Moments Leading to Oswald's Deserved Death

[Allen Lowe]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Improbable and suspicious as Oswald's murder may seem, in an age without cellphones or even pagers I have a near-impossible time squaring any conspiracy theory with Ruby being at the Western Union office a block away at 11:17 or later (as a matter of happenstance at that), Sheba being in the car, and Ruby committing the murder at 11:21. The alley route suggested by the HSCA, while apparently physically possible within the requisite time frame, seems even more improbable than the Main Street ramp in terms of timing.

It's sort of like the Roswell crash: I have a hard time getting past the mental threshold of alien craft traversing interstellar space or other dimensions and then crashing like Wilbur and Orville in a New Mexico thunderstorm.

where have you been? Ruby may have been lucky - or not - but the truth is he was stalking Oswald, and this is where the opportunity finally presented itself. He was first at the DPD, then was at the press conference (where he corrected Free Cuba to "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"; wow, the guy was really on top of stuff). When you have a threat hanging over your head - kill LHO or else - your dog will tend to take second place, especially as Ruby, a Mafia bag man, was confident the murder would make him some kind of hero. Really, Lance, your sudden omnipresence around here with uber-factoids is itself a means of factoid dispensation. Please go back to your handler and tell him/her that your mission has failed.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Allen Lowe

[Denis Morissette]

Many criminals who committed crimes died before they even got arrested. But we know they did commit the crime thanks to the evidence. We’re not in court, so the innocence thing does not apply.

[Denny Zartman]

9 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

where have you been? Ruby may have been lucky - or not - but the truth is he was stalking Oswald, and this is where the opportunity finally presented itself. He was first at the DPD, then was at the press conference (where he corrected Free Cuba to "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"; wow, the guy was really on top of stuff). When you have a threat hanging over your head - kill LHO or else - your dog will tend to take second place, especially as Ruby, a Mafia bag man, was confident the murder would make him some kind of hero. Really, Lance, your sudden omnipresence around here with uber-factoids is itself a means of factoid dispensation. Please go back to your handler and tell him/her that your mission has failed.

citizenkaneapplause.gif

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Many criminals who committed crimes died before they even got arrested. But we know they did commit the crime thanks to the evidence. We’re not in court, so the innocence thing does not apply.

Yes its a good thing there was never a court trial to decide if any of that evidence amounted to anything.

[Guest]

On 2/10/2023 at 3:54 PM, Allen Lowe said:

where have you been? Ruby may have been lucky - or not - but the truth is he was stalking Oswald, and this is where the opportunity finally presented itself. He was first at the DPD, then was at the press conference (where he corrected Free Cuba to "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"; wow, the guy was really on top of stuff). When you have a threat hanging over your head - kill LHO or else - your dog will tend to take second place, especially as Ruby, a Mafia bag man, was confident the murder would make him some kind of hero. Really, Lance, your sudden omnipresence around here with uber-factoids is itself a means of factoid dispensation. Please go back to your handler and tell him/her that your mission has failed.

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Matthew Koch]

13 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Many criminals who committed crimes died before they even got arrested. But we know they did commit the crime thanks to the evidence. We’re not in court, so the innocence thing does not apply.

Ok Boomer, time to put you on ignore

[Guest]

On 2/10/2023 at 4:00 PM, Denis Morissette said:

Many criminals who committed crimes died before they even got arrested. But we know they did commit the crime thanks to the evidence. We’re not in court, so the innocence thing does not apply.

 

On 2/11/2023 at 5:35 AM, Matthew Koch said:

Ok Boomer, time to put you on ignore

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 2/10/2023 at 6:51 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

Yes its a good thing there was never a court trial to decide if any of that evidence amounted to anything.

Hi

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Tom Gram]

Lance, this goes both ways. The LN approach is to say “Oswald HAS TO BE guilty, so all those mysteries and suspicions HAVE to have innocent explanations - so the ONLY possible way to account for the events of the morning of November 24th is to believe Ruby’s highly dubious HSCA-debunked “alibi” of strolling down the Main St. ramp.”

It’s actually a bit worse than that. Instead of “Oswald HAS to be guilty” the LN approach is more like “every single aspect of the official story HAS to be correct”, so many LNs will refuse to consider even the tiniest suggestion that the WC got something wrong even if it has no bearing whatsoever on Oswald’s guilt.

Another common LN thinking error is their utter refusal to acknowledge the fact that human beings are capable of planning. Ruby is a great example. LNs treat Ruby’s journey from Western Union to the DPD basement as if it were the Manhattan project or something. Is it really that difficult to envision a scenario where Ruby was signaled somehow or his movements were planned in advance? Is it really that hard to believe that Ruby brought his dog so the police would take care of it and it wouldn’t be sitting at home hungry?

