William Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Critical_thinking/Chance.html Chance, Not Conspiracy, In The Death Of JFK Kenneth A. Rahn 19 November 2003 We Americans have been deluged for decades by tales of conspiracy in JFK's assassination on November 22, 1963. As a result, most of us believe that it happened that way. But the facts are very different—Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the assassination, it is essential to hear the real story of the assassination. Parallel strands of chance brought President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald together. Chance #1 – Oswald moves to Dallas and gets job at TSBD. Oswald moved to Dallas just when the Texas School Book Depository was hiring seasonal workers. He needed work badly, and one of his wife's neighbors had a brother who had just started work there. She suggested that Oswald try it, too. His wife's landlady got him an interview the next day, and he was hired. He began on October 16th, weeks before a motorcade through Dallas had been decided on. Chance #2 JFK goes to Dallas, TCU cancels honorary degree. Kennedy was brought to Oswald by three strokes of chance. The first was the last-minute cancellation of Kennedy's honorary degree by Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. That created a slot only partially filled by a breakfast event there. To complete the schedule JFK decided on a motorcade in Dallas, the second stroke of chance. Chance #3 Luncheon moved to Trade Mart & Changes in motorcade route. The third stroke was choosing the venue for the luncheon on the 22nd. Kennedy and the Secret Service preferred one location, but Governor Connally insisted on the Dallas Trade Mart and won out. With the first location, the motorcade would have passed through the middle of Dealey Plaza at high speed and with Mrs. Kennedy between Oswald and JFK. The new site required driving slowly along the edge of the plaza, in the opposite direction and right in front of the depository. This brought Kennedy within easy shooting range and made him a slower, unshielded target. The route first appeared in the papers only three days ahead of time. Consider the percentage of times JFK not shot. We concentrate on the one fraction. Now that's critical thinking. Although these sequences of events were improbable, they were no more so than any sequence we could name. Unpredictable events occur every minute every day, but we focus on the tiny fraction that yield spectacular results. We should not forget all the public events where presidents have not been shot, including Kennedy's six previous motorcades on the same trip. Oswald and Ruby meeting like the cosmic alignment of planets. Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour's further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald's last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV. Ruby drawn to Oswald by wayward dancer. Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day). Save for every event in these two unplanned series, Ruby could not have killed Oswald. Extraordinary sequences to be sure, but with no room for conspiracy. Clearing Oswald and Ruby removes the major impetus for thinking conspiracy. But couldn't there have been some level of conspiracy? If not, then two important predictions follow. All evidence offered for conspiracy will fail, and conspiracy theories proposed anyhow will vary widely in specifics because they are all ungrounded in reality. Failed evidence of conspiracy. The evidence for conspiracy has in fact failed. JFK's dramatic rearward lurch (Oliver Stone's famous "back and to the left"), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet. The "magic," or "pristine," bullet, too "undamaged" to pass through both men, was deformed in precisely the manner expected for jacketed bullets hitting flesh. (It also had such overwhelming penetrating power that it was used for decades to hunt elephants.) The ephemeral shooter on the knoll turns out to be the product of echoes, confusion, and overactive imagination applied to single grainy print. The acoustical evidence allegedly revealing a shot from the knoll was actually recorded by a microphone miles away from Dealey Plaza. Widely varying conspiracy theories not grounded in reality. Also as predicted, conspiracy theories have been all over the map. In more than 100 conspiracy scenarios over the last 40 years, theory-makers have claimed there were anywhere from 3 to 10 shots fired by 2 to 6 gunmen working for 30 to 40 different combinations of instigators. They fired rifles, pistols, and even poison darts out of umbrellas. They shot from the depository, the adjacent Dal-Tex Building, the knoll, the railroad overpass, the roofs of at least two buildings, a storm drain, the curb, and even from inside the presidential limousine. They worked independently or in teams under radio control. Nearly 70 people were said to be in Dealey Plaza for nefarious purposes, leaving room for hardly anyone else. Sponsors include