Jump to content
The Education Forum

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Keep pretending you know the answers to impossible-to-answer questions, Cliff. After all, it's the thing that CTers do best.

David, turn your head to the right, glance down upon your right shoulder-top then casually raise your right arm and wave to the crowd like JFK.

Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT along your right shoulder-top.

The indentation of your shirt fabric occurs every single time you raise your arm.

That's an iron-clad fact.

It's a universal phenomenon.

How does one spend 16 hours a day wearing a shirt without knowing how the shirt moves?

Such is the power of LN True Belief...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 820
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

1. There is a big difference between a witness saying "I didn't see" and a witness saying "I saw". If, say, I tell you that I saw Pat Speer at the JFK-Lancer conference, well, you can conclude that Pat Speer was there. But if I tell you that I didn't see Josiah Thompson, well, you cannot conclude that he wasn't there. You can only conclude that he may or may not have been there, since he could very well have been there without me noticing him. In other words, if anybody tells you that he didn't see Jack Ruby going down the main Street ramp, it doesn't necessarily mean -- and it certainly doesn't prove -- that Jack Ruby wasn't there.

Exactly.  I don't doubt that Vaughan and Flusche didn't see Ruby enter through the Main Street ramp as Ruby said he did.  (BTW, just a few years ago Vaughan was Lying SOB Suspect #1 for having allowed Ruby down the Main Street ramp, but now he's been rehabilitated and other DPD conspirators ostensibly let Ruby in through the alley entrance.  And so it goes in the Whac-A-Mole world of conspiracy theorizing.)  As to Flusche, we have only a very general summary of an interview.  I don't see that it adds anything to the equation.  Were his eyes riveted on Main Street at all times?  Did he never look away?  Was he never distracted?  We just don't know.  If he was there because he hoped to see Oswald, as he apparently said, why would he have taken notice of Ruby?  And yet a zealous conspiracy theorist will seize upon Flusche's non-observation as though it were some smoking gun and dispositive on the issue.  As you suggest, it would be an entirely different matter if Flusche or any other credible witness affirmatively said "I saw Ruby coming down the alley and being let into the back entrance."

Ditto with the flawed polygraph of Ruby.  It's irrelevant.  Immediately after shooting Oswald, Ruby explained in some detail how he entered the basement garage.  To the best of my knowledge, he never wavered from that.  What he said at his polygraph examination was entirely consistent with what he had always said.  The fact that the examination was flawed means only that we may not be able to place great faith in the examiner's evaluation of Ruby's truthfulness - but it certainly doesn't mean that he was being untruthful when he answered in a manner consistent with what he had said immediately after shooting Oswald.

If Ruby actually did enter through the alley, does this inevitably suggest a conspiracy?  No, not unless the only thing you are looking for is a conspiracy.  Perhaps the door wasn't secured; I read somewhere that it could be opened from the outside even when locked from the inside.  Or perhaps he simply knocked on the door, was recognized and was allowed in by someone who knew him, thought he was harmless and might as well be allowed in since the area was full of reporters anyway.  Perhaps he adopted the Main Street explanation simply to protect whomever had let him in.  However, I find it VERY difficult to believe that an emotional wreck like Ruby would have been thinking clearly enough in the immediate aftermath of the shooting to fabricate any story, including details such as seeing Rio Pierce's car.  Absent something a lot more compelling than people like Vaughan and Flusche saying they didn't see him, I am inclined to take what Ruby said at face value.  But then I'm not hell-bent to prove a conspiracy.

In 2013, Ruby's surviving nieces, daughters of his sister Eileen in Chicago, vividly recalled him telephoning her the night before the shooting of Oswald (presumably the 2 a.m. call) and wanting to immediately come be with the family in Chicago.  Eileen told him no, that he needed to be with Eva in Dallas since she had recently had surgery.  They said Eileen was regretful all her life that she had not encouraged him to come, thinking that the shooting of Oswald might never have occurred if she had.   How does Ruby's call fit with conspiracy thinking?

Likewise, George Senator's account has Ruby asleep shortly before the scheduled transfer of Oswald and sitting around in his underwear shortly thereafter.  How do these facts fit into the grand conspiracy of which Ruby was supposedly a part?  For that matter, all of Ruby's actions the night and morning before the shooting of Oswald look far more like a man who was genuinely coming unglued than a designated hitman preparing for his assignment.

Ditto for the visit to Western Union.  For this to have been cooked up as a cover story would have been insanely risky.  So many things could have gone wrong in the Western Union office, or during Ruby's trek from the office to the basement garage, that it would have been insane to take this chance if Ruby were really on a critical assignment to shoot Oswald.