I actually agree with a lot of your criticisms, but fervent devotion to lone assassinism at the expense of objectivity is no different than devotion to something like Badgeman or the Hickey-did-it theory. There is a legitimate circumstantial case against Oswald for the JFKA, but there is also a legitimate circumstantial case for conspiracy, and anyone new to the case with any semblance of critical thinking skills figures that out pretty quickly. LNs on the other hand make it their mission to fight the conspiracy heretics by minimizing this ambiguity at all costs. The most common debate strategy is straight out of the Hitchens-approved militant atheist playbook: project false intellectual superiority through condescension, insults and ridicule in the hope that impressionable readers will feel smart and not want to be associated with “those people”. 

I don’t agree with everything in this talk but I liked Jeremy Gunn’s approach to the case, and I think LNs in particular could learn something from it. Gunn gives his opinion on the case at the very end: 

 

 

[Denis Morissette]

4 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Ok Boomer, time to put you on ignore

Your loss. You will never learn the truth in the JFK assassination.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Denis Morissette

[Guest]

On 2/11/2023 at 9:52 AM, Tom Gram said:

Lance, this goes both ways. The LN approach is to say “Oswald HAS TO BE guilty, so all those mysteries and suspicions HAVE to have innocent explanations - so the ONLY possible way to account for the events of the morning of November 24th is to believe Ruby’s highly dubious HSCA-debunked “alibi” of strolling down the Main St. ramp.”

It’s actually a bit worse than that. Instead of “Oswald HAS to be guilty” the LN approach is more like “every single aspect of the official story HAS to be correct”, so many LNs will refuse to consider even the tiniest suggestion that the WC got something wrong even if it has no bearing whatsoever on Oswald’s guilt.

Another common LN thinking error is their utter refusal to acknowledge the fact that human beings are capable of planning. Ruby is a great example. LNs treat Ruby’s journey from Western Union to the DPD basement as if it were the Manhattan project or something. Is it really that difficult to envision a scenario where Ruby was signaled somehow or his movements were planned in advance? Is it really that hard to believe that Ruby brought his dog so the police would take care of it and it wouldn’t be sitting at home hungry?

I actually agree with a lot of your criticisms, but fervent devotion to lone assassinism at the expense of objectivity is no different than devotion to something like Badgeman or the Hickey-did-it theory. There is a legitimate circumstantial case against Oswald for the JFKA, but there is also a legitimate circumstantial case for conspiracy, and anyone new to the case with any semblance of critical thinking skills figures that out pretty quickly. LNs on the other hand make it their mission to fight the conspiracy heretics by minimizing this ambiguity at all costs. The most common debate strategy is straight out of the Hitchens-approved militant atheist playbook: project false intellectual superiority through condescension, insults and ridicule in the hope that impressionable readers will feel smart and not want to be associated with “those people”. 

I don’t agree with everything in this talk but I liked Jeremy Gunn’s approach to the case, and I think LNs in particular could learn something from it. Gunn gives his opinion on the case at the very end: 

 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Lance, this goes both ways. The LN approach is to say “Oswald HAS TO BE guilty, so all those mysteries and suspicions HAVE to have innocent explanations - so the ONLY possible way to account for the events of the morning of November 24th is to believe Ruby’s highly dubious HSCA-debunked “alibi” of strolling down the Main St. ramp.”

It’s actually a bit worse than that. Instead of “Oswald HAS to be guilty” the LN approach is more like “every single aspect of the official story HAS to be correct”, so many LNs will refuse to consider even the tiniest suggestion that the WC got something wrong even if it has no bearing whatsoever on Oswald’s guilt.

Another common LN thinking error is their utter refusal to acknowledge the fact that human beings are capable of planning. Ruby is a great example. LNs treat Ruby’s journey from Western Union to the DPD basement as if it were the Manhattan project or something. Is it really that difficult to envision a scenario where Ruby was signaled somehow or his movements were planned in advance? Is it really that hard to believe that Ruby brought his dog so the police would take care of it and it wouldn’t be sitting at home hungry?

I actually agree with a lot of your criticisms, but fervent devotion to lone assassinism at the expense of objectivity is no different than devotion to something like Badgeman or the Hickey-did-it theory. There is a legitimate circumstantial case against Oswald for the JFKA, but there is also a legitimate circumstantial case for conspiracy, and anyone new to the case with any semblance of critical thinking skills figures that out pretty quickly. LNs on the other hand make it their mission to fight the conspiracy heretics by minimizing this ambiguity at all costs. The most common debate strategy is straight out of the Hitchens-approved militant atheist playbook: project false intellectual superiority through condescension, insults and ridicule in the hope that impressionable readers will feel smart and not want to be associated with “those people”. 

