50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

[solovsfett]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

How do you know this handling of the rifle didn't occur after it was dusted for prints? And even if you're right, does it make any difference? It was Oswald's rifle. He brought it to work with him that morning wrapped in brown paper. All of the bullets recovered in Dealey Plaza matched that rifle to the exclusion of every rifle in the world. Oswald was there, firing. Ear and eye witnesses have so testified. Oswald was the one who bolted from the SBD (the only employee to do so). Oswald is the one who ran home and picked up his pistol. Oswald is the one who murdered Officer Tippet. Oswald is the one who attempted to shoot the coos who were arresting him. So I ask again of what particular significance is this conclusion you've drawn that DPD mishandled the rifle, removing potential "other" fingerprints? What would it mean if they had?

I don't know that, I wasn't there. The video shows officers handling the rifle with bare hands in the SBD by the snipers nest. The difference it makes to me is that it implies the investigation was very sloppy. We already know that witnesses were ignored in favor of the one guy missing from the SBD. And yes, of course LHO was up there shooting, I mean, who the hell else could it have been given the evidence. But the sloppy investigation, the haste with which the verdict was rendered...Something never felt right to me about it when reading about it. And it still doesn't sit well.

beyond the sniper's nest is where you and I differ... I find the evidence regarding Tippitt thin at best. I also find the evidence of motive for JR being some spur of the moment angry "I'll get even with you" stuff laughable. The guy was in the building casing LHO from day two on the video but from what I've read he was there Friday night. He was there to silence Oswald.

Silence him about whom or what? I guess we'll never know unless by chance someone recorded his (LHO's) conversations w/the FBI in the police station.That is if he'd have actually said anything at all. But silencing him...that's why I feel there was a discussion or plan between LHO and X parties that may have been speculated upon already or people who's names we do not know. No other reason to shut him up but to cover someone's ***. At least that's my .02

EDITOR'S NOTE: The shots in Dallas went like this. 1st shot struck JFK and Connelly in the back. 2nd shot missed. 3rd shot, head shot.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

I don't know that, I wasn't there. The video shows officers handling the rifle with bare hands in the SBD by the snipers nest. The difference it makes to me is that it implies the investigation was very sloppy. We already know that witnesses were ignored in favor of the one guy missing from the SBD. And yes, of course LHO was up there shooting, I mean, who the hell else could it have been given the evidence. But the sloppy investigation, the haste with which the verdict was rendered...Something never felt right to me about it when reading about it. And it still doesn't sit well.

beyond the sniper's nest is where you and I differ... I find the evidence regarding Tippitt thin at best. I also find the evidence of motive for JR being some spur of the moment angry "I'll get even with you" stuff laughable. The guy was in the building casing LHO from day two on the video but from what I've read he was there Friday night. He was there to silence Oswald.

Silence him about whom or what? I guess we'll never know unless by chance someone recorded his (LHO's) conversations w/the FBI in the police station.That is if he'd have actually said anything at all. But silencing him...that's why I feel there was a discussion or plan between LHO and X parties that may have been speculated upon already or people who's names we do not know. No other reason to shut him up but to cover someone's ***. At least that's my .02

EDITOR'S NOTE: The shots in Dallas went like this. 1st shot struck JFK and Connelly in the back. 2nd shot missed. 3rd shot, head shot.[/QUOTE



At least you're honest enough to admit your conclusions are based on "feelings" and things not "sitting right" with you. As opposed to evidence. You are essentially confirmed my central point. Reclaiming History is, as I've said, massive (and expensive) but it's a useful tool. I'm keeping my copy on the coffee table to use as a reference work whenever tired old conspiracy theories are recycled on the tube. Maybe someone will let you borrow their copy. Or you can check the book out from the library. Who knows, you might gain a new perspective.

