I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Mathias Baumann]

3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

You're so wrong !
First of all, who said that Lee Oswald killed JFK "for no reason at all" ? In Vincent Bugliosi's book you can read a whole chapter on motive, for example. I mean, as I write in my own book, nobody can ever say that they "know" Lee Oswald's motive. He took his secret to his grave. OK. But that does not mean in any way that he assassinated Kennedy for no reason at all.
Second of all, the Mannlicher-Carcano was a rifle, for Christ sake. It kills people. If it was used during the war by professional soldiers, you can bet it was acurate enough. And remember : it was even used during the Lybian civil war in 2011 ! Experiments have proved time and again that it was a weapon totally capable of killing JFK, sadly enough…
Your sarcasm won't do in this instance.
You want to know what motivates people like me, or Gerald Posner, or DVP ? How about defending the truth ? How about defending facts and common sense, and fighting disinformation ?
You are the one who is ignoring the overwhelming evidence !

So how did Vincent Bugliosi figure out why Oswald killed Kennedy? As you say he didn't live to tell us. Because he was killed while in the custody of the Dallas Police. After they had received threats against his life. Killed by a man who was allowed to stalk Oswald in the Police Department carrying a concealed gun. What was Jack Ruby's motive? Did he kill Oswald because he loved the Kennedys so much? So why did he miss out on his chance to see them when they came to Dallas? How come that 8 (!) police officers failed to see him come down the ramp? If he didn't come down the ramp, how did he get into the basement? Who let him in?

By the way this is what the Italian military concluded when they tested the rifle:

Quote

In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.

...

They fired bullets through two large pieces of meat, in an attempt to simulate the assumed path of the magic bullet. In their test, the bullet was deformed, unlike the first bullet in the Kennedy assassination, which remained largely intact.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html

And this is what Oswald's former captain had to say about Oswald's rifle skills:

Quote

Oswald's marksmanship has been a key part of the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. His Marine rating was "sharpshooter," and while that is the middle range of three levels of expertise, Block said, "Really, you see a sharpshooter badge on a Marine--I'd be ashamed to have it on my chest."

Many argue the fatal shots were well within Oswald's capabilities, but Block disagrees. "You've got a moving target there, and when you're talking about hitting somebody in the head from that distance and that angle, it just boggles my mind that he would even have that capability. I don't know where he could have practiced, whether in the woods or remote areas or in Russia, but you've got to come up with some pretty good marksmanship to carry off something like that."

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-21/local/me-59498_1_oswald-s-marksmanship

And even the Warren Commission could not find a single person to testify that Oswald ever bore a grudge against Kennedy.

Also you're completely forgetting the important fact that the last official investigation concluded that there WAS a second shooter and thus a conspiracy. Corroborating what dozens of ear witnesses have always maintained.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

First of all, who said that Lee Oswald killed JFK "for no reason at all" ? In Vincent Bugliosi's book you can read a whole chapter on motive, for example. I mean, as I write in my own book, nobody can ever say that they "know" Lee Oswald's motive. He took his secret to his grave. OK. But that does not mean in any way that he assassinated Kennedy for no reason at all.

Very good point. While the motive is unknowable, several good treatments have been done which offer good and logical suggestions. In addition to Bugliosi, Jean Davison and Jerry Organ come to mind.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

35 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

What was Jack Ruby's motive?

There was no motive. He simply acted on impulse as his personal history (acts of violence against people at his club) shows he was want to do. He then spent much time trying to explain his irrational action in a rational way.

[James DiEugenio]

On impulse?

Is that why he was there on Friday night and corrected Wade?

Is that why he was there carrying sandwiches on Saturday?

Is that why he was scouting the place on Sunday morning?  And is that why Patrick Dean flunked his polygraph test, even though he wrote the questions!!!!!

Is this why Hoover rigged Ruby's polygraph in every single way the FBI could???  And then Bugliosi deliberately covered up how they did it!!

Please, please, please.

You are giving me a headache.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

There was no motive. He simply acted on impulse as his personal history (acts of violence against people at his club) shows he was want to do. He then spent much time trying to explain his irrational action in a rational way.

Ruby killed Oswald on orders from Civello via Campisi.  Civello was the first person to visit him in jail.  Shutting him up with the code of omerta, initially JR didn't want to loose his sister or brothers though he despised them.  Orchestrated  by the CIA Phillips/Roselli.  As a result of the  failed effort to kill Oswald on schedule.  After a few months in the DC (Dallas County) jail he was begging Earl Warren to go to Washington, DC.

