Can Oswald's denials be reconciled with the Lone Nut position?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Hi Lance, That's a cute picture. Sort of a 50's cartoonish styler. What is this, "The Getaway?"

I can almost feel the glaring heat!

 

As for your central point , I mostly agree with it. Attributing the fact that Oswald protested he was a patsy, does run counter to the theory that Oswald's chief motivation was to be an historic figure. But it's often being forwarded as a major reason for Oswald's innocence. It's not that overwhelming.

 

Lance: Curiously, just yesterday - no, really - when I was reading a couple of posts discussing some detail of the conspiracy, the thought occurred to me "Do you realize how many completely unproven assumptions you have articulated in your lead-up to the obscure detail you wish to discuss?" 

 

I'm not an LNer, but Lance is right. a lot of research could be freed up by eliminating dogma and general garbage.  Right now , what I'm seeing which I don't like seeing is first the sort of obligatory Jim Di trying to dig up dirt on Lance, which certainly does merit a response from Lance. And he's made one, you can research it, and attack Lance's answer that he was an innocent bystander to his own award. I guess Lance falls into the characterization people make about Liberals giving out undeserved awards to their kids, for just showing up. But this is in the Arizona, of all states, justice system!

 

But apart from that all I'm hearing is lot of faux incredulity at Lance's assertions, a lot of changing subjects, and a sort superficial dismissal.

 

But the truth is, Lance is asserting very little, nothing monumental that changes the course of anything. He's sort of just elaborated the WC findings, so there's nothing that original here. To get so defensive about a point like this is sort of taking Lance's bait. If you think this is worth questioning , then bring out your big guns, that is Di Eugenio and see what he's got. I don't think that's going to happen.

 

So Lance I'm not going to go to the mat with you about this question and essentially just call this a stalemate.I'll grant you your question that Oswald protesting his innocence is inconclusive as to his guilt or innocence. No one will be able to prove it one way or another. And in mind there's nothing else to be done. So can we move on?

 

I've noticed DVP's here. I have a question to ask both of you, but I'd really like to see Dave's answer first. Dave I always find your answers very lean. You've never bothered to look into any associations that the conspiracy side uses to establish some motive, even if I think some of them fail. You're unlike Tracey or Lance in that it seems you don't read background books  because all the facts you seek to establish were on 11/22/1963 and you find those answers conclusive and not worthy of any further examination of associations and circumstances to establish motive, and that's fine.

 

Dave, I don't want to hear any quick little blurbs from Bugliosi,I want to hear in some depth, in 100 words, because it's worth that much thinking, and in your own words, your answer to this question, and then Lance.

 "Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Oswald?

[Bill Fite]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Only a person who demands 100% to-the-inch perfection in a Single-Bullet Theory re-creation like the one performed in October 2004 in "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"  would think that the SBT was actually "debunked" in that program.

 

The angles don't work -- move it to the wound in the autopsy photos and the bullet still exits the chest not the throat ashard as that might be for you to accept.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Oswald?

Because Jack Ruby held a grievance against Lee Oswald. Ruby was convinced that Oswald had killed President Kennedy. It's really as simple as that, IMO.

And in many ways, Ruby's killing of Oswald was the same in the "perfect opportunity" departmant as Oswald's killing of Kennedy. Ruby was presented the perfect opportunity on Sunday morning (via pure chance and ideal timing).

And the fact that Ruby regularly carried a revolver on him and was the type of person who would often take matters into his own hands (e.g., such as acting as his own bouncer at his nightclub) only enhanced the likelihood that Ruby would act upon his grievance when he discovered (by pure accident and happenstance) that Oswald had not yet been moved to the County Jail as of the time when Jack was downtown near the City Hall sending a money order to one of his nightclub employees.

As it turned out, happenstance and good fortune were on the side of Lee Harvey Oswald at 12:30 PM on November 22nd (in the form of Bonnie Ray Williams deciding to vacate the sixth floor of the Book Depository just minutes before Oswald required complete solitude to perform his evil deed from that same sixth floor).

And, similarly, happenstance and good fortune were also on the side of Jack Ruby at 11:20 AM on November 24th (in the form of police officer Roy Vaughn stepping away from the Main Street ramp at City Hall just far enough and just long enough to allow Ruby to slip into the police basement undetected).*

* Although I do allow for the slight possibility of Ruby entering the DPD basement in another manner (via a side door), as discussed here.