In his book Death of a President, William Manchester offered the best explanation I've found for the willingness of so many to see a conspiracy in Dallas. (Paraphrasing) "If you put the Holocaust on one side of the scales and the Nazi regime on the other, you've got a rough balance. Greatest crime. Greatest criminals. But if you put the life of the young, dynamic POTUS on one side of the scale and that "wretched waif Oswald" on the other, it doesn't seem to balance. More weight is needed on Oswald's side. A conspiracy "would do nicely." Exactly.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Fred Kaplan at Slate, a former believer, says he no longer is. In part because of the intellectual dishonesty of conspiracists who fudged and dishonestly reproduced quotes and ignored evidence to buttress their "findings."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...d_why_the_magic_bullet_and_grassy.single.html

 

[Dude Love]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Anyone remember that episode of Quantum Leap where Sam thinks he got sent back to stop the Kennedy assassination...but he was really there to make sure Jackie didn't die?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Anyone remember that episode of Quantum Leap where Sam thinks he got sent back to stop the Kennedy assassination...but he was really there to make sure Jackie didn't die?

From Old Pio's "Pardon My Digression" file. I don't recall that episode. But I do recall that Walter Lord (author of Night to Remember and the father of modern Titanic scholarship) once said if he could go back to April 14, 1912, he wouldn't go to the bridge of the Titanic. Instead, he said he'd go back to the bridge of the Californian to determine why its captain ignored 8 white rockets fired by the stricken liner (and reported to him). That failure to respond resulted in hundreds of deaths.

 

[Dude Love]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

From Old Pio's "Pardon My Digression" file. I don't recall that episode. But I do recall that Walter Lord (author of Night to Remember and the father of modern Titanic scholarship) once said if he could go back to April 14, 1912, he wouldn't go to the bridge of the Titanic. Instead, he said he'd go back to the bridge of the Californian to determine why its captain ignored 8 white rockets fired by the stricken liner (and reported to him). That failure to respond resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Awesome episode. Here's The 7 Most History-Altering Quantum Leap Episodes.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Awesome episode. Here's The 7 Most History-Altering Quantum Leap Episodes.

Thanks. For whatever reason, I never got in to that show.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Saw a clip of Oliver Stone yesterday. And he's still peddling a grassy knoll shooter ("back and to the left") despite the fact that it's been thoroughly disproven every way possible. If a smart, talented guy like Stone stubbornly clings to that nonsensical notion, how can we ever expect to get some closure?

Conspiracists need for somebody other than Oswald to have done the shooting. Because even the most dedicated among them would have a hard time conjuring up a conspiracy to murder the president of the United States in which the conspirators would hire or induce a nutbar like Oswald to do the deed. He's not the last guy you'd get for the job. But he's not in the top million either.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Old Pio - normally I agree with you when I see the polemics you offer in the cafe but here is one where I don't. It sort of baffles me why you seem obsessed with what others think about JFK. If it's cut and dried it's cut and dried right? Or maybe it's not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDDuRSgzFk

Jack Ruby at the DPD on saturday evening. To me this is incredibly troubling and undoes the whole notion that he was acting on a spur of the moment sort of angry revenge fantasy. He was there to silence LHO and was at the DPD from the get-go looking for the opportunity.

I looked up one of the videos you referenced...It has a new theory that when shot in the head, the nerves in the brain explode which evidently was tested on goats? I guess the point of the exercise was to disprove a 2nd shooter. I don't really care one way or the other about a 2nd shooter or no 2nd shooter. I just find it odd how many times researchers have attempted to explain the killing and continue to revise and edit the circumstances, it's as if Zapruder didn't exist.

In the end I feel both sides suffer from confirmation bias. I know you'll tout Bugliosi but he wrote the book to confirm his belief as Posner did with his as Maars did with his as Garrison and so on.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Old Pio - normally I agree with you when I see the polemics you offer in the cafe but here is one where I don't. It sort of baffles me why you seem obsessed with what others think about JFK. If it's cut and dried it's cut and dried right? Or maybe it's not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDDuRSgzFk

Jack Ruby at the DPD on saturday evening. To me this is incredibly troubling and undoes the whole notion that he was acting on a spur of the moment sort of angry revenge fantasy. He was there to silence LHO and was at the DPD from the get-go looking for the opportunity.

I looked up one of the videos you referenced...It has a new theory that when shot in the head, the nerves in the brain explode which evidently was tested on goats? I guess the point of the exercise was to disprove a 2nd shooter. I don't really care one way or the other about a 2nd shooter or no 2nd shooter. I just find it odd how many times researchers have attempted to explain the killing and continue to revise and edit the circumstances, it's as if Zapruder didn't exist.