[François Carlier]

5 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

So how did Vincent Bugliosi figure out why Oswald killed Kennedy? As you say he didn't live to tell us. Because he was killed while in the custody of the Dallas Police. After they had received threats against his life. Killed by a man who was allowed to stalk Oswald in the Police Department carrying a concealed gun. What was Jack Ruby's motive? Did he kill Oswald because he loved the Kennedys so much? So why did he miss out on his chance to see them when they came to Dallas? How come that 8 (!) police officers failed to see him come down the ramp? If he didn't come down the ramp, how did he get into the basement? Who let him in?

By the way this is what the Italian military concluded when they tested the rifle:

And this is what Oswald's former captain had to say about Oswald's rifle skills:

And even the Warren Commission could not find a single person to testify that Oswald ever bore a grudge against Kennedy.

Also you're completely forgetting the important fact that the last official investigation concluded that there WAS a second shooter and thus a conspiracy. Corroborating what dozens of ear witnesses have always maintained.

Sorry Sir, but reading your posts shows that you are a "beginner" in the study of the JFK assassination case. You repeat tired "arguments" that have been explained away not ten, not one hundred, but one million times !
Me, "completely forgetting" ? You must be joking. In my book, which is the biggest book on the Kennedy assassination written in Europe in the last 55 years, I devote a great number of pages on the HSCA and go into a very detailed and comprehensive section on the so-called "acoustic evidence". You may want to read it. You may decide not to bother. As you wish. But don't say that I am forgetting that topic. I know a lot more than you. At any rate, there was no other shooter, period.
And please, read other people's posts before replying. I never wrote that Vincent Bugliosi figured out why Oswald killed Kennedy. No one can pretend that. But Indeed, he and other authors have come as close as possible to giving us a good idea of what Oswald had in mind.
(But you seem to like throwing accusations without even bothering to read and get the facts in the first place).
As for your tirade on Oswald's skills and his rifle, I mean, you are the one millionth conspiracy believer to repeat those tired and false clichés.
Please get your facts straight !

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

On impulse?

Is that why he was there on Friday night and corrected Wade?

Is that why he was there carrying sandwiches on Saturday?I

So typical of you !
How in the world can't you see that your examples have no bearing on the issue ?
Can't you conceive of the fact that it is perfectly possible that a man carries sandwiches somewhere one day and throws a tantrum somewhere else the next day ?
There could multiple reasons.
When Ruby shot Oswald it was a spur-of-the moment thing.
Ruby's actions on the previous days are something else.
I mean, granted, he was there, he was concerned, he followed the action and everything. He was upset. OK.
But as W. Tracy Parnell wrote, he simply acted on impulse on Sunday.
It that so hard to conceive ?
You, Mister DiEugenio, if you were an investigator on a crime scene and a man had killed his wife (see the Forensic files, for instance), you would be saying : "It can't be him : they went to the restaurant yesterday." 
As if it mattered a bit...
You always miss the critical and essential facts.

As for the rest of your post, may I ask you two questions :
1. In your opinion, is there anything, anything at all, that was not rigged in the investigation ?
2. In your opinion, is there anything, anything at all, that Bugliosi did not try to cover up ?
(I'd love to know)

[David Von Pein]

Jack Ruby's known movements and actions before he shot Oswald on the morning of 11/24/63 leave absolutely no room for "pre-planned conspiracy". None whatsoever. Anyone who says Ruby's actions do indicate conspiracy are merely engaging in a whole lot of wishful thinking....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Jack-Ruby

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/Why Did Ruby Shoot Oswald?

Edited October 6, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

LOL!  

Ruby shooting Oswald as a mission is actually one of the strongest parts of our case today.  

Why?  Because of new work by the HSCA and some private researchers.  Plus revelations from the WC.

But first, i must note how Carlier cut off my post so he would not have to deal with the rest of the clear implication that Ruby was stalking Oswald for three days.  This is his M.O.

I did a lot of work on this in my last book since I really wanted to show just how bad Bugliosi was on this key point. Vince did little except recite the WC verdict on this.  Which, IMO, is just not being honest with the reader.

Let us begin with the fact that Carlier wants to edit out.  Patrick Dean flunked his polygraph even though he wrote his own questions. Roy Vaughn passed his with flying colors.  Get this, even the WC, in the form of Burt Griffin, though Dean was lying.  In fact Griffin actually accused him of such to his face.  Which created a real brouhaha with the Dallas Police.  Earl Warren backed down . So just on that evidence, one would suspect that Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp.

But there is more.  The HSCA found a witness that the DPD tried to hide from the WC. His name is Sgt. Don Flusche.  He told the HSCA that he had moved his car across the street from the Main Street ramp at the time LHO was supposed to leave the building.  He was waiting for the transfer.  So he saw the whole thing.  He swore that there was no way Ruby came down that ramp, or walked down Main Street. Because he knew Ruby and was standing right across the street. That is what is called a game changer.  But there is more.