I don’t agree with everything in this talk but I liked Jeremy Gunn’s approach to the case, and I think LNs in particular could learn something from it. Gunn gives his opinion on the case at the very end: 

 

 

T. Gram. A very reasoned essay imo.

I also agree with a decent amount of Lance P's postulations.

Yet, I disagree with many of his premises as well.

I don't get personal on the forum for many reasons in thread posting responses.

Still, had to laugh at a couple of light barbs directed at LP in two recent postings.

One from Alan Lowe who suggested LNer LP " go back to his handler and tell him/her that your mission has failed."

No malice there LP, but that was a funny retort.

The other is Tom Gram's comparative quip regards Ruby's going down to breach the DPD basement as not equal to breaching the "Manhattan Project". HA!

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

You speak as though the Lone Nut community were a well-defined monolithic one. We see here all the time that anyone who holds the Lone Nut position is characterized as an ardent defender of the Warren Commission, a mindless Bugliosi or Posner sycophant, a CIA plant, etc., etc. It is "impossible," we're told, for anyone even vaguely acquainted with the facts and capable of rational thought to hold the Lone Nut position - even though virtually all professional historians do.

I've been very clear that (1) I was once a gee-whiz CTer myself; (2) I recognize the possibility of a conspiracy and have articulated a matrix of plausibility by which I assess conspiracy theories; and (3) I certainly recognize aspects of Oswald's life and of the JFKA evidence that are problematical for the Lone Nut position. That being said, I have dived into the evidence and literature to a degree that I feel sure equals or exceeds the diligence of most participants here, have applied the legal and critical-thinking skills that sustained me for 40 years in my profession, and I have arrived at the Lone Nut position. Indeed, I believe there is a pretty straight evidential line to Oswald's guilt, although neither I nor anyone else could ever eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy.

Nevertheless, I've been called the Dreaded T Word, the Dreaded L Word, a Cognitive Infiltrator, a paid plant of some amorphous intelligence community, a Warren Commission salesman, ignorant and uninformed, and so on and so forth. My legal career has been repeatedly mischaracterized, as recently as this morning, as though these mischaracterizations were humorous, to the extent that I finally reported the beloved Jim D. Only this morning, I've been accused of "stalking" Chris Barnard because I dared to visit his profile and discovered he hadn't posted a biography. I mostly find it humorous because it's so self-evidently insane. But let's not pretend that I or anyone else is unique in resorting to condescension and insults; I just happen to do "snarky" rather well and always have.

The Lone Nut community is so non-monolithic that in roughly five years of participating here I don't believe I've ever exchanged a private message with DVP or Tracy. I've had a couple from Fred Litwin concerning his books or one of my posts. I had one from Steve this morning. That's it. There is no behind-the-scenes conspiring. There is no mission to infiltrate or disrupt. The fact that some grimly serious CTers actually think there is merely underscores the delusional nature of a fair swath of the CT community.

What the hell do I care who killed JFK? It's nothing but a whodunnit, an intellectual puzzle. If Oswald didn't act alone - fine. If he did - fine. What puzzles me is the near-religious fervor of many CTers. What the hell do they care? Why is "a conspiracy, any conspiracy" a dogmatic article of their faith?

No, IMO there is not really an affirmative "circumstantial case for a conspiracy." If there were, 25 or 50 different conspiracy theories wouldn't have been articulated. There is a circumstantial case for Oswald not having acted alone if one puts a conspiratorial spin on all the problematical evidence and fills in the gaps with conspiratorial speculation. Cliff Varnell's pet point about the holes in the clothing is a perfectly legitimate problematical issue - but, when we try to put it in the context of a theory, IMO the Lone Nut explanation still emerges as far more plausible than the conspiratorial ones to which Cliff is forced to resort (melting ice bullets and whatnot).

This is why I keep challenging CTers to articulate a genuinely plausible, evidence-based, affirmative conspiracy theory instead of playing Oswald defense counsel and trying to convince us Oswald wouldn't have been convicted at trial - what we might call a "negative" case for conspiracy.

I recognize the CT community isn't monolithic. Like all conspiracy communities in my experience, it comprises a dismaying number of truly whacked-out goofs who will uncritically believe anything and seem incapable of rational thought. I do have intellectual disdain for them and enjoy tweaking them as time allows, snarky as I may sometimes be. There is a middle ground of CTers who seem far too willing to accept the pronouncements of obvious (to me) hucksters and seemingly never do their own research; here, I enjoy pointing out the occasional factoid as time allows. Then there is the segment of genuinely serious researchers. At the highest level, I'm happy to engage the evidence and sincerely interested in the epistemology of the conspiracy mindset: Why do these folks gravitate to conspiracy theories when, at least insofar as the JFKA is concerned, the Lone Nut position seems more evidence-based and plausible to me?

The near-religious fervor of many LNers is equally puzzling. What the hell do they care? Why is Oswald sole guilt in the assassination and unwavering trust in government such a dogmatic article of their faith? 

The CT community definitely has some people who will uncritically believe just about anything, but I don't really see much of a difference between those people and the LNs who recite Dale Myers and Bugliosi like it's gospel, claim the WC conducted an honest and thorough investigation, and believe without question that a corrupt institution infamous for fabricating evidence and framing people like the DPD was beyond reproach in the Oswald case.

I acknowledge the possibility that Oswald did it, but the "straight evidential line to Oswald's guilt" is more like a paperclip. To conclude that the WR is the most plausible solution to the assassination requires the same type of credulity as it does to believe that Judith Vary Baker's "Me and Lee" is an accurate historical document, IMO. The only difference is the authority in which one misplaces his or her trust. We know the government has lied to the public about important historical events, we know that the WC was a miserably flawed and deliberately inadequate investigation and that the WR contains several outright lies, we know that the DPD was obscenely corrupt with a history of fabricating evidence and convicting innocent people, and we know that there are major evidentiary problems throughout the entire JFK case. In other words, you don't need an affirmative, evidence-based alternative to rationally conclude that the official story is incomplete at best and at worst complete bull$&!*, so that's probably your answer as to why people tend to gravitate toward some sort of conspiracy instead of lone assassinism. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Bob Ness]

20 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Many criminals who committed crimes died before they even got arrested. But we know they did commit the crime thanks to the evidence. We’re not in court, so the innocence thing does not apply.

Not for me. That's exactly how I look at it. To me this is the only forum left to look at the evidence and judge for myself whether there was a conspiracy or not.

I came to this forum for different reasons and have remained because of my interest in peripheral subjects that relate to the JFKA (as well as the JFKA). On this forum a person can hear from people who have researched the subject to varying degrees and amounts of time and access them personally and directly. Many have spoken to people directly involved (most of whom are dead by now) and in some instances they are actual participants in the official proceedings or surrounding events. In spite of the common flaming and bickering that occurs it's a fantastic repository of information regarding the JFKA and many of the characters. The posters are almost invariably of above average intelligence or better, regardless of their position on the subject. 

Since my time is taken up with personal and professional concerns, I can hardly devote the time to researching firsthand direct sources like many have. I appreciate the efforts of those that do and make it available. I will chime in on subjects I have specific experience with but stay away from topics featuring people who are much better informed on the subject. If I know people personally who I have spoken to about various topics, I'll throw that in also as long as the information has no known restrictions (I have contracted with Federal entities and private parties who demand non-disclosure of information).

The point is I tend to look at the subject as if I were a juror. In a sense I think we all are to some degree.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

6 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The near-religious fervor of many LNers is equally puzzling. What the hell do they care? Why is Oswald sole guilt in the assassination and unwavering trust in government such a dogmatic article of their faith? 

The CT community definitely has some people who will uncritically believe just about anything, but I don't really see much of a difference between those people and the LNs who recite Dale Myers and Bugliosi like it's gospel, claim the WC conducted an honest and thorough investigation, and believe without question that a corrupt institution infamous for fabricating evidence and framing people like the DPD was beyond reproach in the Oswald case.

I acknowledge the possibility that Oswald did it, but the "straight evidential line to Oswald's guilt" is more like a paperclip. To conclude that the WR is the most plausible solution to the assassination requires the same type of credulity as it does to believe that Judith Vary Baker's "Me and Lee" is an accurate historical document, IMO. The only difference is the authority in which one misplaces his or her trust. We know the government has lied to the public about important historical events, we know that the WC was a miserably flawed and deliberately inadequate investigation and that the WR contains several outright lies, we know that the DPD was obscenely corrupt with a history of fabricating evidence and convicting innocent people, and we know that there are major evidentiary problems throughout the entire JFK case. In other words, you don't need an affirmative, evidence-based alternative to rationally conclude that the official story is incomplete at best and at worst complete bull$&!*, so that's probably your answer as to why people tend to gravitate toward some sort of conspiracy instead of lone assassinism. 

Well put. That's exactly the problem.

Quote

we know that the DPD was obscenely corrupt with a history of fabricating evidence and convicting innocent people

I don't know how this could possibly escape Lance and other LNs. Clean pistols in the trunk is still SOP in many police departments. In 1960 Dallas they could probably have their pick of caliber.