Cuba, Russia, China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Great Britain, Israel, the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mafia, oil-rich Texans, the FBI, the CIA, the left wing, the right wing, and the "invisible Nazi substructure." Such chaotic thinking is the hallmark of ungrounded fantasy. It should come as no surprise that the JFK conspiracy case is going nowhere, despite loud claims to the contrary. After 40 years of unremitting search, the critical evidence remains largely as it was days after the assassination: JFK was killed by two bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. Forty years and four fortuitous events the product of chance. Forty years of failed speculation are enough. It is time to admit there was no conspiracy and there was never any serious evidence for it. The real story of the assassination is this: Kennedy was killed by one misfit guy, a cheap but effective rifle, a good vantage point from the building where he worked, and a run of fortuitous events. It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy. The author is Professor Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. Co-signed by Steve Barber, John Cahill, Jean Davison, Joe Durnavich, Joel Grant, Martin Kelly, David Reitzes, Rob Spencer, and Larry Sturdivan (in alphabetical order). The group represents 200 years of study into all the facts of the JFK assassination. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/21/usa Forget the Mafia, the CIA, the Cubans, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed Kennedy - end of story, argues Kenneth Rahn Kenneth Rahn guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 November 2003 11.59 Article historyWe Americans have been deluged for decades by tales of conspiracy surrounding JFK's assassination on November 22 1963. As a result, most of us believe that it happened that way. But the facts are very different. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the assassination, it is essential to hear the real story. Parallel strands of chance brought President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald together. Oswald moved to Dallas just when the Texas School Book Depository was hiring seasonal workers. He needed work badly and one of his wife's neighbours had a brother who had just started work there. She suggested that Oswald try it, too. His wife's landlady got him an interview the next day and he was hired. He began on October 16, weeks before a motorcade through Dallas had been decided on. Kennedy was brought to Oswald by three strokes of chance. The first was the last-minute cancellation of the president's honorary degree by Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. That created a Friday morning slot only partially filled by a breakfast event there. To complete the schedule, JFK decided on a motorcade in Dallas, the second stroke of chance. The third was the choice of venue for the luncheon on the 22nd. Kennedy and the Secret Service preferred one location, but Governor Connally insisted on the Dallas Trade Mart and won out. With the first location, the motorcade would have passed through the middle of Dealey Plaza at high speed and with Mrs Kennedy between Oswald and JFK. The new site required driving slowly along the edge of the plaza, in the opposite direction and right in front of the depository. This brought Kennedy within easy shooting range and made him a slower, unshielded target. The route first appeared in the papers only three days ahead of time. Although these sequences of events were improbable, they were no more so than any other sequences we could name. Unpredictable events occur every minute of every day, but we focus on the tiny fraction that yield spectacular results. We should not forget all the public events where presidents have not been shot, including Kennedy's six previous motorcades on the same trip. Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10am transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour's further interrogation by the chief postal inspector who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police and another by Oswald's last-minute re-quest for a dark sweater for TV. Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him on Sunday morning, asking for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day). Save for every event in these two unplanned series, Ruby could not have killed Oswald. Extraordinary sequences to be sure, but with no room for conspiracy. Of the many conspiracy theories aired in the last 40 years, none is backed up by credible evidence and none is grounded in reality. JFK's dramatic lurch to the rear (film director Oliver Stone's famous "back and to the left"), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet. The "magic," or "pristine," bullet, too "undamaged" to pass through both men, was deformed in precisely the manner expected for jacketed bullets hitting flesh. (It also had such overwhelming penetrating power that it was used for decades to hunt elephants.) The