Is It Time To Admit Failure? At Least To a Debatable Degree?

[Joe Bauer]

Are most of us still unsure about who killed JFK after 60 years?

If so, isn't that a very sad and disheartening reality?

That after 6 decades, hundreds if not thousands of lifetime long deep research efforts, books and millions of documents and two more seriously funded federal government investigations most of us are as unsure about who did JFK as we were the day after it's occurrence?

With that widely felt unsureness reality in mind one might rationally ponder the proposition, or at least the question, as to whether all this six decades long time and effort in the JFKA truth and justice seeking mission could in some debatable aspects and degrees be considered a failure.

And to add more weight to that postulation possibility is the reality that whoever did JFK ... got away with it!

That they were left to remain in their highest positions of power and influence all this time. Through three generations.

Up to now, JFK's killers have won. The American people lost.

After 60 years ... is it time to at least consider this reality?

Edited March 23, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Chuck Schwartz]

kGood post, Joe.

[Joe Bauer]

39 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Good post, Joe.

It's a sad reality to even think about.

Wish we had something more promising to report, especially at the 60th anniversary date.

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Are most of us still unsure about who killed JFK after 60 years?

I'm not unsure at all. Far from it.

And that's because the evidence speaks loudly in this case. And that evidence is pointing directly at one single person and no one else.

But conspiracy theorists are always insisting that I should just disregard the physical evidence in this case because those CTers are always insisting (without a shred of proof, of course) that the evidence is all (or mostly) fake and/or manufactured.

And Lee Harvey Oswald's very own unusual (and incriminating) actions and statements/lies on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 are also things that conspiracy theorists don't want me to pay too much attention to either.

But I guess it's understandable why the "Oswald Is Innocent" conspiracy promoters want to stay a million miles away from Oswald's very own actions and movements. Because these things that Oswald did and said on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 are saturated with his very own guilt.

 

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Isn't that a totally sad and disheartening reality?

That after 6 decades, hundreds if not thousands of lifetime long deep research efforts, books and millions of documents and two more seriously funded federal government investigations most of us are as unsure about who did JFK as we were the day after it's occurrence?

To a degree it makes one seriously consider whether all this time and effort in the JFKA truth and justice seeking mission has been mostly a failure?

And to add more weight to that postulation possibility is the reality that whoever did JFK ... got away with it!

Have you, Joe, ever even considered the possibility that Oswald was guilty and that there was no conspiracy---and that the idea of "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases has been the product and the invention of the many conspiracy theorists over the years who, let's face it, have been trying their darndest to find any signs of a conspiracy in the JFKA case (but, to date, have proved nothing)?

And doesn't at least the bulk of the evidence in the JFKA case suggest to you at least the possibility that Lee Oswald could have accomplished the murders of John Kennedy and Officer Tippit on his own, without the aid of anyone else's assistance or guiding hand?

 

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

That they were left to remain in their highest positions of power and influence all this time. Through three generations.

Up to now, JFK's killers have won. The American people lost.

After 60 years ... is it time to consider accepting this reality?

I think it's about time for the JFKA conspiracy theorists to consider another reality. Namely, this one:

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

23 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

 

Who can fully believe in a solution to a crime that involves so much trust in authority figures, even with the so-called physical evidence?

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Who can fully believe in a solution to a crime that involves so much trust in authority figures, even with the so-called physical evidence?

I guess that means you don't really "fully believe" or "trust" the solution to ANY criminal case in the history of the United States (or the world). Because EVERY crime is investigated by some type of "authority figures" (local police, DA's office, etc.). They don't just let strangers off the street look into murder cases.

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Joe Bauer]

On 3/16/2023 at 1:17 PM, David Von Pein said:

I'm not unsure at all. Far from it.

And that's because the evidence speaks loudly in this case. And that evidence is pointing directly at one single person and no one else.

But conspiracy theorists are always insisting that I should just disregard the physical evidence in this case because those CTers are always insisting (without a shred of proof, of course) that the evidence is all (or mostly) fake and/or manufactured.

And Lee Harvey Oswald's very own unusual (and incriminating) actions and statements/lies on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 are also things that conspiracy theorists don't want me to pay too much attention to either.

But I guess it's understandable why the "Oswald Is Innocent" conspiracy promoters want to stay a million miles away from Oswald's very own actions and movements. Because these things that Oswald did and said on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 are saturated with his very own guilt.

 

Have you, Joe, ever even considered the possibility that Oswald was guilty and that there was no conspiracy---and that the idea of "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases has been the product and the invention of the many conspiracy theorists over the years who, let's face it, have been trying their darndest to find any signs of a conspiracy in the JFKA case?

And doesn't at least the bulk of the evidence in the JFKA case suggest to you at least the possibility that Lee Oswald could have accomplished the murders of John Kennedy and Officer Tippit on his own, without the aid of anyone else's assistance or guiding hand?

 

I think it's about time for the JFKA conspiracy theorists to consider another reality. Namely, this one:

 

As I mentioned and like the great majority of JFKA truth seekers, I have to admit this fact.

I am "not sure" who killed JFK.

If Oswald did some shooting, I am more sure of his being assisted in some way versus not, especially in his perfect shooting perch location and supposed timing luck.

I am also more sure than not that Jack Ruby had help in getting into the DPD basement at just the right time to do Oswald.

I have run through so many witness testimonies in my head over and over that suggest Oswald and Ruby did not do their deeds without some help.

I have filtered these suggestive claims through my logic screening filter so many times I am often just tired of doing so.

Still, the Sylvia Odio, Rose Cheramie stories and so many others and Oswald's laughably incriminating New Orlean's shenanigans will never allow me to believe Oswald and Ruby simply "got lucky" in pulling off the crimes of the century.

The conundrum of still not being sure who killed JFK is accompanied by the same one of Oswald just getting lucky ( and Ruby too ) in doing their deeds by themselves.

So, the unsureness goes both ways imo.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for your last response, Joe.

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

As I mentioned and like the great majority of JFKA truth seekers, I have to admit this fact.

I am "not sure" who killed JFK.

Not sure if Oswald did some shooting from the TXSBD building but was not alone in some aspects of his being assisted in some way, especially in his perfect shooting perch location and timing luck.

I am more sure that others were involved in either the actual JFK shooting, and even more sure that Jack Ruby had help in getting into the DPD basement at just the right time to do Oswald.

I have run through so many witness testimonies in my head over and over that suggest Oswald and Ruby did not do their deeds without some help.

I have filtered these suggestive claims through my logic screen filters so many times as well I am just tired of doing so.

Still, the Sylvia Odio, Rose Cheramie stories and so many others and Oswald's laughably incriminating New Orlean's shenanigans will never allow me to believe Oswald and Ruby simply "got lucky" in pulling off the crimes of the century.

The conundrum of still not being sure who killed JFK is accompanied by the same one of Oswald just getting lucky ( and Ruby too ) in doing their deeds by themselves.

So, the unsureness goes both ways imo.

 

 

 

"Still, the Sylvia Odio, Rose Cheramie stories and so many others and Oswald's laughably incriminating New Orlean's shenanigans will never allow me to believe Oswald and Ruby simply "got lucky" in pulling off the crimes of the century."

 

The Rose Cherami story came out only AFTER her death by two fellows named Fruge and Weiss (Weiss a mental hospital psychiatrist and Fruge a member of the Louisiana State Police).  Cherami died in September of '65 and the claims come much later.  Doesn't that make you question the claims about what she supposedly said?

 

Even Jim Garrison's crew couldn't find anything dated before her death when they visited the state hospital and investigated the claims leading up to the Shaw trial.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks for your last response, Joe.

 

The last official investigation, the HSCA, concluded there likely had been a JFKA conspiracy. That was under the very cautious and circumspect Robert Blakey. 

Moreover, Blakely was evidently unaware of the very small, round bullet hole in the back of Connally's shirt---destroying the tumbling bullet theory, which Blakey subscribed to as part of the SBT. 

So...surely a person can be forgiven for being "unsure." 

I am unsure. I rather strongly suspect more than one gunman, and a smoke-and-bang show at the Grassy Knoll. 

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

and a smoke-and-bang show at the Grassy Knoll. 

Huh? What does this mean? Are you implying fake shots from the Knoll?? Please elaborate.

 

[Matt Allison]

34 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Huh? What does this mean? Are you implying fake shots from the Knoll?? Please elaborate.

 

I don't want to speak for Ben, but one of the things he and I agree on is that there was no fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll; that the noise and/or smoke seen from that area was a diversion to draw people towards it instead of where the gunman actually was. Which is indeed what people in the plaza did.

To respond to Joe's post: Once LHO was removed from circulation 48 hours after the assassination, there was probably no chance of ever getting the full story. Which is very sad.

[Benjamin Cole]

41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Huh? What does this mean? Are you implying fake shots from the Knoll?? Please elaborate.

 

Well, here is my take. 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

I don't want to speak for Ben, but one of the things he and I agree on is that there was no fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll; that the noise and/or smoke seen from that area was a diversion to draw people towards it instead of where the gunman actually was. Which is indeed what people in the plaza did.

To respond to Joe's post: Once LHO was removed from circulation 48 hours after the assassination, there was probably no chance of ever getting the full story. Which is very sad.

Yes, it sure appears there were very serious reasons to have LHO dead. That is a defensible conjecture---can we prove it?

Well, it would be nice if all the JFK records were released. Was LHO an intel asset?

Something was going on in New Orleans. 

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

I don't want to speak for Ben, but one of the things he and I agree on is that there was no fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll; that the noise and/or smoke seen from that area was a diversion to draw people towards it instead of where the gunman actually was.

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought Ben meant in his post. And it just goes to show how totally contradictory the various conspiracy theories are, because I've argued with many CTers over the years who believe that the shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD were really "diversionary" shots to draw the attention of witnesses to the place where the so-called "patsy" was located---which is the exact opposite of the rather silly and plot-blowing idea you just proposed of the shooters creating a fake "diversion" on the Knoll.

Why on Earth would anybody who was trying to frame Oswald as a lone assassin have any desire to want people to think shots came from the Grassy Knoll? That scenario makes zero sense.

What was the mindset of all these conspirators on Nov. 21, Matt & Ben? They're deliberately firing away from two separate directions....and yet they expected the authorities to declare only ONE assassin was doing the shooting from only the Depository? Crazy.

It sounds like a reprise of Oliver Stone's 3-gunmen, 1-patsy foolishness to me.

http://amazon.com / DVP Review / The Patsy Plot Is Just Idiotic

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by David Von Pein