Its always important when a witness lies about a key point.  Dean was the chief of security that day.  He swore that no one could come in the back door, which faced Western Union from the outside. He said the doors were all secured and Ruby would have needed a key to get in. The HSCA found this was false.  They were not secured and Ruby would not have needed a key to get in. And they concluded that this is how Ruby got into the basement.  DVP knows this since he once said he was not aware of it,  then someone went ahead and posted that section of the report. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, 222-32)

Then there is Ruby's polygraph which was rigged by the FBI. Again, the HSCA proved this.  And it is a key piece of evidence.  Carlier and DVP do not like it.  Neither did VB so he covers it up. Why? Too late to ask him.  (Ibid pp. 267-70)

Then there is Ruby's excuse for being at the Western Union office--right behind the DPD at the key time. This was one of the worst parts of the WC cover up.  I discuss it for two pages in my book.  But suffice it to say, even the WC knew that the whole scenario of Ruby telegramming the small amount of money to Karen Carlin Sunday morning  was instigated by Ruby. Leon Hubert was a good lawyer who essentially dropped out of the WC since he figured--like Francis Adams--that the fix was in. (ibid p. 226)

Again, you can deny this stuff to the day you die, like VB did.  But its not going away; and I left out Billy Grammar.  He said Ruby called and warned them to change the plan or "we are going to kill him." (ibid p. 224)

Finally, what about the horns being edited out of the TV pickup? Should we even go into that?

Edited October 6, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ruby shooting Oswald as a mission is actually one of the strongest parts of our case today.   

Which indicates how truly lousy your case for a JFK conspiracy really is here in the year 2018. Because given the way things transpired in Dallas on 11/24/63, the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby just reeks of "Last Minute Effort" and "Spur Of The Moment". And I don't see how any reasonable person can deny that fact.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Jack Ruby And Karen Carlin

Edited October 6, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Andrej Stancak]

I asked Fred on September 16 about how he as a LN defender assimilated into his LN theory the reports of several witnesses seeing people and/or puffs of smoke on Grassy Knoll during the shooting. In my view, the witness reports of Jean Hill, S.M. Holland, Lee Bowers, Bill and Gale Newman, J.C. Price, and Ed Hoffman (my list is not complete) cannot be dismissed. Newman's only heard bullets being fired from their right and  behind, they did not see any shooters, but they were clear about shots arriving from the Grassy Knoll. How does the LN theory fare with these data? Fred did not answer. And so I still do not know what a LN theorist thinks about data which so clearly disprove the LN view.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[David Von Pein]

Andrej,

Bill & Gayle Newman are hardly the rock-solid "conspiracy" witnesses that CTers have made them out to be for over 50 years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Jean Hill, as everybody should know, changed her story completely in later years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jean-hill.html

And when we examine all of Lee Bowers' statements (instead of just the stuff that Mark Lane would like to have us look at), it's pretty clear that Bowers' observations don't really bolster the "conspiracy" scenario very much (if at all)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html

And Ed Hoffman's account is pretty ludicrous....

http://educationforum.com/topic/22840/comment=329603

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Which indicates how truly lousy your case for a JFK conspiracy really is here in the year 2018. Because given the way things transpired in Dallas on 11/24/63, the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby just reeks of "Last Minute Effort" and "Spur Of The Moment". And I don't see how any reasonable person can deny that fact.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Jack Ruby And Karen Carlin

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

It reeks now does it? And that makes it a fact?

What a fine nose you have. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Bart Kamp

[Andrej Stancak]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Andrej,

Bill & Gayle Newman are hardly the rock-solid "conspiracy" witnesses that CTers have made them out to be for over 50 years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Jean Hill, as everybody should know, changed her story completely in later years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/jean-hill.html

And when we examine all of Lee Bowers' statements (instead of just the stuff that Mark Lane would like to have us look at), it's pretty clear that Bowers' observations don't really bolster the "conspiracy" scenario very much (if at all)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html

And Ed Hoffman's account is pretty ludicrous....

http://educationforum.com/topic/22840/comment=329603

 

I see, you would just question the credibility of these witnesses. Actually, I trust all these people and appreciate their bravery when facing the lack of understanding or even a direct pressure to retract or change their reports. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest]

These Oswald shot JFK clowns can only nitpick a small fragment and debate that to death, a favoured technique by the bully John McAdams. These deniers are still at it, yet seem to 'forget' that they have been outargued for more than 50 years already.....ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

I reckon this topic is best served with leaving proper replies on Amazon.

Hurt them where it hurts most.