ephemeral shooter on the knoll turns out to be the product of echoes, confusion and overactive imagination applied to a single grainy print. The acoustical evidence allegedly revealing a shot from the knoll was actually recorded by a microphone miles away from Dealey Plaza. In more than 100 conspiracy scenarios over the last 40 years, theorists have claimed there were anywhere from three to 10 shots fired by two to six gunmen working for 30 to 40 different combinations of instigators. They fired rifles, pistols and even poisoned darts out of umbrellas. They shot from the depository, the adjacent Dal-Tex Building, the knoll, the railroad overpass, the roofs of at least two buildings, a storm drain, the curb and even from inside the presidential limousine. They worked independently or in teams under radio control. Nearly 70 people were said to be in Dealey Plaza for nefarious purposes, leaving room for hardly anyone else. Sponsors include Cuba, Russia, China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Great Britain, Israel, the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mafia, oil-rich Texans, the FBI, the CIA, the left wing, the right wing, and the "invisible Nazi substructure". Such chaotic thinking is the hallmark of ungrounded fantasy. It should come as no surprise that the JFK conspiracy case is going nowhere, despite loud claims to the contrary. After 40 years of unremitting search, the critical evidence remains largely as it was days after the assassination: JFK was killed by two bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. Forty years of failed speculation are enough. It is time to admit there was no conspiracy and there was never any serious evidence for it. The real story of the assassination is this: Kennedy was killed by one misfit guy, a cheap but effective rifle, a good vantage point from the building where he worked and a run of fortuitous events. It is over. We must realise that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy. · The author is Professor Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. Co-signed by Steve Barber, John Cahill, Jean Davison, Joe Durnavich, Joel Grant, Martin Kelly, David Reitzes, Rob Spencer, and Larry Sturdivan (in alphabetical order). The group's members have carried out a total of 200 years of study into the JFK assassination. Also see Ben Hayes on Mary Pinchot Meyer murder: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3520 After extensive investigating, we can see that Mary Pinchot Meyer's death had nothing to do with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As with so many other mystery deaths, we find that Mary Pinchot Meyer died because of an unlucky set of events. She was brutally murdered by a disturbed young man, as was her lover, as are so many people each and every day. Edited March 5, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigdem Göle Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy. It was the cosmic joker. I knew all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy. It was the cosmic joker. I knew all along. Hey Cigdem, Good to hear from you. The cosmic joker does play games. By any chance do you speak/read arabic? I need a English translation of something in arabic. Very short and sweet, if possible, or if anyone else can help. http://remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com/20...etery-gate.html I know it doesn't say Mens Room - No Conspiracy Theorists. Thanks, Bill Kelly. Edited March 5, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The problem with these anti- CT authors is that in my opinion they KNOW they are lying. Lairs always KNOW they are lying yet try to persuade reader's of their sincerity. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The coincidentalist fails to explain WHY Ruby killed Oswald. In doing so, he risked either being shot himself, going to the electric chair or spending the rest of his life in prison. And what about the number of witnesses who conveniently die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigdem Göle Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy. It was the cosmic joker. I knew all along. Hey Cigdem, Good to hear from you. The cosmic joker does play games. By any chance do you speak/read arabic? I need a English translation of something in arabic. Very short and sweet, if possible, or if anyone else can help. http://remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com/20...etery-gate.html I know it doesn't say Mens Room - No Conspiracy Theorists. Thanks, Bill Kelly. I don't know Arabic but I know somebody who does. I'll show the photo to him tomorrow and let you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy. It was the cosmic joker. I knew all along. Hey Cigdem, Good to hear from you. The cosmic joker does play games. By any chance do you speak/read arabic? I need a English translation of something in arabic. Very short and sweet, if possible, or if anyone else can help. http://remembertheintrepid.blogspot.com/20...etery-gate.html I know