I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Andrej Stancak]

8 hours ago, François Carlier said:

It will NEVER happen.
Mark my words.
Never in a million years can anyone produce a picture of Lee Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD.
He was not there. He was on the sixth floor.
What makes me say that ? Easy. Of course, we have the physical evidence and the scientific evidence in this case.
But Oswald's behavior is a very good indication that he was the assassin.
His whole behavior in front of the police, and even his attitude in front of his brother.
Clearly, if Oswald had been on the steps of the Book Depository when JFK's motorcade drove onto Elm Street, he would not have been found at the Texas theater later on, after having killed a policeman.
Oswald's own actions show his guilt.

Fracois:

NEVER is too a strong word. Not having a better picture of the doorway is not due to lack of interest of conspiracy researchers but owing to the objective difficulties. I only have tried to get to a better version of Wiegman film and failed like all other researchers. Others have been searching for the original Darnell film and were not successful so far. Will we NEVER get access to better versions of the films? Maybe, if we make a solid case for Lee Oswald being outside the building and not on the sixth floor, the ice will break, similar to establishing the ARRC after Oliver Stone movie. Maybe the living witnesses would be able to say then who was the unknown man standing at the western wall. Whatever colour the truth is, I want to know.

Of course, the whereabouts of Lee Oswald during the shooting are the cornerstone of the whole case, with this the official story would crumble.

As far as Oswald's behaviour is concerned, Lee did have some awareness of some clandestine operation to which he was either lured or forced. The hypothesis I work with is that Lee brought the rifle to work but that he did not shoot from it. He realised that President's killing was not in the script and since he was involved in some sort of a plot, he fled, possibly using the door at the back of the building.

Lee still continued to play according to the script even after his arrest, although, towards the end of interrogations, he was willing to talk with Secret Service after talking first to a lawyer. The lawyer whom Lee would evetually acquire, the future uncontrolled testimonies given to many law enforcement, these are the things which needed to be prevented by all means. Oswald was willing to talk after being left abanoned by people who got him to the situation. Oswald would not talk to Dallas police as he knew they were in on it. And he was silenced in the Dallas police at the last possible moment. Ruby's getting to the basement on time was not too difficult to achieve - his approach to the City Hall building was synchronised with the decision to eventually start the transport, and Ruby's shooting was synchronised with Oswald's arrival by two car honking sounds.

I am not going to details of Prayer Man story here as the present thread is maybe a more general thread in which people from two opposing camps stick to their arguments, none of the parties expected to sway.

I appreciate that the discussions are polite and civilised in spite of the deep disagreement with each other's positions.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Cory Santos]

53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

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, 

Jim you are correct.

And some names keep coming up which no one wants to admit, i.e., Marvin Prestridge.  See,

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Ruby Jack Address Book/Item 03.pdf

 

and,

See also,

Deposition before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS
United States Federal Building
U.S. Magistrate Courtroom 16-F23
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas
Monday, May 22, 1978, 9:50 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN HORNBECK, Senior Staff Counsel
Select Committee on Assassinations
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.20515
DONALD PURDY, Staff Counsel
Select Committee on Assassinations
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.20515

SWORN TESTIMONY OF
JOSEPH CAMPISI
P R O C E E D I N G S

Whereupon,
JOSEPH CAMPISI was duly sworn and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. HORNBECK:

. . . 

Q. Now, a few days after Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald you paid him a visit in jail?
A. Bill Decker who was sheriff at that time had called me and said, "Joe, Jack Ruby has said he would like to see some of his best friends, closest friends."
He said, "He has your name on a list, you and Marie," who is my wife.
He says, "Would you like to come up and talk to him?"
I said, "Yeah, I would like to go up and visit the guy."
Q. Excuse me. Sheriff Decker told you that both your name and your wife's name was on that list?
A. Yes.

[At this point as a lawyer I am shocked, the Sheriff calls him to come visit an inmate who shot the alleged assassin of the President and he personally calls for him?  I am even more shocked at the complete and utter lack of proper follow up questions.  Clearly, the person asking the questions has no clue how to do a proper deposition to elicit information.  Or perhaps he was smart and did know but knew not what to say. Hmm...]

. . . 

Then Prestridge comes up again.