In the end I feel both sides suffer from confirmation bias. I know you'll tout Bugliosi but he wrote the book to confirm his belief as Posner did with his as Maars did with his as Garrison and so on.

You use the term "obsessed" to diminish rather than answer my arguments. I'm not so "obsessed" that I made a 50 million dollar movie or wrote a book.

And you've provided no answer to this question: If Ruby was in the DPD on Saturday night, why didn't he shoot Oswald then? If he was an assassin, bent on "silencing" Oswald, he certainly had to know he would at a minimum be captured, possibly killed by shooting a prisoner in the police station upstairs or downstairs, surrounded by cops. In the former, however, Oswald wouldn't have faced hours of interrogation, thus minimizing the risk that the "conspiracy" would be uncovered. It really makes no sense. Also, why did Ruby bring his dog along? Not exactly standard equipment for assassins, no?

Why is it so hard to believe that Ruby, a guy with a well known borderline personality (prone to violence) , a guy known to carry a gun, would impulsively shoot Oswald? There is exactly zero evidence that Ruby acted in any way other than on impulse. Elaborate surmises about his motives are not evidence. And you've offered none except for mentioning several times that he was in police headquarters before he shot Oswald. In your mind, that's dispositive. Got anything else?

So to confirm your "confirmation bias" theory, you compare Bugliosi to Garrison? That's an enormous stretch, given that Garrison and his investigation have been totally discredited except in Oliver Stone's mind (and perhaps yours). Evidence. Where's the evidence? Where's your specificity on a "conspiracy?" You guys have had half a century to arrive at some consensus as to who was responsible.

Earlier you agreed that Oswald was the shooter. Don't you see how that vastly complicates your "conspiracy" scenario? If it were multiple shooters or Oswald was "just a patsy," then you can spin a yarn that these unknown, faceless, yet to be specified let alone identified conspirators hiring "the best shots" available and spiriting the shooters out of town. Costner's "time tables and payrolls" from JFK. But if Oswald did the shooting then you're stuck with this little pipsqueak, a guy who wanted and got attention (TV/radio interviews in NO), defecting then undefecting, etc. Wouldn't you want someone anonymous? Someone unknown to the CIA and the FBI? Would you hire Oswald? And go through all the machinations necessary to get him placed in the SBD on 11/22 (not hired by other employers)?

I'll make my point again. A point which you've done nothing to refute: why is this particular "conspiracy," after half a century," still a mystery? Why can't you (speaking collectively) give us the answers instead of broad conjecture. "Everybody knows the FBI, blah, blah, blah." Give us some names. And some evidence.

I think for baby boomers 11/22/63 was far more traumatic than 9/11 or the Challenger.

Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez experimented with animal skulls filled with paint, shot from behind. In every instance, the skulls tumbled backwards towards the shooter. A close examination of Zapruder reveals JFK's head was driven forward several inches at the moment of impact, followed by Oliver's "back and to the left." A look at frame 313 clearly shows a strike from behind, with a spray of blood and brain matter going forward. The reason why there are "revisions" is to disprove conspiracy theories by self-serving conspiracy hacks like Marrs*. That and improved technology which has given us clear, digital versions of the film.

Evidence. Where's the evidence? As I've said: belief in a "conspiracy" has taken on the contours of a religion. "I can't prove it, I just know it."

*Wiki on Marrs:
"Marrs is a prominent figure in the JFK conspiracy press and his book Crossfire was a source for Oliver Stone's film JFK. He has written books asserting the existence of government conspiracies regarding aliens, 9/11, telepathy, and secret societies." Yup, no way any sensible person could question his conclusions.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

You use the term "obsessed" to diminish rather than answer my arguments. I'm not so "obsessed" that I made a 50 million dollar movie or wrote a book.