it doesn't say Mens Room - No Conspiracy Theorists. Thanks, Bill Kelly. I don't know Arabic but I know somebody who does. I'll show the photo to him tomorrow and let you know. Many thanks, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 The coincidentalist fails to explain WHY Ruby killed Oswald.In doing so, he risked either being shot himself, going to the electric chair or spending the rest of his life in prison. And what about the number of witnesses who conveniently die? I hear you Dawn. I too, don't think they actually believe in what they say. But I have to disagree with Chis. Ruby didn't risk being shot himself, and really thought he was going to be a hero. Other, similar assassins, Trotski's assassin for one, got off after a few years in a Mexico jail, and those who assissted in the assassination of Vichy French Admiral Darlan were later declared heros. As for the number of witnesses who conveniently die, well, people do die and many were coincidental deaths. The Lone-Nutters, coincendenatlists and debunkers often go to the strange death lists, but rather than argue over whether a witness who died in a car crash (ie. Bowers, Whaley) were suspicious, I think the unsolved related homicide list is the ticket to the truth. Chris is right on the money however, when it comes to motive, why they acted in the way they did. They often say that Oswald killed JFK in order to make a name for himiself in history, but that is refuted by his own refusal to acknowldge being the assassin, that he didn't kill anyone, and that he was a patsy. Means, MOTIVE and opportunity are necessary to convict someone of homicide in US court of law, and no motives have ever been supplied for the alleged assassin, an esential ingredient. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigdem Göle Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) Bill, Here's the translation you were looking for : "This site holds great importance and is therefore under protection according to the law of Preservation of Antiquities. Site Registration Number : 41/1." Edited March 6, 2009 by Cigdem Göle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The coincidentalist fails to explain WHY Ruby killed Oswald.In doing so, he risked either being shot himself, going to the electric chair or spending the rest of his life in prison. And what about the number of witnesses who conveniently die? I hear you Dawn. I too, don't think they actually believe in what they say. But I have to disagree with Chis. Ruby didn't risk being shot himself, and really thought he was going to be a hero. Other, similar assassins, Trotski's assassin for one, got off after a few years in a Mexico jail, and those who assissted in the assassination of Vichy French Admiral Darlan were later declared heros. As for the number of witnesses who conveniently die, well, people do die and many were coincidental deaths. The Lone-Nutters, coincendenatlists and debunkers often go to the strange death lists, but rather than argue over whether a witness who died in a car crash (ie. Bowers, Whaley) were suspicious, I think the unsolved related homicide list is the ticket to the truth. Chris is right on the money however, when it comes to motive, why they acted in the way they did. They often say that Oswald killed JFK in order to make a name for himiself in history, but that is refuted by his own refusal to acknowldge being the assassin, that he didn't kill anyone, and that he was a patsy. Means, MOTIVE and opportunity are necessary to convict someone of homicide in US court of law, and no motives have ever been supplied for the alleged assassin, an esential ingredient. BK Bill: With such completely unfounded statements such as is included in the above, it is little wonder that you will never succeed in either resolving the issues of the assassination and/or getting your purported "Grand Jury" investigation. "But I have to disagree with Chis. Ruby didn't risk being shot himself," Even in the pre-911 era/aka 1963, if one pulled a weapon in the basement of any police station within the US in which a prisoner was being escourted, and in which numerous Police Detectives and Policemen were involved in the transport of said prisoner, then one could expect to be shot. Add to this that one now shoots the prisoner, and, as a general rule, one could almost bet on being shot. Does your "giant conspiracy" now include everyone located within the basement of the DPD when Ruby shot Oswald? "Means, MOTIVE and opportunity are necessary to convict someone of homicide in US court of law," Watching too many old Perry Mason and/or Matlock movies will do that to you! There have been numerous convictions within the US Courts in which no "MOTIVE" was or could be established, and merely because you and/or I are not aware of the true motive is hardly evidence that no such motive existed. Try MONEY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) Bill,Here's the translation you were looking for : "This site holds great importance and is therefore under protection