I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[James DiEugenio]

Parnell is simply ridiculous.

Bobby Kennedy also remained silent, which is not surprising since he was more involved with the next generation of plots than even JFK.

The IG report exonerates RFK and JFK in the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. And so does the interview for the Church Committee with the guy who co wrote it.  Please  do not tell me you are not aware of this?

The last stages of the CIA plots were Roselli and Harvey, and then Cubela. Geez Tracy think Harvey and RFK were in bed with Roselli?  One of the guys RFK was trying to put in jail?  Plus Harvey hated Bobby's guts.  Cubela wanted proof of sanction from the White House.   Helms knew he could not get it so he sent an impersonator.

But this is just plain silliness bare of any factual underpinning.  For instance, the CIA had to brief RFK on the plots.  And they said that the longer we talked the harder he was grinding  his teeth. 

I mean, pulease.  How many times does Parnell have to slip on a banana peel before he realizes he should read up a bit.  I mean, Paul Hoch----- of all people!

Edited October 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

46 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I think that Oswald likely would have thought that killing the POTUS was enough. Additional killings would have been superfluous.

Thank you again for answering the question.

So he was not a psychopath killer on a rampage, just looking to shoot JFK and get into history.  JFK was enough then.

Ok, so then when he allegedly shot Tippit, why did he clearly commit OVERKILL?  Clearly he knew Tippit was dead, he shot him at close range multiple times.  Why finish it with overkill?

Overkill means he would have shot Connelly, Jackie, etc.

He does not do it though with the JFK limo.  Instead he allegedly hurries up, hides the weapon, and runs down the stairs to get his soda of choice.

But with Tippit, no, he makes sure there is overkill.  Then leaves.  I don't think psychologically this fits the pattern then.

I think it is a huge problem for LHO did it alone when you factor the various witnesses to the Tippit shooting.

Also, then we agree that the report that LHO's real target was Connelly is garbage then?

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cory Santos

[David Von Pein]

54 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Thank you again for answering the question.

So he was not a psychopath killer on a rampage, just looking to shoot JFK and get into history.  JFK was enough then.

But please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree?

 

Quote

Ok, so then when he allegedly shot Tippit, why did he clearly commit OVERKILL?  Clearly he knew Tippit was dead, he shot him at close range multiple times.  Why finish it with overkill?

The Tippit shooting was obviously something Oswald could not have foreseen in advance. And I'm sure he did want to make certain Tippit was dead before he fled that crime scene. He didn't want to start running toward Patton Avenue and then find that Tippit was still alive and able to shoot back at him as he ran. So, Oswald finished him off. (And yet this is the type of cold-blooded killer that many conspiracy theorists feel compelled to try and defend. That's very sad, IMO.)

 

Quote

Overkill means he would have shot Connelly, Jackie, etc.

He does not do it though with the JFK limo.  Instead he allegedly hurries up, hides the weapon, and runs down the stairs to get his soda of choice.

But with Tippit, no, he makes sure there is overkill.  Then leaves.  I don't think psychologically this fits the pattern then.

But, again, the Tippit killing was not PLANNED in advance by Oswald. It occurred due to the circumstances that Oswald found himself in---i.e., out on the street 45 minutes after he had just killed the President, and then being confronted by a police officer.

In my opinion, Oswald's actions on Tenth Street when he encountered J.D. Tippit perfectly fit the "pattern" of events in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.

 

Quote

I think it is a huge problem for LHO did it alone when you factor the various witnesses to the Tippit shooting.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. If there was ever a murder case that was solved (without a doubt) on the day it occurred, it's the Tippit murder case. The various witnesses, plus the ballistics (bullet shell) evidence forever will prove the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit.

The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following totally bizarre (and impossible) situation occurred:

Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier.

 

Quote

Also, then we agree that the report that LHO's real target was Connelly is garbage then?

Yes. I think that theory is pretty much garbage.

Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree?

 

The Tippit shooting was obviously something Oswald could not have foreseen in advance. And I'm sure he DID want to make certain Tippit was dead before he (LHO) fled that crime scene. He didn't want to start running toward Patton Avenue and then find Tippit was still alive and able to shoot back at him as he ran. So, Oswald finished him off. (And yet this is the type of cold-blooded killer that many conspiracy theorists feel compelled to try and DEFEND. That's very sad, IMO.)