And you've provided no answer to this question: If Ruby was in the DPD on Saturday night, why didn't he shoot Oswald then? If he was an assassin, bent on "silencing" Oswald, he certainly had to know he would at a minimum be captured, possibly killed by shooting a prisoner in the police station upstairs or downstairs, surrounded by cops. In the former, however, Oswald wouldn't have faced hours of interrogation, thus minimizing the risk that the "conspiracy" would be uncovered. It really makes no sense. Also, why did Ruby bring his dog along? Not exactly standard equipment for assassins, no?

Why is it so hard to believe that Ruby, a guy with a well known borderline personality (prone to violence) , a guy known to carry a gun, would impulsively shoot Oswald? There is exactly zero evidence that Ruby acted in any way other than on impulse. Elaborate surmises about his motives are not evidence. And you've offered none except for mentioning several times that he was in police headquarters before he shot Oswald. In your mind, that's dispositive. Got anything else?

So to confirm your "confirmation bias" theory, you compare Bugliosi to Garrison? That's an enormous stretch, given that Garrison and his investigation have been totally discredited except in Oliver Stone's mind (and perhaps yours). Evidence. Where's the evidence? Where's your specificity on a "conspiracy?" You guys have had half a century to arrive at some consensus as to who was responsible.

Earlier you agreed that Oswald was the shooter. Don't you see how that vastly complicates your "conspiracy" scenario? If it were multiple shooters or Oswald was "just a patsy," then you can spin a yarn that these unknown, faceless, yet to be specified let alone identified conspirators hiring "the best shots" available and spiriting the shooters out of town. Costner's "time tables and payrolls" from JFK. But if Oswald did the shooting then you're stuck with this little pipsqueak, a guy who wanted and got attention (TV/radio interviews in NO), defecting then undefecting, etc. Wouldn't you want someone anonymous? Someone unknown to the CIA and the FBI? Would you hire Oswald? And go through all the machinations necessary to get him placed in the SBD on 11/22 (not hired by other employers)?

I'll make my point again. A point which you've done nothing to refute: why is this particular "conspiracy," after half a century," still a mystery? Why can't you (speaking collectively) give us the answers instead of broad conjecture. "Everybody knows the FBI, blah, blah, blah." Give us some names. And some evidence.

I think for baby boomers 11/22/63 was far more traumatic than 9/11 or the Challenger.

Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez experimented with animal skulls filled with paint, shot from behind. In every instance, the skulls tumbled backwards towards the shooter. A close examination of Zapruder reveals JFK's head was driven forward several inches at the moment of impact, followed by Oliver's "back and to the left." A look at frame 313 clearly shows a strike from behind, with a spray of blood and brain matter going forward. The reason why there are "revisions" is to disprove conspiracy theories by self-serving hacks like Marrs*. That and improved technology which has given us clear, digital versions of the film.

Evidence. Where's the evidence? As I've said: belief in a "conspiracy" has taken on the contours of a religion. "I can't prove it, I just know it."

*Wiki on Marrs:
"Marrs is a prominent figure in the JFK conspiracy press and his book Crossfire was a source for Oliver Stone's film JFK. He has written books asserting the existence of government conspiracies regarding aliens, 9/11, telepathy, and secret societies." That about sums up his credibility.

maybe obsessed is too strong a word. Perhaps "concerned" would work better

from what I see on the video he didn't have a clear shot at LHO (based solely on what's shown on that clip) on Saturday evening. The fact remains he was there all 3 days and when he got his chance he took it, but it tells me that silencing LHO was the reason, not revenge or patriotism which are the reasons I've seen offered previously. I mean he stalked the guy to the extent that you can stalk a person in a building filled with reporters and cops.

I compare writers on both sides of the polemic to each other because while they're hell-bent on proving the case they evidently think nothing of revising the scenario over and over again until it matches their theory. 6 seconds to 8 seconds, the guys were seated different than the WC said, it's trajectory of the shots changed, etc., and on the other side we have people who've read the commission testimony and apparently twisted witnesses words or fabricated some of it.

I did and do agree LHO shot out that 6th floor window.

What I'm saying is Jack Ruby silencing LHO and the sloppiness of the investigation leaves it open to question and I see JR silencing LHO as indicative of some form of plan or discussion that occurred and we will NEVER know what really happened as all these guys are gone. That's not proof obviously, it's my speculation based on the events of that weekend.

As I'm reading through the articles it's certainly entertaining and I DO very much like that Slate article you posted.

btw - Jim Maars is out-of-his mind, I tried to read his one book back after I saw JFK and couldn't get 1/2 way through it, it was an utterly paranoid, fantastical account that I just couldn't fathom.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

maybe obsessed is too strong a word. Perhaps "concerned" would work better

from what I see on the video he didn't have a clear shot at LHO (based solely on what's shown on that clip) on Saturday evening. The fact remains he was there all 3 days and when he got his chance he took it, but it tells me that silencing LHO was the reason, not revenge or patriotism which are the reasons I've seen offered previously. I mean he stalked the guy to the extent that you can stalk a person in a building filled with reporters and cops.

I compare writers on both sides of the polemic to each other because while they're hell-bent on proving the case they evidently think nothing of revising the scenario over and over again until it matches their theory. 6 seconds to 8 seconds, the guys were seated different than the WC said, it's trajectory of the shots changed, etc., and on the other side we have people who've read the commission testimony and apparently twisted witnesses words or fabricated some of it.

I did and do agree LHO shot out that 6th floor window.

What I'm saying is Jack Ruby silencing LHO and the sloppiness of the investigation leaves it open to question and I see JR silencing LHO as indicative of some form of plan or discussion that occurred and we will NEVER know what really happened as all these guys are gone. That's not proof obviously, it's my speculation based on the events of that weekend.

As I'm reading through the articles it's certainly entertaining and I DO very much like that Slate article you posted.

btw - Jim Maars is out-of-his mind, I tried to read his one book back after I saw JFK and couldn't get 1/2 way through it, it was an utterly paranoid, fantastical account that I just couldn't fathom.

So a one second shot of Ruby in the PD "proves" that all that time he was in there he "couldn't" have shot Oswald? Seriously? Yet on Sunday, carrying out his "assignment" to kill Oswald, he stopped at Western Union and only wandered down the ramp to where he fired about 4 minutes before Oswald emerged? You're just grasping at straws, IMO. The "Ruby shot Oswald to shut him up" is central to your belief in a "conspiracy" yet you can offer zero evidence of any connection between Ruby and anyone else. If Oswald hadn't sent a few minutes changing his clothes, Ruby wouldn't have been there on time. Plus, there's the dog. Would you take your dog along if you were going for a "hit?" I thought not. "Silencing" Oswald is a textbook example of post hoc, ergo proptor hoc thinking. If Ruby could push through a knot of reporters and cops and get within 3 or 4 feet to shoot a guy accompanied by cops on Sunday, why couldn't he do it on the previous occasions. You call it "stalking," but you can't offer any evidence that it was.

The fact that the governor was sitting lower and inboard of the president is not open to debate. He was. It is the conspiracists who ignore that fact, so they can come up with their "magic bullet" tomfoolery. Digital recreations show the various wounds line up exactly with LHO in the SBD. And recreations using dummies made from ballistic gel also show conclusively that the "magic bullet" wasn't "magic" at all. Only in the imaginations of conspiracists and a credulous public.

I'm still assuming you haven't read Bugliosi. Expensive book. Very long read. No question. But, as I've said, he has a well deserved reputation as a serious person, with significant successes in his life beyond JFK. It's far from his only claim to fame. He evidently got hooked on the assassination as part of his preparation for the HBO special "On Trial--Lee Harey Oswald," which is on Youtube.

Glad we agree on Marrs. Sadly the defects of his "research" are generally quite prevalent among conspiracists who constantly move the goalposts. "It was Oswald standing outside the SBD!" No, it was Billy Lovelady. "The Secret Service driver turned around and shot JFK in the face." Enhanced Zapruder reveals he didn't. And even if it didn't, it does seem a bit odd that Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connolly didn't notice. "A secret service agent "accidentally" shot JFK from the follow car." Kind of odd, given that car was full of agents and WH types, none of whom noticed, and if they did, covered it up. Apart from Corsican drug dealers I think my favorite is that Oswald's Russian friend, George deMohrenschildt (dressed as a woman in a black rain coat) shot the president using machine pistols. Again, nobody noticed. "LBJ arranged the hit and gave himself away by clapping his hands at the moment the final bullet struck." I first heard this one from my roomie, Jackie Cooper, Jr. It made no sense then. It makes even less sense now.

This event caused a change in our understanding of breaking news. From that day on, we turn to TV to get our understanding and details of breaking news. That instinct has only grown stronger with the advent of electronic news gathering, satellite, internet, social media, etc. The days when we wait for "extras" by the local papers are gone forever.

In addition to spending 35 years in the media I also had a second major in history. And my instinct is to get this historic event right. And notwithstanding the well documented flaws in the Warren Report, they got the big stuff right. Half a century later and those who suspect, or even worse assert a conspiracy are no closer to proving it than they were on 11/22/63.

I was a freshman at the University of Illinois (on 11/22/63), where we had mandatory ROTC for freshmen and sophomore men. We had a "voluntary" assembly a couple of days later. Several thousand dudes in uniform is always impressive. No gloves. No coats. Just our dress uniforms and black armbands. We marched into the brand new Assembly Hall to muffled drums. The president of the university, David Dodd Henry, broke down during his remarks. In the decades since, there's been no moment that compares.

 

[trucker]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

The Doctors at Parkland who first saw JFK believe that he was shot from the front.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-did-dr-mcclelland-think-about-jfks-wounds/

http://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Room-O...&qid=1384738320&sr=1-1&keywords=Trauma+Room+1

Another very interesting book book about the first African American Secret Service agent in the White House is "The Echo from Dealy Plaza". Abraham Bolden went through a living hell for talking too much about the assassination.

http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Dealey-P...4738884&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+from+dealy+plaza

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

The Doctors at Parkland who first saw JFK believe that he was shot from the front.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-did-dr-mcclelland-think-about-jfks-wounds/

http://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Room-O...&qid=1384738320&sr=1-1&keywords=Trauma+Room+1

Another very interesting book book about the first African American Secret Service agent in the White House is "The Echo from Dealy Plaza". Abraham Bolden went through a living hell for talking too much about the assassination.

http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Dealey-P...4738884&sr=1-1&keywords=echo+from+dealy+plaza

They correctly focused their attention on the massive deficit to JFK's skull, rather than a small exit wound on his neck. They didn't have the luxury of making a careful analysis of the wounds. They didn't have time. Several years ago PBS did a Nova report (hosted by Cronkite) where all of the emergency room docs viewed the autopsy photos in the national archives. All agreed that what they saw in those photos comported with their memories of the event. Remember, that throat wound was enlarged when they performed a tracheostomy. They weren't in the business of analyzing the wound (s) they were in the business of trying to save the life of the POTUS. IIRC, Crenshaw claimed JFK was hit twice from the front. The best that can be said about him is that he was mistaken. Either that, or he's the only one who got it right. Or the other doctors were "covering up" for some reason or another. Crenshaw's conclusions were rejected by all the other emergency room doctors that day. And the fact that Oliver Stone provided a forward for the book tells me all I need to know about Crenshaw's reliability.

Mr. Bolden's status as the first AA agent on the presidential detail is important, but hardly a credential for validating his opinions about the assassination. Again, my recollection is he claims there were about three possible assassination attempts planned, with Dallas being the last. And for whatever reason the other attempts were called off. Proof? For any of it? And Bolden's credibility is damaged just a teensy bit by the fact that he was convicted and served time for soliciting a bribe. However, it may be that Bolden was framed, possibly by racist agents, possibly by agents trying to shut him up for his claims that Secret Service was lax in Dallas. He wasn't on the detail in Big D. He's a footnote, nothing more.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

So a one second shot of Ruby in the PD "proves" that all that time he was in there he "couldn't" have shot Oswald? Seriously? Yet on Sunday, carrying out his "assignment" to kill Oswald, he stopped at Western Union and only wandered down the ramp to where he fired about 4 minutes before Oswald emerged? You're just grasping at straws, IMO. The "Ruby shot Oswald to shut him up" is central to your belief in a "conspiracy" yet you can offer zero evidence of any connection between Ruby and anyone else. If Oswald hadn't sent a few minutes changing his clothes, Ruby wouldn't have been there on time. Plus, there's the dog. Would you take your dog along if you were going for a "hit?" I thought not. "Silencing" Oswald is a textbook example of post hoc, ergo proptor hoc thinking. If Ruby could push through a knot of reporters and cops and get within 3 or 4 feet to shoot a guy accompanied by cops on Sunday, why couldn't he do it on the previous occasions. You call it "stalking," but you can't offer any evidence that it was.

The fact that the governor was sitting lower and inboard of the president is not open to debate. He was. It is the conspiracists who ignore that fact, so they can come up with their "magic bullet" tomfoolery.

I'm still assuming you haven't read Bugliosi. Expensive book. Very long read. No question. But, as I've said, he has a well deserved reputation as a serious person, with significant successes in his life beyond JFK. It's far from his only claim to fame. He evidently got hooked on the assassination as part of his preparation for the HBO special "On Trial--Lee Harey Oswald," which is on Youtube.

Glad we agree on Marrs. Sadly the defects of his "research" are generally quite prevalent among conspiracists who constantly move the goalposts. "It was Oswald standing outside the SBD!" No, it was Billy Lovelady. "The Secret Service driver turned around and shot JFK in the face." Enhanced Zapruder reveals he didn't. And even if it didn't, it does seem a bit odd that Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connolly didn't notice. "A secret service agent "accidentally" shot JFK from the follow car." Kind of odd, given that car was full of agents and WH types, none of whom noticed, and if they did, covered it up. Apart from Corsican drug dealers I think my favorite is that Oswald's Russian friend, George deMohrenschildt (dressed as a woman in a black rain coat) shot the president using machine pistols. Again, nobody noticed.

This event caused a change in our understanding of breaking news. From that day on, we turn to TV to get our understanding and details of breaking news. That instinct has only grown stronger with the advent of electronic news gathering, satellite, internet, social media, etc. The days when we wait for "extras" by the local papers are gone forever.

In addition to spending 35 years in the media I also had a second major in history. And my instinct is to get this historic event right. And notwithstanding the well documented flaws in the Warren Report, they got the big stuff right. Half a century later and those who suspect, or even worse assert a conspiracy are no closer to proving it than they were on 11/22/63.

I was a freshman at the University of Illinois (on 11/22/63), where we had mandatory ROTC for freshmen and sophomore men. We had a "voluntary" assembly a couple of days later. Several thousand dudes in uniform is always impressive. No gloves. No coats. Just our dress uniforms and black armbands. We marched into the brand new Assembly Hall to muffled drums. The president of the university, David Dodd Henry, broke down during his remarks. In the decades since, there's been no moment that compares.

based solely on that clip and that clip alone he didn't have a shot otherwise I imagine he'd do it earlier and there were numerous reporters in that shot standing between he and Oswald w/no break in the crowd. That's the only portion of video that I'm aware of so I cannot comment on what isn't in the video.

I've read nothing convincing that tells me Ruby had any reason to kill Oswald other than to silence him. I mean LHO was going to get the death penalty for sure so he'd be dead for the crime at some point. 48 hours. that's all he got and he's lucky he got that much if in fact there really was more to this. Again, I don't know what the truth is any more than you do. I treat Bugliosi's arguments the same as Garrison, Posner the same as Groden.

Wow...I didn't know 1/2 of what you ascribe to Maars. If he's made all those arguments you ascribe above they're either in the 1/2 of the book I didn't read or some other book. I'm glad I never finished that Crossfire book. Based on what I DID read I'd advise a psychologist.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

based solely on that clip and that clip alone he didn't have a shot otherwise I imagine he'd do it earlier and there were numerous reporters in that shot standing between he and Oswald w/no break in the crowd. That's the only portion of video that I'm aware of so I cannot comment on what isn't in the video.

I've read nothing convincing that tells me Ruby had any reason to kill Oswald other than to silence him. I mean LHO was going to get the death penalty for sure so he'd be dead for the crime at some point. 48 hours. that's all he got and he's lucky he got that much if in fact there really was more to this. Again, I don't know what the truth is any more than you do. I treat Bugliosi's arguments the same as Garrison, Posner the same as Groden.