A. Now, there is a Marvin -- I knew another kid named Ralph Presley.Now, whether his first name is Marvin, all I knew him by was Ralph Presley.
Q. I am talking about a Prestridge, p-r-e-s-t-r-i-d-g-e.
A. It could be the same party, yeah.
Q. How did you know this Ralph Prestridge?
A. How did I know him?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I finally met him at the restaurant, and I think at that time he was supposed to have been Loyce Green's nephew.

Q. So approximately when would it have been that you met him?
A. I don't remember.
Q. And how long did you know the man, how many years?
A. From the time I met him.I know him now, you know.
Q. Do you have any indication whether or not he and Jack Ruby knew each other, were associated in any kind of a business way?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you and Ralph Prestridge ever associated in any kind of business way?
A. No, sir.

[Wait, that is it?  Ask more questions, oh wait, probably better to keep quiet.]

Ok, so, yes Jim, he went and met Ruby at the request of Sheriff Decker.

No strange coincidences here people, keep moving!

 

 

[François Carlier]

6 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

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.

 

Thank you very much, Sir.
Indeed, Lance Payette wrote two magnificent posts about conspiracy theorists, but it was only a good description. We needed a live example. That's when you decided to step into play. We only have to look at you to see a live example of a conspiracy theorist living in a world of make-believe. Thank you for showing us. On top of that you seem to be arrogant, but that's fine by me, don't worry.
Again, thank you very much !

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Fracois:

NEVER is too a strong word. Not having a better picture of the doorway is not due to lack of interest of conspiracy researchers but owing to the objective difficulties. I only have tried to get to a better version of Wiegman film and failed like all other researchers. Others have been searching for the original Darnell film and were not successful so far. Will we NEVER get access to better versions of the films? Maybe, if we make a solid case for Lee Oswald being outside the building and not on the sixth floor, the ice will break, similar to establishing the ARRC after Oliver Stone movie. Maybe the living witnesses would be able to say then who was the unknown man standing at the western wall. Whatever colour the truth is, I want to know.

Of course, the whereabouts of Lee Oswald during the shooting are the cornerstone of the whole case, with this the official story would crumble.

As far as Oswald's behaviour is concerned, Lee did have some awareness of some clandestine operation to which he was either lured or forced. The hypothesis I work with is that Lee brought the rifle to work but that he did not shoot from it. He realised that President's killing was not in the script and since he was involved in some sort of a plot, he fled, possibly using the door at the back of the building.

Lee still continued to play according to the script even after his arrest, although, towards the end of interrogations, he was willing to talk with Secret Service after talking first to a lawyer. The lawyer whom Lee would evetually acquire, the future uncontrolled testimonies given to many law enforcement, these are the things which needed to be prevented by all means. Oswald was willing to talk after being left abanoned by people who got him to the situation. Oswald would not talk to Dallas police as he knew they were in on it. And he was silenced in the Dallas police at the last possible moment. Ruby's getting to the basement on time was not too difficult to achieve - his approach to the City Hall building was synchronised with the decision to eventually start the transport, and Ruby's shooting was synchronised with Oswald's arrival by two car honking sounds.

I am not going to details of Prayer Man story here as the present thread is maybe a more general thread in which people from two opposing camps stick to their arguments, none of the parties expected to sway.

I appreciate that the discussions are polite and civilised in spite of the deep disagreement with each other's positions.

 

Hello Andrej,
I understand your point.
But just think. What if I told you now : "Wait until I find a picture of Hitler in Argentina, and I'll prove that he is still alive !". What would you think of me ? I mean, granted, my sentence makes sense. Indeed, if I was able to take a clear, high-definition picture of Hitler in Argentina, I would definitely score points on my way to proving that he is still alive and well. And people would have to take notice and inquire seriously. But, let's face it, you know very well that it will NEVER happen.

I am not saying that you cant' have a clear picture of the people on the front steps and of the so-called "prayer man" (I have read all the threads about him on this and other forums over the years, so I know the story). What I am saying is that even if you could get hold of clear, HD pictures of the people on the front steps, it would not change anything, since you will NEVER see Oswald there, as we know he was NOT there.

All the evidence points to him being on the sixth floor. Besides, frankly speaking, what conspiracy theorist could ever think that the conspirators didn't care to let their pasty being out in the open, there in full view of the crowd ? That does not make sense. It would RUIN the conspiracy right there !

That's why I used the word "never".

As to Lee Harvey Oswald, please remember that his own brother, a man who knew him well before the assassination and talked to him after the assassination (not so many people can claim that !) always said that he was convinced without any doubt that his brother Lee was ideed guilty. I mean, he talked to him in jail. That means a lot.

Lee Oswald killed a policement (Tippit) and tried to kill another one that day (McDonald). Those are facts. Is that the behaviour of an innocent, gentle man ?

[Andrej Stancak]

Francois:

thanks for explaining your views. I reckon that we cannot help each other too much at this stage. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Andrej,
I understand your point.
But just think. What if I told you now : "Wait until I find a picture of Hitler in Argentina, and I'll prove that he is still alive !". What would you think of me ? I mean, granted, my sentence makes sense. Indeed, if I was able to take a clear, high-definition picture of Hitler in Argentina, I would definitely score points on my way to proving that he is still alive and well. And people would have to take notice and inquire seriously. But, let's face it, you know very well that it will NEVER happen.

I am not saying that you cant' have a clear picture of the people on the front steps and of the so-called "prayer man" (I have read all the threads about him on this and other forums over the years, so I know the story). What I am saying is that even if you could get hold of clear, HD pictures of the people on the front steps, it would not change anything, since you will NEVER see Oswald there, as we know he was NOT there.

All the evidence points to him being on the sixth floor. Besides, frankly speaking, what conspiracy theorist could ever think that the conspirators didn't care to let their pasty being out in the open, there in full view of the crowd ? That does not make sense. It would RUIN the conspiracy right there !

That's why I used the word "never".

As to Lee Harvey Oswald, please remember that his own brother, a man who knew him well before the assassination and talked to him after the assassination (not so many people can claim that !) always said that he was convinced without any doubt that his brother Lee was ideed guilty. I mean, he talked to him in jail. That means a lot.

Lee Oswald killed a policement (Tippit) and tried to kill another one that day (McDonald). Those are facts. Is that the behaviour of an innocent, gentle man ?

Deluded..................

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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

I guess I am dense because I don't understand how the "power elite" can continue to control the media in this age of Internet blogging. Your argument makes some sense, at least, in the sixties when the outlets were limited. But not today. BTW, presumably this evil "power elite" is on the political right? If so, it is surprising that they cannot control the left-wing slant from the current mainstream media. Nor do they seem to be able to control the thousands of bloggers working for the left. So, yes I am having trouble following your argument. I think it would be a simple matter to get the message out to the masses that a conspiracy in the JFK has been "proven." Perhaps the reality is people just don't believe you.

[François Carlier]

2 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Deluded..................

Thank you for your demonstration. I'm convinced, now.

[Mathias Baumann]

14 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

...

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.  I think this is why he was able to make assassination attempts on two figures as disparate as Gen. Walker and JFK.  Neither attempt was about Walker or JFK per se.  Each attempt was about Lee Harvey Oswald - the pathetic state of his life and the stark conflict between it and his conviction that he was destined to be a Great Figure In History.  I see the entire arc of LHO's life as a series of dominoes falling in the direction of something like the assassination of JFK.  I don't claim to know precisely what was going on in his head on November 20-23, but I don't see the assassination as that difficult to explain when viewed in the context of his life as a whole.

I see the attempts to turn this loser into "Project Oswald," International Man of Mystery and vital cog in the Cold War machinery, as simply comical.  Of course his name was going to turn up in CIA and FBI files - he was a former Marine who had defected and then returned with a Russian wife to engage in pro-Castro activities.  But the notion that anyone in their right mind would have recruited and relied on him to engage in sensitive intelligence activities or entrusted him with any role whatsoever in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK strikes me as wilder by far than the Lone Nut explanation.

Let's assume you're right. Oswald killed the President to become a Great Hero. Why would he then deny everything?

And despite being a insignificant "loser", access to his intelligence file was highly restricted. So restricted that the part about Oswald's activities since his return to the USA was kept secret from the Mexico City station. And then someone impersonates Oswald on the telephone. The tape allegedly disappears but is then listened to by FBI agents who conclude it's not Oswald's voice. And you say there's no mystery? Although we know that the whole Mexico City trip was a major reason why the government decided "the public had to be satisfied that Oswald was the lone killer"?

You say that Oswald was a desperate loser and that no-one would've hired him to participate in secret operations of any kind. And yet you seem to believe he was competent enough to kill the President of the most powerful nation on earth single-handed. Was he or wasn't he a good marksman? If he wasn't, how did he kill Kennedy? If he was, why would his skills not be of interest to the conspirators?

I think Oswald was much more skilled and educated than most people give him credit. Consider how quickly he picked up Russian, a VERY difficult language. Don't you think that THAT would've made him interesting to any intelligence agency?

I have to admit that for a long time I couldn't make sense of many of Oswald's bizarre actions. But if you look closely I think you can see evidence that he was manipulated by others. Remember what he said to the American Consul in Moscow. "THEY told me you would try to talk me out of it."

Or consider his leafletting in New Orleans and his bizarre appearance on the radio. Not until you realize that at the same time David Attlee Phillips was running an operation to smear the FPCC begin his actions to make sense. And the same David Attlee Phillips would later plant stories about Castro's alleged involvement...  Coincidence? Coincidence that Phillips was working with David Morales? A man who later admitted that he had "taken care of that son of a bitch"? Coincidence that John Rosseli, Morales brother in arms, was hacked to pieces when he began talking about the assassination?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Let's assume you're right. Oswald killed the President to become a Great Hero. Why would he then deny everything?

Two words. Death penalty. LHO was deluded, mixed up and so on. But as you say, he wasn't stupid.

[Mathias Baumann]

16 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?

Tracy, as I said this is happening. You should get out of your filter bubble.

Quote

Lamar Waldron was called 'the ultimate JFK historian and examiner' by Variety. His groundbreaking research has been featured by hundreds of newspapers and radio stations, and was the subject of the Discovery Channel documentary, Conspiracy Files: JKF Assassination.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/lamar-waldron/28814

Historians are rewriting their books, the mainstream media report on it... What else should be happening in your opinion? Do you think there'll ever be a new government investigation? Now that Santo Trafficante, John Roselli and David Morales are all dead?

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Mathias, you don't believe the silly "mystery deaths" stuff do you? Mark Lane was one of the original conspiracy theorists and he died of old age. Jean Hill was a Dealey Plaza witness who told her story to anyone and everyone who would listen and wrote a book. She died of natural causes (undisputed as far as I know). I could go on and on. Why didn't "they" wipe out everyone?

You know how John Roselli died, don't you? There's nothing mysterious about it. He was strangled, cut to pieces, stuffed into a barrel and thrown into the ocean.

[Mathias Baumann]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Two words. Death penalty. LHO was deluded, mixed up and so on. But as you say, he wasn't stupid.

That would make sense if he was part of a conspiracy and maybe still expected to be rewarded if released from custody. But if he did it to become a hero, as Lance suggests, why would he then not openly boast about it? Wasn't that supposedly the whole point? To become famous?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Tracy, as I said this is happening. You should get out of your filter bubble.

OK, I'll watch for it.

17 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Do you think there'll ever be a new government investigation?

No, nor should there be.

17 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

You know how John Roselli died, don't you? There's nothing mysterious about it. He was strangled, cut to pieces, stuffed into a barrel and thrown into the ocean.

I was just concerned that you bought into the "mystery deaths" theory that dozens and dozens of witnesses were wiped out. Perhaps you don't then.

Edited October 9, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

But if he did it to become a hero, as Lance suggests, why would he then not openly boast about it? Wasn't that supposedly the whole point? To become famous?

He was already famous and standing before the news cameras. No need to be stupid and admit the deed and get yourself a quick death. I believe he would have confessed if he could have avoided the death penalty and then later recanted. But in Texas, he probably would not have been offered a deal. In any case, he would have played the system for as long as he could.

[Mathias Baumann]

2 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I was just concerned that you bought into the "mystery deaths" theory that dozens and dozens of witnesses were wiped. Perhaps you don't then.

Tracy,

some witnesses WERE murdered or physically assaulted, there's no question about it. John Roselli is one prominent example. Warren Reynold's would be another one. He survived though.

Quote

3) Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)

Warren Reynolds, was shot in the head two days after telling the FBI he could not identify Oswald. There was no apparent cause for the shooting. Reynolds recovered and later agreed he thought the fleeing gunman had been Oswald after all. Within a week or two of the Reynolds shooting, a key witness in that affair was found dead in a police cell, having apparently hanged herself. She had herself earlier mentioned an association with Jack Ruby and his club. The brother of a Tippit witness was shot dead, and many assumed it was a matter of mistaken identity. While these incidents arouse speculation, there is nothing evidentiary to link them to the Tippit or Kennedy killings. However, it is clear they were inadequately investigated.

A meaningless act carried out by  a frustrated loner? Maybe.