According to all conspiracy theories of which I am aware, Oswald's survival was not anticipated.  The need to eliminate him required quick thinking and fast planning.  "Jack Ruby - yeah, he'll be a reliable gunman.  Somebody call him and tell him his assignment.  OK, Jack, the plan is that you'll be downtown around 10 (with Sheba, just to make everything look really normal), then you'll go into the WU office and send $25 to Little Lynn (just to make things look really, really normal).  Then you'll scurry over to the alley entrance (hopefully before Oswald is long gone) and wait (hopefully without being observed).  Just before Oswald is brought out, we'll let you in through the alley door (hopefully without being observed by anyone inside or outside the building).  You'll just blend in until you hear the car horn that means he's out, then you'll leap forward and shoot him (hopefully before any of the many people present sees what you're doing and knocks you on your ass)."

When, how and by whom was this genius-level plan hatched and communicated to the frazzled Ruby?  How many Ruby intimates (a lot) said that the volatile, emotionally unstable, blabbermouth Ruby was the last person on earth anyone would have hired to carry out an assignment like this?  Why would Ruby have been trusted not to crack under interrogation when Oswald wasn't?

I don't have all the answers, but again it seems to me that on something like this the conspiracy theorists completely ignore the context in which all this occurred, ignore the most compelling evidence, seize upon understandable confusion in the testimony, and emphasize non-evidence such as Flusche's non-observation and the irrelevant flaws in the way Ruby's polygraph examination was conducted.  Voila, "I walked right down the Main Street ramp" is transformed into a grand conspiracy involving the Mafia, the DPD, possibly the WU clerk, George Senator and Sheba, and perhaps even Eileen's daughters in Chicago (who said in 2013 that they wanted to remain anonymous because "efforts over the years to explain [Ruby's] actions have proven largely fruitless with listeners who refuse to believe that a larger conspiracy was not afoot," http://chicagopressrelease.com/news/jack-rubys-relatives-talk-for-first-time).

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you believe this?  It existed in the sixties but not now.

I didn't say it actually existed in the sixties. Only that your idea makes more sense when applied to that timeframe because of the limited media compared to today.

 

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So he goes to the president of NBC.  He pitches his idea.  The guy replies with words to the effect, Alec, thanks, but we have come to terms  with the official story on that subject.

Maybe NBC didn't think the program would garner a decent rating. Many young people don't know who JFK was.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

FInally, the MSM has a leftwing slant?

I understand many on the left deny a left-wing media bias. It is all in the eye of the beholder I guess. And no, I don't think Hillary is liberal by the current standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Was there a conspiracy to cover up relevant facts to the assassination and mislead the Warren Ommission?  Yes or no?

Getting back to the subject of this thread which is Litwin's book, here is what Paul Hoch said on that subject (and I agree with him):

My model is that there were many coverups, probably many independent ones … One possibility-ironically- is that Oswald did it alone but so many people had things to cover up [unrelated to any assassination plot] that the reaction of the government made it look like the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Getting back to the subject of this thread which is Litwin's book, here is what Paul Hoch said on that subject (and I agree with him):

My model is that there were many coverups, probably many independent ones … One possibility-ironically- is that Oswald did it alone but so many people had things to cover up [unrelated to any assassination plot] that the reaction of the government made it look like the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.

You just ignored what is a historical fact and dodged what is know known.  The investigation was mislead.  Period. 

In your response, you use words like "possibly", "probably".  I cannot use those words in court.  

Was there a coverup by government individuals then?  Yes or no?

Can we get to this point in discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Was there a coverup by government individuals then?  Yes or no?

Strictly speaking-yes. But if the purpose was to cover-up things they didn't want the WC (or anyone) to know-such as the Castro assassination plots rather than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK-so what? They naturally didn't want that juicy fact about Castro to get out. And BTW, Bobby Kennedy didn't mention it either. And every agency doubtless had their own little secrets. So, in that sense there was an innocuous conspiracy to keep certain secrets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Getting back to the subject of this thread which is Litwin's book, here is what Paul Hoch said on that subject (and I agree with him):

My model is that there were many coverups, probably many independent ones … One possibility-ironically- is that Oswald did it alone but so many people had things to cover up [unrelated to any assassination plot] that the reaction of the government made it look like the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.

Sorry, W., it's the physical evidence that makes the assassination a conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing worse than a Bugliosi/Posner type lawyer on this case.