 

But, again, the Tippit killing was not PLANNED in advance by Oswald. It occurred due to the circumstances that Oswald found himself in---i.e., out on the street 45 minutes after he had just killed the President, and then being confronted by a police officer.

In my opinion, Oswald's actions on Tenth Street when he encountered J.D. Tippit perfectly fit the "pattern" of events in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.

 

I couldn't disagree more strongly. If there was ever a murder case that was SOLVED (without a doubt) on the day it occurred, it's the Tippit murder case. The various witnesses, plus the ballistics (bullet shell) evidence forever will prove the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit.

The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following totally bizarre (and impossible) situation occurred:

Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier.

 

Yes. I think that theory is pretty much garbage.

Ok, thank you.

But, again, the pattern is strange.   He shoots at Walker from a far away distance, did not hit him.  He must have known that. 

So why not go closer to make sure the job was done?  Why not try again some other time?  

This is a killer who gets the job done.  That is the profile you seem to suggest.  

He saw JFK's head explode so no need for another bullet.  Job done.  He went and shot Tippit after already fatally shooting him.  Again, job done.  Yet with Walker, no job done.  Strange.

Now, he must have known Tippit was dead at that range.  He got the job done.

Let me be clear about one thing, I understand your point about defending him-I see some even say he was completely innocent.  I never have subscribed to that based on the evidence.

But back to the facts, why did he not get the job done with Walker?  And really, how would that have put him in the history books?  No, if he went after Walker, there was another motive other than being in the history books do you agree? 

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

But back to the facts, why did he not get the job done with Walker?  And really, how would that have put him in the history books?  No, if he went after Walker, there was another motive other than being in the history books do you agree? 

Yes, that's probably true. Marina said that Lee told her he shot at Walker because Lee thought of Walker as a "Hitler"-like individual, and killing him would ultimately save many lives in the future.

[Cory Santos]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, that's probably true. Marina said that Lee told her he shot at Walker because Lee thought of Walker as a "Hitler"-like individual, and killing him would ultimately save many lives in the future.

Yet JFK stopped WWIII with the Cuban Missile Crisis, thus bringing peace, unless LHO really was anti Castro and was upset over the BOP. 

Yet, Walker was kicked out of office due to JFK so LHO should have liked JFK.

Marina's comment makes him a crusader-albeit using evil means- for justice.

Hmm... so he killed someone he had no animosity for just to get in the history books?

Recall, he left his ring, I think that was very important.

I wonder, if he wore his ring would gun powder residue have been able to be detected on it if he shot a rifle?

While we are discussing things, I would like to take a short change, do you agree that DCM had a radio in his hand in Dealey?

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cory Santos

[David Von Pein]

12 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Do you agree that DCM had a radio in his hand in Dealey?

I don't know. I guess it's possible he had a radio. Maybe he was listening to The Rex Jones Show on KLIF—AM 1190.

Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't know. I guess it's possible he had a radio. Maybe he was listening to KLIF—AM 1190.

So its possible.  Ok, considering Lee Bowers testimony then, would you agree that having someone driving around the parking lot next to the depository with a radio while someone in Dealey has a radio is more than a coincidence?

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

...would you agree that having someone driving around the parking lot next to the depository with a radio while someone in Dealey has a radio is more than a coincidence?

How do you know what kind of radio he might have had? Maybe it was just a transistor radio. Is that possible in your view?

[Cory Santos]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

How do you know what kind of radio he might have had? Maybe it was just a transistor radio. Is that possible in your view?

DCM?  Based on the size and the antenna, I find it highly doubtful.  That was a large radio from what I can see in the pictures.  It reminds me very much of a military type communications radio.  Large and bulky.  

But these were getting easier to carry.  I do not have the measurements from the DCM photos.  Would be interesting to compare.

1962: Motorola HT200 Portable Two-Way Radio
Motorola introduced the transistorized Handie-Talkie HT200 portable two-way radio in 1962. Small and lightweight at the time, it weighed 33 ounces (935 grams) and was nicknamed the "brick" because of its shape and durability.

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot recall if Bowers gave specifics of what he saw, not that they have to  be exact.  The fact that DCM tucked it into his shirt and then walked away, is concerning.  The fact that he took it out at all while people were taking photographs, is interesting if he is involved in a conspiracy.  Witnesses, photographs, video could see him?  But then, IF there was a conspiracy, I think some collateral damage was acceptable (they simply could not account for every possible detail) but as long as the truly physical evidence was controlled, they would be ok.

So regardless of the type of radio DCM had, do you concede to the above? 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cory Santos

[David Von Pein]

Cory,

But what possible purpose do you think Dark Complected Man served in the overall conspiracy plot? You certainly don't think he was an actual shooter, right? So why was his presence on Elm Street even needed at all?

I've never quite understood where CTers think they can go with their speculation about DCM or Umbrella Man. They're not doing anything but standing there on the street watching the motorcade. So, WHY do they need to even be in Dealey Plaza if they're not the shooters? Signal men? What for? Why would that be necessary at all?

Edited October 11, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Cory,

But what possible purpose do you think Dark Complected Man served in the overall conspiracy plot? You certainly don't think he was an actual shooter, right? So why was his presence on Elm Street even needed at all?

I've never quite understood where CTers think they can go with their speculation about DCM or Umbrella Man. They're not doing anything but standing there on the street watching the motorcade. So, WHY do they need to even be in Dealey Plaza if they're not the shooters? Signal men? What for? Why would that be necessary at all?

IF there was a conspiracy, he is the closest person to JFK when he is shot.  IF he is involved, no, I don't think he is a shooter.  Though, I do think he had a gun under his jacket on the right hand side of his chest.  No, I think when he put his arm up, what he was doing is similar to the signal to stop.  I doubt he was protesting or waiving.  No, he would have been a signal to someone guiding the shooters.  Did he know LHO?  LOL, who knows.  He should have been found and interrogated just as the umbrella man should have been.  I don't buy the House testimony at all by the alleged umbrella man. Perhaps his hand up signaled to LHO he did not need that fourth shot as we were speculating above.  Here is a thought, could LHO have seen umbrella man and DCM clearly from where he was?  Interesting thought. 

Really, whatever his purpose, alone, I can say it might be a "strange coincidence"-my term for things that look nefarious but truly are not- but when considered with Bowers testimony who I think was credible, then, it pushes it over the line.  More so when he looks at the knoll while he is on it and then puts it in his pants in the back (why did he not put it in his pocket or simply the front of his pants?  Moreover, is that the bulge under his right arm on his chest which I think is a gun?  Why not put it back there then?)  

Asking why they are necessary is problematic because we are speculating.  I suppose my friends who are experienced in this area whom I have discussed this with have good reasons which they told me, but, without speculating, if you concede that Bowers was correct in his testimony and that DCM had the radio transmitter, then, to me, you have evidence of something very odd happening during an assassination.  To me, that is bigtime smoke.  This smoke will remain that however since the investigation did not jump on these two characters, DCM and umbrella man.  Purpose is speculation at this point and not necessary.  Acknowledgment of this is appropriate.  

I again wonder whether LHO, if on the 6th floor, could have seen them.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Steve Thomas]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I cannot recall if Bowers gave specifics of what he saw, not that they have to  be exact. 

Cory,

 

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers1.htm

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lee E. Bowers, Jr.,

 

“This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car.”

 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

 

“Mr. BOWERS - Yes, some 15 minutes or so after this, at approximately 12 o'clock, 20 to 12--I guess 12:20 would be close to it, little time differential there--but there was another car which was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.
Mr. BALL - How could you tell that?
Mr. BOWERS - He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and gave that appearance.”

 

Doesn't sound like a transistor radio to me.

 

Steve Thomas

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Withholding evidence, for whatever reason, is enough to have a case thrown out.  That is America that is what this country stands for.

To publish a government report which you admit - thank you- had information withheld from, and to label an American guilty of a crime simply is wrong.

And, really, inconvenient facts?  It is highly relevant to an honest investigation that there was a conspiracy to get Castro.  It is extremely relevant that the SS did not notify the w.c. of the several prior attempts recent on JFK.  I could go on, but, to suggest innocent motives is absurd because just by tampering or withholding the evidence, for whatever reason, the motives cannot be innocent because it is inherently wrong.  Don't you understand that?

First, the WC was a fact-finding body, not a legal proceeding. If LHO had not been killed and had been tried in Dallas, he would have been judged guilty or innocent on the evidence from Dallas, not by what the CIA or FBI was doing. And he would have been found guilty very, very quickly.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

I don't buy the House testimony at all by the alleged umbrella man.

Cory, it could not be more obvious that Louis Witt was the umbrella man. Check out this article by EF member Ron Ecker that contains a good graphic by Jerry Organ:

http://www.ronaldecker.com/umbrella.html