[Oops! I'm sure that was over 100 words. Sorry, Kirk. Oh, well.]

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ok, Lance, what are your thoughts?

 

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 12:07 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ok, Lance, what are your thoughts?

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Kirk Gallaway]

So I'm going to focus more on Dave's earlier response response, with a few snippets of Lance.

 

Lance: There's no question that this incident, like so many aspects of Oswald's life and the assassination and its aftermath, seems so bizarre that it almost cries out for an elaborate conspiratorial explanation. Hence, it's still being debated almost 60 years later.

 

But you don't really agree with that do you Dave? So you don't think your theory involves  a lot of happenstance to expect others to believe?

 

So you  believe what his family said, that Jack grieved more about the JFKA then the death of his own Mother, was it? How do you think that got started? Would you agree that's become the standard explanation of motive? Though essentially that's the motive you ascribe to as well.  He was one of these wacky "low level" mob people who, ignored the fact that RFK went after local mob boss Carlos Marcello but  just loved the  Kennedy's right Dave? Was it his love for Jackie? So you believe everything Ruby's family allegedly said about Jack's motives, because they would have no motive to lie? Or do you subscribe to the Jewish persecution thing that Posner says?

You really haven't touched on the "why" here. Since you're going for Ruby's emotions as a reason for his assassination of Oswald. Could you be more specific about Jack's powerful emotions that you allege?

 

No mention at all of Ruby's, mob ties. Not significant? So it's been alleged Ruby ran arms to Cuba. You don't believe that? Then why did Ruby go to Cuba?

The first person he met in jail was Joe  Campisi, the Dallas organized crime boss. Nothing to see here folks?

 

Ruby has ties to Carlos Marcello, mob boss of New Orleans who also controls Texas!. Oswald himself has ties to New Orleans. He had an uncle Dutz Murret, a low level bookie who worked  for  Carlos Marcello, who if you remember Bobby was regularly harassing and eventually banished to Guatemala! This is not significant to you?

 

Posner always uses the excuse that Ruby was "low level mob" to downplay all this. And that wouldn't  make him more susceptible to compromise? Or do they do that only the big shots?    heh heh 

Perhaps Ruby even had a large financial debt to pay? Not possible?

 

 

Earlier phone records show  Ruby made 3  three calls, two on November 7, and one on November 8, all to Robert “Barney” Baker, an aide to Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Baker had been released from prison in June 1963.

You are aware of the bad blood between RFK and Hoffa? So none of this is worth looking into, right Dave? Just shop talk union stuff about dancers?

 

Lance: I always laugh at Santo Trafficante's response when someone asked him, "What if I told you Jack Ruby was working for the Mafia?" Trafficante: "I'd say the Mafia needs a new Personnel Director."

 

But, according to the conspiracy script,   he was anything but a new Personell Director. Sort of more of the Posner "low level" Jack Ruby explanation to me.

So just as with the Ruby- Hoffa aide shop talk about the dancers conversation. When in doubt, we'll just believe the mobsters account? Right guys?

 

Dave, I'll grant you might dispute a detail or 2 here. I haven't studied this in a long time, and I'm going largely from memory.

But why are you ignoring all this evidence to pursue a JFK "fanboy" worship that nothing in Ruby's background would suggest?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 1:50 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

So I'm going to focus more on Dave's earlier response response, with a few snippets of Lance.

 

Lance: There's no question that this incident, like so many aspects of Oswald's life and the assassination and its aftermath, seems so bizarre that it almost cries out for an elaborate conspiratorial explanation. Hence, it's still being debated almost 60 years later.

 

But you don't really agree with that do you Dave? So you don't think your theory involves  a lot of happenstance to expect others to believe?

 

So you  believe what his family said, that Jack grieved more about the JFKA then the death of his own Mother, was it? How do you think that got started? Would you agree that's become the standard explanation of motive? Though essentially that's the motive you ascribe to as well.  He was one of these wacky "low level" mob people who, ignored the fact that RFK went after local mob boss Carlos Marcello but  just loved the  Kennedy's right Dave? Was it his love for Jackie? So you believe everything Ruby's family allegedly said about Jack's motives, because they would have no motive to lie? Or do you subscribe to the Jewish persecution thing that Posner says?

You really haven't touched on the "why" here. Since you're going for Ruby's emotions as a reason for his assassination of Oswald. Could you be more specific about Jack's powerful emotions that you allege?