Look, Flusche said that there was no way that Ruby came down Main Street and walked down the ramp.  He said that he had parked his car across from the ramp to wait for the time when Oswald came down.    Now Lance, do you think he was looking at the sky to count the birds or the cloud formation?  Do you think he was looking down the street the other way for a traffic jam that he was going to have to sort out?  But this in  the kind of crud  that prosecutors use when they have no case.

Here is what Moriarty wrote about his interview: "There was no doubt in his mind that Ruby did not walk down the ramp and further, did not walk down Main Street anywhere near the ramp."  And what does Payette in his best Arlen Specter impersonation say he calls this a "non observation".  LOL, ROTF, LMAO

:please

Now if you want to do more than just throw spitballs into a trash can, then find the guy.  Or find Moriarty.  The burden of proof is on you, or maybe you forgot that standard. After all its only the JFK case.

The lawyer then says well, the polygraph of Ruby was "flawed" but that does not mean anything.

I mean really, where does this guy get this baloney?  The HSCA panel of professional examiners said that Bell Herndon violated at least ten standards of practice.  Those were so grievous that Bugliois had to  l-i-e about them in his book.  And there is no other way to characterize what he did.  Since VB was working from the same source material that everyone else was. That report is absolutely blistering. Just about everything a polygraph specialist could do wrong, Herndon did wrong.  And Payette has the chutzpah to call this test "flawed".  They wrote that Herndon simply lost control of the entire process since there were too many people in the room who interfered with the proceedings.  I mean Alexander had off the record talks with Ruby about the questions while the exam was in process!!  Another one was the length of the exam, which was about five hours.  As the report says this is preposterous.  When any exam lasts that long it means that there are way too many questions.  Which was the case. Why is that bad: because liars get immune to lying after awhile.  Therefore the detection process will not work even in case of an obvious lie. The panel had never heard of any test containing this amount of questions or lasting that long.

Further, the panel discovered that there was a definite problem with the questions: control, irrelevant and relevant.  Herndon had confused them since some of the control questions simply  were completely dysfunctional.  That is they would not work as an indicator.  In other words, by wearing Ruby down, the charted physiological response would not be detectable,.  By confusing the types of questions, there would be no accurate landmarks to gauge the test by.   

But that was not all.  There was a fallback.  Herndon set the GSR machine at 25% power at the start.  He then lowered it from there.  The report said this was completely contrary to what he should have done. It never should have been that low to begin with, but it should have been raised as the test went on. Galvanic Skin Response is a  sensitive indicator of deception since it registers things like someone blushing.  The report said that Ruby's GSR was simply useless.  They even suspected that the machine Herndon used was broken.  They also said that his readings of the test were actually wrong.  And they show why in technical terms.

Payette/Specter calls this process "flawed".  Yep and the American preparations for the Tet offensive were also "flawed'.   After reading that report, any objective person--which excludes Payette-would suspect that the test was rigged.  And that the operator would never do such a thing unless he got the OK from above.  As Bill Turner once said in examining the reports filed by the FBI in the case, "FBI agents just do not perform like that."  If you want to be Shirley Temple fine.  But some of us don't buy the good ship lollipop anymore.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours 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?

For one thing, I don't think he really expected to survive, which is why he left his cash and wedding ring at Ruth Paine's and his handgun at the rooming house.  When he did survive, I believe he was thinking on the fly.  He was a very crafty character - I believe he realized that denying everything would obviously buy him time and (if he had lived) eventually give him a golden opportunity to spout his philosophy and political views to a massive audience.  This may not make sense to those of us who don't have delusions of grandeur, but I believe it would have made sense to LHO.

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?

Of course he was a reasonably good marksman - he had demonstrated that in the Marines.  He killed JFK by being a reasonably good marksman with almost eerie self-control who got incredibly lucky with his clunky rifle.  He would not have been of interest to serious conspirators because he was unreliable and weird and because far better marksmen with far better weapons were readily available.  If they actually were looking for assassins, there would have been at least 10,000 better ones waiting to be hired.  If I were going to make LHO a patsy, I certainly would have found a way to supply him with a much more plausible rifle.  15 years after the assassination, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a Weaver scope for a mere $75.

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 believe Oswald was highly intelligent.  I think that was part of his frustration and bitterness.  He knew he was highly intelligent but could never rise above loser status or get anyone to take him seriously.  My wife is Russian (indeed, she is from Minsk) and doesn't believe his skills were out of the ordinary for a young guy immersed in Russian culture for 2+ years.

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."

I can't find your "THEY" quote, but:  Oswald arrived in Moscow on October 16.  He went to the American embassy and revealed his intention to defect on October 31.  See http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/moscow1.htm  In between, he had revealed his intention to defect to his guide, Rimma, been interviewed by the KGB and been hospitalized.  Rimma disapproved of his plans, and I would suppose that she or someone else did indeed tell him that the American embassy would try to talk him out of it.  Why is that surprising or suspicious?

We can agree to disagree.  I believe that his bizarre actions, from childhood to the Marines to the USSR to the assassination, are attributable to all the factors I've suggested.  His childhood was a pretty good predictor of a bizarre adult.

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?

His appearance on the radio was one of his non-bizarre moments in which his intelligence could shine, as was his speech to the seminary students in Dallas.  Despite being blindsided, he acquitted himself quite well.  Trying to "infiltrate" Carlos Bringuier's anti-Castro operation was entirely consistent with his hopes to impress the national Fair Play for Cuba officials.  The street incident was likewise part of this effort, a staged event that he had described to the national FPC officials BEFORE it occurred.  Ditto for the radio interview.  All of these efforts were consistent with his hopes to establish himself as a serious Marxist and big cheese in the pro-Castro movement, which is where I believe his genuine sympathies lay.  The radio interview, where he was blindsided by having his defection to the USSR exposed, dashed these hopes.  I don't see any need to associate Phillips' activities with any of this.  The notion that LHO was a secret right-winger and rabidly anti-Castro is, I believe, completely absurd.  If he had any hopes for a life after the assassination, they lay in Cuba.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is nothing worse than a Bugliosi/Posner type lawyer on this case.

Golly, hell hath no fury like a conspiracy theorist who's been disagreed with!  Especially if said conspiracy theorist thinks the JFK assassination is his private domain.  If I thought I were as important as Jim thinks he is, I wouldn't even bother with someone like Lance.  I mean, Lance doesn't even have a JFK website, books to sell, or a fee schedule for his appearance at conferences like a Serious JFK Researcher does.

Look, Flusche said that there was no way that Ruby came down Main Street and walked down the ramp.  He said that he had parked his car across from the ramp to wait for the time when Oswald came down.    Now Lance, do you think he was looking at the sky to count the birds or the cloud formation?  Do you think he was looking down the street the other way for a traffic jam that he was going to have to sort out?  But this in  the kind of crud  that prosecutors use when they have no case.

We don't actually know what Flusche said at all.  We don't actually know what he was doing at all.  All we have is Moriarty's brief interview summary.  That's my point.

Here is what Moriarty wrote about his interview: "There was no doubt in his mind that Ruby did not walk down the ramp and further, did not walk down Main Street anywhere near the ramp."  And what does Payette in his best Arlen Specter impersonation say he calls this a "non observation".  LOL, ROTF, LMAO

At least take the time to let your spleen cool down before you injure yourself.  The non-observation is that HE DID NOT OBSERVE RUBY - for example, going in the alley entrance.  This is the point that Francois and I are making.  "I didn't see Ruby coming down Main Street" is not in the same category of evidence as "I saw Ruby going in the alley entrance."  MORIARTY says FLUSCHE said "there was no doubt in his mind."  We don't know what Flusche actually said or how well what he said would've held up if he were subject to closer interrogation.  Only in Conspiracy Land is it impossible that Flusche had an agenda of his own (supporting Vaughan?) or that he simply wasn't paying as close attention at all times as Moriarty's summary might suggest.

Now if you want to do more than just throw spitballs into a trash can, then find the guy.  Or find Moriarty.  The burden of proof is on you, or maybe you forgot that standard. After all its only the JFK case.

You lost me there.  The burden of proof is on me?  How do we assign burdens of proof on a discussion forum?

The lawyer then says well, the polygraph of Ruby was "flawed" but that does not mean anything.

I mean really, where does this guy get this baloney?  The HSCA panel of professional examiners said that Bell Herndon violated at least ten standards of practice.  Those were so grievous that Bugliois had to  l-i-e about them in his book.  And there is no other way to characterize what he did.  Since VB was working from the same source material that everyone else was. That report is absolutely blistering. Just about everything a polygraph specialist could do wrong, Herndon did wrong.  And Payette has the chutzpah to call this test "flawed".  They wrote that Herndon simply lost control of the entire process since there were too many people in the room who interfered with the proceedings.  I mean Alexander had off the record talks with Ruby about the questions while the exam was in process!!  Another one was the length of the exam, which was about five hours.  As the report says this is preposterous.  When any exam lasts that long it means that there are way too many questions.  Which was the case. Why is that bad: because liars get immune to lying after awhile.  Therefore the detection process will not work even in case of an obvious lie. The panel had never heard of any test containing this amount of questions or lasting that long.

Further, the panel discovered that there was a definite problem with the questions: control, irrelevant and relevant.  Herndon had confused them since some of the control questions simply  were completely dysfunctional.  That is they would not work as an indicator.  In other words, by wearing Ruby down, the charted physiological response would not be detectable,.  By confusing the types of questions, there would be no accurate landmarks to gauge the test by.   

But that was not all.  There was a fallback.  Herndon set the GSR machine at 25% power at the start.  He then lowered it from there.  The report said this was completely contrary to what he should have done. It never should have been that low to begin with, but it should have been raised as the test went on. Galvanic Skin Response is a  sensitive indicator of deception since it registers things like someone blushing.  The report said that Ruby's GSR was simply useless.  They even suspected that the machine Herndon used was broken.  They also said that his readings of the test were actually wrong.  And they show why in technical terms.

Payette/Specter calls this process "flawed".  Yep and the American preparations for the Tet offensive were also "flawed'.   After reading that report, any objective person--which excludes Payette-would suspect that the test was rigged.  And that the operator would never do such a thing unless he got the OK from above.  As Bill Turner once said in examining the reports filed by the FBI in the case, "FBI agents just do not perform like that."  If you want to be Shirley Temple fine.  But some of us don't buy the good ship lollipop anymore.

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that the polygraph exam was The Single Most Ineptly Conducted Polygraph Exam In the History of the Known Universe.  And so?  The net result would be that we can't tell whether any of the answers that Ruby gave were truthful or not.  But we do know that the answers he gave were consistent with what he had said immediately after the assassination and thereafter.  Insofar as the issue of how he got into the basement garage is concerned, the polygraph exam is simply irrelevant.

The polygraph exam was conducted months after Ruby had been convicted.  It was taken after he had begged Earl Warren to be allowed to take one.  As the Warren Commission indicated, it was basically a favor to Ruby.  Is it surprising in these circumstances that it wasn't a model exam?  I suppose Conspiracy Logic is that the FBI intentionally made this The Single Most Ineptly Conducted Polygraph Exam In the History of the Known Universe so, if Ruby suddenly started blathering about a conspiracy, the FBI could say the exam wasn't valid.  Is that the idea?  Alas, he didn't start blathering about a conspiracy, so the fact that this was The Single Most Ineptly Conducted Polygraph Exam In the History of the Known Universe is essentially irrelevant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I should also deal with DVP here and his well, it may not be six seconds mantra.

The WC specified this because they said it may be the case in case the first shot missed.

Here is the problem.  The WC was stuck with three shots.  Period.  They also had two anchors, the oak tree and car going behind the sign, and Z 313.

One shot they say hit JFK in the neck (which we now know they lied about the position)  and one in the rear of the skull.  Which leaves one shot left.

This is the Tague shot.  Tague said he heard the first shot. So he had to have gotten hit with the second shot. Ipso facto, three shots in six seconds, just do the arithmetic on a calculator.

Now this has driven the other side mad. So they sometimes say the Tague hit was really a fragment.  But in his fine book, Gerry McKnight takes care of that one quite well.  There is no way a fragment would have displaced a cement block from 200 feet away and dislodged it that far upward.

The other problem is even worse.  There was no copper and the FBI knew it and covered it up for years on end. In fact they actually carved out the piece of cement, and then redid it.  They then said the mark came from street cleaning. Yep, and I'm Steven Spielberg's brother. IF anyone has ever seen a copper covered bullet from WCC, you will know that there is no way the coper came off from a twig from a tree (Posner) or from spinning off the street and the contact stripping off the compete outer layer. (BugliosI)

As I said with Lance, this is the kind of crap lawyers use when they have no case.

That shot and what Hoover did with it is evidence of conspiracy pure and simple.  Hoover knew it and showed what VB calls Consciousness of Guilt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see what bankruptcy is, check out Payette's reply to me above on Flusche, and Ruby's polygraph.

The point is what Bill  Turner said it was: FBI agents do not perform like that.  Unless the fix is in. 

Herndon knew what he did was OK.  As the FBI did not want to expose Ruby as a xxxx.  If you read the report, they indicate that was the case.

Now if Ruby lied and Dean lied, and you can actually see Ruby hiding behind Harrison before Oswald comes out--another point Ruby lied about--then what is their testimony worth?  (BTW, Harrison drugged himself before his polygraph)

Payette calls this "incompetence"?  He does not want to admit it was a cover up.  Since that leads to the question:  Of what?

I will post another Shirley Temple clip if you wish Lance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...