Wow...I didn't know 1/2 of what you ascribe to Maars. If he's made all those arguments you ascribe above they're either in the 1/2 of the book I didn't read or some other book. I'm glad I never finished that Crossfire book. Based on what I DID read I'd advise a psychologist.

Last go 'round. It's not up to me to prove Ruby had a motive other than the one he stated. It's up to you. You're the one making the assertion. Based entirely on mind reading. He was a very violent person. Known to have extreme mood swings (undiagnosed bi-polar?) who was crushed at the death of the president. So he's "ordered" to kill Oswald. Has numerous opportunities to do so. Yet, doesn't. Waits until Sunday. Runs an errand, takes his dog along. Wanders into the police station about 3 minutes before his target arrives and then attacks. He could certainly have had no expectation that he'd be returning to his car after the shooting, yet he left his beloved dog alone in that car. Does that make any sense at all?

There is also a film of the shooting from a wider angle that shows a police car backing into position. They were going to shove Oswald in the back seat and not take him in that decoy armored vehicle. Again, it's a matter of a few seconds. Otherwise, that car would have blocked Ruby's access. He couldn't have gotten a shot off. He's got to be the luckiest "button man" in history. You say you can't comment on what you can't see about what went on in the police station, yet that's exactly what you're doing. Drawing conclusions about video that doesn't exist. I sincerely doubt Ruby was giving any thought at all to what the outcome of an Oswald trial would have been. Although you're right, he would have been convicted of either murder. Still, I doubt that was on Jack's mind. He wanted to wipe the smirk off that little punk's face (and did) and thought the cops and public would treat him like a hero for doing it.

You're arguing that Ruby was "ordered" to shoot Oswald but was unwilling or unable to elbow his way through the crowd in the police station until Sunday, when suddenly he was able to shove his way through a crowd to shoot. If the object of the exercise was to "shut Oswald up" shooting him earlier would be vastly pfererable to shooting him later. If Ruby was prepared to risk his life to do it on Sunday, why not earlier?

Remember the scene in Godfather II where the hitman guns down Hyman Roth in the airport? Surrounded by cops and FBI? That guy didn't have any expectation of getting out of there alive or not in custody, either. Neither did Jack Ruby. So why not shoot earlier rather than later? He didn't want to shove some reporters out of the way to get to his target? He knew his way around that station much better than many (most?) of the media types who had crowded in there after the JFK shooting. Nah, that makes no sense.

And it's intellectually dishonest to compare Bugliosi with Garrison, IMO. Especially since you've evidently not read his book. I ask again, have you read either Bugliosi or Posner? And if you haven't, what, apart from intellectual dishonesty or Priceless type stubbornness would bring you to say you treat their findings the same as the nut job Jim Garrison? In this instance, all men are not created equal. And it's sophistry to suggest otherwise.

You've held up your end admirably. I've enjoyed this conversation. But you're still only offering "feelings." Suspicion, skepticism and surmise are still not evidence.

 

[Scott W]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

You know I hate to agree with a certain person on here but it has been 50 years now and there is still no real proof that it is no one other than LHO that committed this crime. Conspiracy theories are fun but at the end of the day two people can hardly ever keep a secret amongst themselves, let alone the amount of people that you conspiracy theorists seem to think planned this.

 

[joecct]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

You know I hate to agree with a certain person on here but it has been 50 years now and there is still no real proof that it is no one other than LHO that committed this crime. Conspiracy theories are fun but at the end of the day two people can hardly ever keep a secret amongst themselves, let alone the amount of people that you conspiracy theorists seem to think planned this.

Unless all the conspirers were silenced soon after. Not that I agree with that.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

You know I hate to agree with a certain person on here but it has been 50 years now and there is still no real proof that it is no one other than LHO that committed this crime. Conspiracy theories are fun but at the end of the day two people can hardly ever keep a secret amongst themselves, let alone the amount of people that you conspiracy theorists seem to think planned this.

Sorry to put you in an awkward situation.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Unless all the conspirers were silenced soon after. Not that I agree with that.

But some of those who did the silencing are still alive. What about them? And why have no conspiracy "researchers" been clipped? Why is Mark Lane still drawing air?