according to the law of Preservation of Antiquities. Site Registration Number : 41/1." Many thanks for that Cigdem. That really means a lot. It may be a key to a 200 year old riddle. What can I do recprocate? Bill Kelly Edited March 6, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 (edited) Bill: With such completely unfounded statements such as is included in the above, it is little wonder that you will never succeed in either resolving the issues of the assassination and/or getting your purported "Grand Jury" investigation. TOM, IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO GET A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OR SOLVE THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT, THAT'S NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE DA OF DALLAS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA. NOT MY JOB. "But I have to disagree with Chis. Ruby didn't risk being shot himself," Even in the pre-911 era/aka 1963, if one pulled a weapon in the basement of any police station within the US in which a prisoner was being escourted, and in which numerous Police Detectives and Policemen were involved in the transport of said prisoner, then one could expect to be shot. BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. RUBY DIDN'T GET SHOT EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SURROUNDED BY 100 COPS WITH GUNS, MOST OF WHOM HE KNEW PERSONALLY. Add to this that one now shoots the prisoner, and, as a general rule, one could almost bet on being shot. BUT THE ODDS WOULD HAVE WON, RUBY DIDN'T GET SHOT DESPITE YOUR ODDS. Does your "giant conspiracy" now include everyone located within the basement of the DPD when Ruby shot Oswald? I DON'T HAVE A GIANT CONSPIRACY. I'M WILLING TO BELIEVE THAT ONE GUNMAN, THE ASSASSIN OF THE CENTURY KILLED JFK, ALL BY HIS LONESOME, BUT THAT PERSON ISN'T OSWALD, WHO HAS AN ALIBI, HAVING BEEN IN THE FIRST FLOOR LUNCHROOM AND WAS CONFRONTED BY A COP COMING FROM THE FIRST FLOOR, NO WHERE NEAR THE STEPS TO THE SIXTH FLOOR. NO GIANT CONSPIRACY. JUST A REAL GOOD ONE. "Means, MOTIVE and opportunity are necessary to convict someone of homicide in US court of law," Watching too many old Perry Mason and/or Matlock movies will do that to you! There have been numerous convictions within the US Courts in which no "MOTIVE" was or could be established, and merely because you and/or I are not aware of the true motive is hardly evidence that no such motive existed. I'VE NEVER WATCHED ONE PERRY MASON OR MATLOCK, WHOEVER THAT IS. Try MONEY! OH KAY, WHO WAS PAID THIS MONEY? CERTAINLY NOT THE PATSY OR RUBY. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO MEAN SPIRITED AND KNOW IT ALL? BK Edited March 7, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Bill:With such completely unfounded statements such as is included in the above, it is little wonder that you will never succeed in either resolving the issues of the assassination and/or getting your purported "Grand Jury" investigation. TOM, IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO GET A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OR SOLVE THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT, THAT'S NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE DA OF DALLAS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA. NOT MY JOB. "But I have to disagree with Chis. Ruby didn't risk being shot himself," Even in the pre-911 era/aka 1963, if one pulled a weapon in the basement of any police station within the US in which a prisoner was being escourted, and in which numerous Police Detectives and Policemen were involved in the transport of said prisoner, then one could expect to be shot. BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. RUBY DIDN'T GET SHOT EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SURROUNDED BY 100 COPS WITH GUNS, MOST OF WHOM HE KNEW PERSONALLY. Add to this that one now shoots the prisoner, and, as a general rule, one could almost bet on being shot. BUT THE ODDS WOULD HAVE WON, RUBY DIDN'T GET SHOT DESPITE YOUR ODDS. Does your "giant conspiracy" now include everyone located within the basement of the DPD when Ruby shot Oswald? I DON'T HAVE A GIANT CONSPIRACY. I'M WILLING TO BELIEVE THAT ONE GUNMAN, THE ASSASSIN OF THE CENTURY KILLED JFK, ALL BY HIS LONESOME, BUT THAT PERSON ISN'T OSWALD, WHO HAS AN ALIBI, HAVING BEEN IN THE FIRST FLOOR LUNCHROOM AND WAS CONFRONTED BY A COP COMING FROM THE FIRST FLOOR, NO WHERE NEAR THE STEPS TO THE SIXTH FLOOR. NO GIANT CONSPIRACY. JUST A REAL GOOD ONE. "Means, MOTIVE and opportunity are necessary to convict someone of homicide in US court of law," Watching too many old Perry Mason and/or Matlock movies will do that to you! There have been numerous convictions within the US Courts in which no "MOTIVE" was or could be established, and merely because you and/or I are not aware of the true motive is hardly evidence that no such motive existed. I'VE NEVER WATCHED ONE PERRY MASON OR MATLOCK, WHOEVER THAT IS. Try MONEY! OH KAY, WHO WAS PAID THIS MONEY? CERTAINLY NOT THE PATSY OR RUBY. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO MEAN SPIRITED AND KNOW IT ALL? BK "WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO MEAN SPIRITED" It comes primarily from exposure to such asinine concepts as body snatchers and wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; and [b]"THE ASSASSIN OF THE CENTURY KILLED JFK"[/b], when the simple reality is that it was a simple feat of three shots with the longest shot having been only some 98 yards in distance. "AND KNOW IT ALL?" Hopefully, there are others hear who are aware on the inaccuracies in your claims regarding the requirement of a "motive" in order to convict someone, as well as the simple fact that Ruby could have absolutely no means of knowing that he was not possibly going to be shot as a result of pulling a pistol in front of the DPD escort of LHO. P.S. LHO was found on the Second Floor where the lunchroom/break room was located. Not unlike most of the claims of yourself and others, there is no means by which to accurately dispute that Oswald had not just come off the stairway from above and entered the lunchroom just prior to having been observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 (edited) "WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO MEAN SPIRITED" It comes primarily from exposure to such asinine concepts as body snatchers and wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; and [b]"THE ASSASSIN OF THE CENTURY KILLED JFK"[/b], when the simple reality is that it was a simple feat of three shots with the longest shot having been only some 98 yards in distance. BK: Why do you subject yourself to such people? I don't have anything to do with body snatchers, would alterations, multiple assassins or assssin of the century. It may have been a simple feat that a girlscout could have done it. I'd like to know who. "AND KNOW IT ALL?" Hopefully, there are others hear who are aware on the inaccuracies in your claims regarding the requirement of a "motive" in order to convict someone, BK: Identifying motive is one of the principal elements of determining suspects and is a critical point in determining who killed JFK. No motive was ever attributed to the alleged assassin. But whoever the girlscount sniper was, they did have a motive. And you may be right, it may be one lone gunmen, money may have been the motive, but the shooter wasn't Oswald. as well as the simple fact that Ruby could have absolutely no means of knowing that he was not possibly going to be shot as a result of pulling a pistol in front of the DPD escort of LHO. Whatever you set the odds of Ruby being shot by a Dallas policeman after shooting Oswald, it doesn't matter, Ruby still wasn't shot. You lost the bet whatever the odds. P.S. LHO was found on the Second Floor where the lunchroom/break room was located. His alibi was that he was in the first floor lunchroom, where he had observed two black workers. How did he know the two black guys were there if he wasn't there? Not unlike most of the claims of yourself and others, there is no means by which to accurately dispute that Oswald had not just come off the stairway from above and entered the lunchroom just prior to having been observed. Oh, excuse me, yes there is an undisputable physcial, geometrical proof of this, if you take the time to watch the film of the Secret Service reenactment - which stops abruptly at the bottom of the stairs to the second floor, from where the cop saw Oswald in the vestible of the second floor lunchroom before confronting him. When the Warren Commission attornies recalled the TSBD supervisor back to ask him one more question, officially, and under oath - that question was whether there was an automatic shutting mechenism on that door. And the answer was yes. And therefore, if Oswald was seen in the vestibule through the window of the closed door, then he walked into the vestibule through the other door, which leads to the other set of steps that go to the first floor lunchroom, from where Oswald was coming. That's why the Secret Service abruptly ended their "reeneactment," when they realized where it was leading, and didn't really want to go there. All of this is detailed in Howard Roffman's book, Presumed Guilty which is available on line at Dave Ratcliff's website. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/ http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=18201 AFFIDAVIT OF ROY SANSOM TRULY August 3, 1964 "I, Roy Sansom Truly, being duly sworn say: 1. I am the Superintendent of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas, Texas. 2. The door opening on the vestibule of the lunchroom of the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building is usually shut because of a closing mechanism on the door. Signed this 3rd day of August 1964, at Dallas, Texas. Roy S. Truly." Short and Sweet. Right to the Point. They knew it. Also see: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1118.jpg Edited March 7, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now