 

No mention at all of Ruby's, mob ties. Not significant? So it's been alleged Ruby ran arms to Cuba. You don't believe that? Then why did Ruby go to Cuba?

The first person he met in jail was Joe  Campisi, the Dallas organized crime boss. Nothing to see here folks?

 

Ruby has ties to Carlos Marcello, mob boss of New Orleans who also controls Texas!. Oswald himself has ties to New Orleans. He had an uncle Dutz Murret, a low level bookie who worked  for  Carlos Marcello, who if you remember Bobby was regularly harassing and eventually banished to Guatemala! This is not significant to you?

 

Posner always uses the excuse that Ruby was "low level mob" to downplay all this. And that wouldn't  make him more susceptible to compromise? Or do they do that only the big shots?    heh heh 

Perhaps Ruby even had a large financial debt to pay? Not possible?

 

 

Earlier phone records show  Ruby made 3  three calls, two on November 7, and one on November 8, all to Robert “Barney” Baker, an aide to Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Baker had been released from prison in June 1963.

You are aware of the bad blood between RFK and Hoffa? So none of this is worth looking into, right Dave? Just shop talk union stuff about dancers?

 

Lance: I always laugh at Santo Trafficante's response when someone asked him, "What if I told you Jack Ruby was working for the Mafia?" Trafficante: "I'd say the Mafia needs a new Personnel Director."

 

But, according to the conspiracy script,   he was anything but a new Personell Director. Sort of more of the Posner "low level" Jack Ruby explanation to me.

So just as with the Ruby- Hoffa aide shop talk about the dancers conversation. When in doubt, we'll just believe the mobsters account? Right guys?

 

Dave, I'll grant you might dispute a detail or 2 here. I haven't studied this in a long time, and I'm going largely from memory.

But why are you ignoring all this evidence to pursue a JFK "fanboy" worship that nothing in Ruby's background would suggest?

 

 

 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Steve Roe]

23 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe the key to what Oswald was up to is found in his hope that John Abt would represent him. Abt was the chief legal counsel for the Communist Party USA. Oswald said he didn’t know Abt personally “but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act.” (The Smith Act criminalized advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.)

Welcome back Lance. Nothing has changed here, same old arguments and the conspiracy theorists still haven't solved the Kennedy and Tippit murders. 

I agree with your point about John Abt. That's a big key to Oswald's mindset. Sadly, it gets ignored by conspiracy theorists, but that's nothing new. 

In agreement with you, Oswald was smart in many ways. I sure wouldn't call him dumb by any means. He taught himself Russian, studied Marx and history, handled himself pretty well in those New Orleans debates. 

Yet given all that, how can a man be so stupid to get himself framed with his own rifle? 

If conspiracy believers believe this Patsy theory, then you have to agree Oswald was the dumbest man alive in 1963. 

[Matthew Koch]

21 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Welcome back Lance. Nothing has changed here, same old arguments and the conspiracy theorists still haven't solved the Kennedy and Tippit murders. 

I agree with your point about John Abt. That's a big key to Oswald's mindset. Sadly, it gets ignored by conspiracy theorists, but that's nothing new. 

I guess you've never heard about John Abt being connected to Soviet Intelligence.. via the Ware Group

The rifle isn't the right rifle and we have the FBI saying that the scope was mounted for a left-handed person when Oswald shot right handed. This is why there was a tag at a gun shop with "Oswald" on it because they were trying to account for the fact that it would have to be a mounted scope because that length in rifle didn't come with the scope. The stupid conspirators didn't account for Oswald shooting right handed. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=bTkWAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2270&lpg=PA2270&dq=John+abt+lawyer+connected+to+soviet+intelligence&source=bl&ots=yovj8qlGFl&sig=ACfU3U1AQ-LrmjQym0GFL00YGL7lOvtPOg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW6-m70_f7AhVZK30KHfoJCqAQ6AF6BAgpEAM#v=onepage&q=John abt lawyer connected to soviet intelligence&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_Group

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

You really haven't touched on the "why" here. Since you're going for Ruby's emotions as a reason for his assassination of Oswald, could you be more specific about Jack's powerful emotions that you allege?

In January 1964, Jack Ruby choked back tears at a press conference and said: "I couldn't understand how a great man like that could be lost."  (See the video of it here.)

The "great man" Ruby was referring to was, of course, John F. Kennedy.

