and former CIA Director who had authorized the initial Castro assassination plots. He never said a word about this to the WC. Bobby Kennedy also remained silent, which is not surprising since he was more involved with the next generation of plots than even JFK. Do these facts prove that Dulles and RFK were involved in a conspiracy? Or do they indicate that the CIA didn't think John and Jane Q. Public or the WC or anyone else were ready for such a reality? So, the simple withholding of evidence does not prove a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, but rather a simple desire to prevent certain inconvenient facts from coming out. And there were several other instances within the CIA alone where the same thing undoubtedly happened. Add in the FBI and who knows what other agencies and you have a good idea of why it might look like a cover-up. It was, but not an assassination-related one.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

31 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In other words, the fact of conspiracy belongs in the subtext -- or else this discussion is intellectually dishonest.

So, we can't even have a discussion with you unless we admit a conspiracy? 

[Cliff Varnell]

😎

No, I don't do Fake Debate any more. 

That's just me.  If posters get valuable research from engaging in Fake Debate more power to them, as long as they understand that obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research. 

I myself learned a lot from Fake Debate for 15 years or so, but you can't do Fake Debate and enter the Vincent Salandria School of Research into the Obvious.

The Salandria School examines the first day evidence.  The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound, that's the place to start research.

In the Salandria School no one owns the evidence, no one makes a name off the historical record.

Just looking at the obvious doesn't require books or speeches.

I'm No One, just like the assassins in G.O.T.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Denny Zartman]

52 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

For 50+ years?

There has to be this perpetual back and forth over issues that intellectually were settled in 1966?

It's an asymmetrical discussion when one side makes stuff up.

We're only debating it because we choose to debate it. I'm not trying to argue with you at all. I always want to believe that there's a chance I might be wrong, so I'm willing to give some of my time to LN arguments. That's also in part to keep myself sharp on the details of the case. Debating the facts of this matter with those who passionately believe the opposite is intellectually stimulating at times. It's fascinating to know that CT's and LN's can look at so many of the same pieces of evidence, have entirely different opinions, and come to entirely different conclusions. I appreciate a vigorous counter-argument when sorting through the facts in a debate over a complex subject. I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss JFK books with their authors here on this forum.

Thanks, forum people!

I don't devote much effort to debating LN's, but I like to hear their perspective. When I'm looking for real answers that can help further my understanding of the conspiracy, no. I tend to find the most useful information for my personal research from CT's rather than LN's. Part of what I tried to say to the author of the book under discussion earlier in this thread is that, unfortunately for LN authors, Vincent Bugliosi's hefty tome has pretty much drained me hope that a Lone Nut advocate can offer much more useful new information and fresh analysis.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It's quite possible that when Oswald went to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday night (11/21), he might have thought he had more than 4 bullets stored somewhere in Ruth Paine's garage (with the rifle). It could be that he only realized after he got to Ruth's house on Thursday night that he had only four bullets left. And by that time, it was too late to go out on his own and purchase some more. Unless he were to leave Ruth's house on foot or via a cab or bus in order to go out to a store to try and purchase a few more bullets.

What sort of conspiracy trusts its success to (1) whether Frazier agrees to give the patsy a ride home on Thursday or perhaps has other plans; (2) whether Ruth or Marina refuses him admittance when he shows up unannounced; (3) whether Ruth or Marina sees him getting the rifle from the garage or leaving with it on Friday morning; (4) how many bullets he has on hand; (5) whether Frazier's car starts in the morning or has an accident or breakdown on the way; (6) whether Frazier decides to pick up the package himself and inspect it; (7) whether the patsy makes it in and through the TSBD with no one stopping him and inspecting the package; (8) whether the patsy is able to assemble the weapon without being seen and to occupy a plausible sniper's nest without being seen?  What sort of conspiracy equips the patsy with such an implausible weapon?  Is that how Presidential assassination conspiracies work?

I'm just an armchair Presidential assassination conspirator, but if LHO had been my patsy he would've been in Dallas on Thursday night with me watching over him like a mother hen and a plausible weapon fully assembled in a box marked to appear that it had something to do with the TSBD.  He would've been entering the building at the earliest possible moment on Friday morning.

I consistently find that trying to think through how rational conspirators might have handled this project becomes a major stumbling block to my acceptance of any conspiracy theory.  As a lawyer, I always needed to assemble the undeniable facts into a plausible "theory of the case" that the judge or jury could grasp and find believable.  I find that I just can't articulate a plausible conspiracy theory that accounts for facts like these.  (Oops, I forgot:  Frazier, Linnie Mae, Ruth, Marina and pretty much everyone at the TSBD were part of the conspiracy, so that probably should eliminate my first set of concerns if I were thinking rationally - right?)

Edited October 11, 2018 by Guest