In March of 2014, when the Amazon forums were still alive and kicking, I had a discussion there at Amazon with some CTers about Jack Ruby and that video I just linked above. (Discussion archived at my site here.)

Here are some of the highlights:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That one brief video clip of Ruby breaking down and crying over President Kennedy's death in front of the news media, two months after the assassination, just might be the single best piece of anti-conspiracy evidence there is when it comes to the subject of: Why did Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald?

Because if Mr. Ruby was merely putting on a show of fake emotion in the video clip presented above, then he should have won the Academy Award for Best Actor of 1964 instead of Rex Harrison.

[Was it all] just an act [by Ruby], Garry Puffer? Or genuine emotion being exhibited for a person Jack Ruby obviously admired?

 

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Once again, David, I don't believe you can possibly be serious. Sorry. Your whole schtick just doesn't fly any more.

 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm crushed beyond repair. What can I possibly do now? Garry Puffer has shunned me. ~sniff~

But it's a handy way to avoid answering my perfectly reasonable question, isn't it Garry?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I thought my answer was kind of obvious. But evidently it zipped past you, so no, David, I do not believe he [Ruby] was at all serious.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then Mr. Ruby was one whale of an actor. Hollywood's top directors should have made proper use of his amazing talents long before 1964.

In other words, anyone who actually thinks Jack Ruby is putting on an act in the video embedded above must desperately WANT Ruby to be part of some kind of conspiracy. Because if that was merely an "act", then I'm Jack Ruby's illegitimate son.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-673.html

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 3:47 PM, Matthew Koch said:

I guess you've never heard about John Abt being connected to Soviet Intelligence.. via the Ware Group

The rifle isn't the right rifle and we have the FBI saying that the scope was mounted for a left-handed person when Oswald shot right handed. This is why there was a tag at a gun shop with "Oswald" on it because they were trying to account for the fact that it would have to be a mounted scope because that length in rifle didn't come with the scope. The stupid conspirators didn't account for Oswald shooting right handed. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=bTkWAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2270&lpg=PA2270&dq=John+abt+lawyer+connected+to+soviet+intelligence&source=bl&ots=yovj8qlGFl&sig=ACfU3U1AQ-LrmjQym0GFL00YGL7lOvtPOg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW6-m70_f7AhVZK30KHfoJCqAQ6AF6BAgpEAM#v=onepage&q=John abt lawyer connected to soviet intelligence&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_Group

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Matthew Koch]

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

Should we be shocked that the chief counsel of the Communist Party USA might have had a connection with Soviet intelligence? I think I'd be more surprised if he didn't. Assuming he did, how would that cut against anything I've said?

Your "scope" material is yet another example of the "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" ploy that conspiracists seem to love. What does the scope have to do with this thread? If you think the scope is a major issue, start a new thread. My understanding is that, in the circumstances of the assassination, the fixed sight might have been preferable to the scope anyway.

The scope is attached to the rifle and the rifle was mentioned in the comment I responded to, Lance

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 4:44 PM, Matthew Koch said:

The scope is attached to the rifle and the rifle was mentioned in the comment I responded to, Lance

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Of course, this is precisely what Marina said before she started attending conspiracy conferences. Oh, those damn inconvenient facts ...

I happen to believe psychology is largely a voodoo non-science. That being said, the known facts of Oswald's life do fit the Type I and Type II profiles identified by Clarke. Make of that what you will.

The point of my thread, which the conspiracy folks have ignored as they do all inconvenient truths, is that Oswald's denials aren't necessarily the least bit inconsistent with who he was and don't inevitably support the speculation that he should have confessed and bragged about the assassination.

LP---

Marina was under intense personal and organizational pressure, even threats of deportation, and was generally wildly inconsistent in her commentary to the WC, which came to regard her as a useless witness. This was before she went to some JFKA conferences. 

I really can't blame Marina (or anyone else) for perhaps mentally struggling in the aftermath of the JFKA. She went through an experience no one should. 

Sure, you can speculate about LHO's character-personality. I can too, and so can the next guy.

LHO was boy who joined astronomy and chess clubs in high school, went through Marine boot camp at age 17, and then at a very young age was assigned skilled, secret work at the Marine Atsugi base in Japan. 

This is a sociopathic loser? 

Forgotten today is how many young people could not afford college in the 1950s, and joined the military as a type of higher education. 

 

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 5:04 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

This is a sociopathic loser?

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette