JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

turingtest said:

The whole thing has the same two-faceted defect most conspiracy "theories" (or even just speculations) suffer from- it not only needs to be possible, it needs to be something an actual conspiracy would consider doing. The scenarios on offer are just the usual reverse engineering so badly done that no real-life set of bad guys would even think of forward-engineering it like that. And this is in contrast with the simplicity of putting one guy in a high place with a high-powered rifle. But the CTists can't really keep it that simple, since, after all... that's what the "official narrative" says, but without any add-ons. They'd be admitting that all it would take would be all it took.

Click to expand...

The worst of these reverse-engineered scenarios is of course David Lifton's body-snatcher theory.

I've always asked conspiracy theorists why on earth conspirators would decide to go to all the trouble Lifton's theory entails -- multiple shooters only in front of the President, none behind, with the express intent to frame a lone nut shooting only from behind. The theory is built up from Lifton's inventive reinterpretation of an FBI memo, reading more into it than is justified, and by the time Lifton is done, it becomes this Rube-Goldberg mechanism of plotters planting evidence, swapping evidence, and altering the deceased body of the late President to make the supposed entry wounds in the front look like exit wounds from shots fired from the rear.

If they had Oswald's weapon to plant in the TSBD to frame him in any case, why not just shoot JFK with that weapon and leave it behind? Then the whole jury-rigged house of cards Lifton imagines would not be necessary whatsoever, as all the wounds would point to being inflicted from the TSBD, all the bullets, fragments and shells would be traceable to Oswald's weapon, and Oswald's weapon would be found in the TSBD and would point to him performing the deed.

But, as you note, that sounds too much like the Warren Commission's solution to the crime, so they can't have that. No, they have to have a planted weapon, a framed patsy, multiple unseen shooters with un-evidenced weapons in the Plaza, weapons being planted, jackets being planted, films and photos being altered...

And their theories never come together, they just get further out there.

Just look at J.D.Tippit. Depending on the conspiracy theorist, he is either the shooter in the Depository (Thomas Buchanon), the victim in the limo in place of JFK (George Thomson), an innocent patsy shot by an Oswald-double to frame Oswald, one of the plotters shot by the real Oswald when Oswald realized he was set up, and it is even argued his autopsy results were used in place of JFK's (Robert Morningstar) as part of the cover-up. Tippit is even a non-person (Tippit isn't even mentioned by David Lifton in his 800-page book on JFK's supposed body alteration).

Lifton's book serves one good purpose - it shows how if one becomes wedded to one's theory and committed to proving it at all costs, one can be led further and further astray, and never find one's way out of the wilderness. It was a great service that the publisher insisted Lifton rewrite his original submission to make it a first-person narrative and show how his conspiracy thinking on the subject developed. Reading a typical conspiracy theorist book, I often find myself scratching my head and asking "What was he thinking?" With Lifton's book, you don't have to wonder about that. Because he tells us exactly what he was thinking, in detail.

Hank

MicahJava said:

Oh honey, the dark-colored part of the curb that your circled is the filled-in area. The bullet mark began as a white chip on the curb, and the chip was paved over with concrete paste filler.

Remember?

When Henry Hurt, a roving editor for Reader's Digest, was working on his book, Reasonable Doubt, I helped him all I could, mainly with its first half, a recap of known facts about the JFK assassination. I asked him, for his purposes and mine, the Digest having resources I lacked and lack, to have an expert on concrete examine that curbstone. They engaged Construction Environment, Inc., of Alexandrea, Virginia. It's chief engineer, Jose T. Fernandez, made an examination on March 10, 1983. He reported it March 17. He found the "dark gray spot" readily, "at the center of the concrete section, on the vertical face, just below the curbed transition between the horizontal ad vertical surfaces... The dark spot had fairly well-defined boundaries, as it stood out visually from the surrounding concrete surface... elliptical in shape approximately 1/2 in. by 3/4 in. in principle dimension. He found no other such areas on the curbstone and regarded that as "significant."

The spot also had different characteristics. He attributed the "difference in color" to "the cement paste" that was used. He found a difference in the sand grains because, unlike the rest, the "dark spot" contained only semi-translucent light gray sand grains. He found a flaw on the upper edge of the patch "consistent with the relatively weaker zones that normally occurs in the thin, or feathered edges of surface patch." His summary is: that it was a surface patch.

(source)

It just breaks my dear old heart you can't acknowledge a cover-up when there is one, even when you are provided with the clearest example. It was literally a cover-up. Literally.

EDIT: also, James Tague himself examined the curbstone in evidence and said that the bullet mark was filled over.

Click to expand...

You don't appear to understand that cement paste was part of the original concrete curb, and are apparently thinking it is a later addition slapped over the top of the concrete curb.

What is the difference between cement and concrete?

Although the terms cement and concrete often are used interchangeably, cement is actually an ingredient of concrete. Concrete is a mixture of aggregates and paste. The aggregates are sand and gravel or crushed stone; the paste is water and portland cement.

Cement comprises from 10 to 15 percent of the concrete mix, by volume. Through a process called hydration, the cement and water harden and bind the aggregates into a rocklike mass. This hardening process continues for years meaning that concrete gets stronger as it gets older.

Portland cement is not a brand name, but the generic term for the type of cement used in virtually all concrete, just as stainless is a type of steel and sterling a type of silver. Therefore, there is no such thing as a cement sidewalk, or a cement mixer; the proper terms are concrete sidewalk and concrete mixer.

http://www.cement.org/cement-concrete-basics/cement-and-concrete-basics-faqs


Hank

HSienzant said:

The worst of these reverse-engineered scenarios is of course David Lifton's body-snatcher theory.

I've always asked conspiracy theorists why on earth conspirators would decide to go to all the trouble Lifton's theory entails -- multiple shooters only in front of the President, none behind, with the express intent to frame a lone nut shooting only from behind. The theory is built up from Lifton's inventive reinterpretation of an FBI memo, reading more into it than is justified, and by the time Lifton is done, it becomes this Rube-Goldberg mechanism of plotters planting evidence, swapping evidence, and altering the deceased body of the late President to make the supposed entry wounds in the front look like exit wounds from shots fired from the rear.

If they had Oswald's weapon to plant in the TSBD to frame him in any case, why not just shoot JFK with that weapon and leave it behind? Then the whole jury-rigged house of cards Lifton imagines would not be necessary whatsoever, as all the wounds would point to being inflicted from the TSBD, all the bullets, fragments and shells would be traceable to Oswald's weapon, and Oswald's weapon would be found in the TSBD and would point to him performing the deed.

But, as you note, that sounds too much like the Warren Commission's solution to the crime, so they can't have that. No, they have to have a planted weapon, a framed patsy, multiple unseen shooters with un-evidenced weapons in the Plaza, weapons being planted, jackets being planted, films and photos being altered...

And their theories never come together, they just get further out there.

Just look at J.D.Tippit. Depending on the conspiracy theorist, he is either the shooter in the Depository (Thomas Buchanon), the victim in the limo in place of JFK (George Thomson), an innocent patsy shot by an Oswald-double to frame Oswald, one of the plotters shot by the real Oswald when Oswald realized he was set up, and it is even argued his autopsy results were used in place of JFK's (Robert Morningstar) as part of the cover-up. Tippit is even a non-person (Tippit isn't even mentioned by David Lifton in his 800-page book on JFK's supposed body alteration).

Lifton's book serves one good purpose - it shows how if one becomes wedded to one's theory and committed to proving it at all costs, one can be led further and further astray, and never find one's way out of the wilderness. It was a great service that the publisher insisted Lifton rewrite his original submission to make it a first-person narrative and show how his conspiracy thinking on the subject developed. Reading a typical conspiracy theorist book, I often find myself scratching my head and asking "What was he thinking?" With Lifton's book, you don't have to wonder about that. Because he tells us exactly what he was thinking, in detail.

Hank

Click to expand...

I'll just note, as I've said before, that I was once as convinced a CTist in the JFK case as MJ seems to be; and what got me out of that camp was reading Lifton's book. I wanted to be convinced; but, as you say, the whole thing is 800 pages of scenario spun from one ambiguous reference in an FBI memo, and it became obvious pretty quickly that Lifton had his conclusion and was shoehorning the evidence to fit.

Someone asked earlier why CTists continue harping on the nonsense, and I think MJ is a good example of one answer to that question. "Unlikely" applied to areas of evidence the CTist has no relevant expertise in to properly evaluate; has a "theory I subscribe to" but won't say what it is so it can be tested by the same standard they subject the official narrative to; storm-drain-guy abandoned as "I was just speculating" when it quickly becomes untenable; the sort of circular reasoning that produces the "mystery deaths"; won't accept (or even acknowledge) the principle of consilience- bad methodology and shadowy conjectures that explain nothing, and can't be used to concretely accuse anybody. These are the marks of someone who likes a good mystery as a hobby, and doesn't really want this one solved, because where there's no mystery, there's no hobby. LHO and the official narrative are boring; but actually putting the same amount of work into proving a comparable narrative is too hard, so the whole thing becomes a toy.

turingtest said:

I'll just note, as I've said before, that I was once as convinced a CTist in the JFK case as MJ seems to be; and what got me out of that camp was reading Lifton's book. I wanted to be convinced; but, as you say, the whole thing is 800 pages of scenario spun from one ambiguous reference in an FBI memo, and it became obvious pretty quickly that Lifton had his conclusion and was shoehorning the evidence to fit.

Someone asked earlier why CTists continue harping on the nonsense, and I think MJ is a good example of one answer to that question. "Unlikely" applied to areas of evidence the CTist has no relevant expertise in to properly evaluate; has a "theory I subscribe to" but won't say what it is so it can be tested by the same standard they subject the official narrative to; storm-drain-guy abandoned as "I was just speculating" when it quickly becomes untenable; the sort of circular reasoning that produces the "mystery deaths"; won't accept (or even acknowledge) the principle of consilience- bad methodology and shadowy conjectures that explain nothing, and can't be used to concretely accuse anybody. These are the marks of someone who likes a good mystery as a hobby, and doesn't really want this one solved, because where there's no mystery, there's no hobby. LHO and the official narrative are boring; but actually putting the same amount of work into proving a comparable narrative is too hard, so the whole thing becomes a toy.

Click to expand...

Like you, I was a conspiracy believer too, mostly after reading the early critical literature from Lane, Weisberg, and Meagher in the mid-t-late 1960s. I was still one throughout the 1970s and only flipped over after I bought the Warren Commission's 26 volumes and the HSCA volumes in the early 1980's and devoured them all cover to cover.

While still a CT, however, I had a college friend tell me about Lifton's book over a couple of beers in the college pub one day we were both cutting classes.* He had apparently seen Lifton on a morning show spieling his book and explained Lifton's thesis to me. As I recall, I saw the flaw immediately... "If the shooters were in front of the limo and JFK's wounds were altered later to point to a shooter from behind", I asked, "Who altered Connally's wounds?"

He saw the problem too. Connally's wounds point to behind as well as JFK's, so it follows that Connally must have had his wounds altered if JFK's were (Lifton mentions early in the book that Connally was wounded during the assassination, but then doesn't revisit Connally at all in BEST EVIDENCE).

I later got an opportunity to ask Lifton about Connally in Dallas, at a JFK assassination conference in the early 1990's. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, "That's an excellent question. I'll answer it in my next book".

Nearly 25 years later, I'm still waiting for his explanation.

Clearly, he still can't explain it.

Hank

__________________

* Ah, false memories. I just checked, and Lifton's book was published in 1981... and I was already out of college and working full time by then. If I was a witness, conspiracy theorists would throw out the evidence that Lifton's book wasn't published until the 1980s and accept my false recollection that it was published in the 1970s. Arguments such as this populate almost every conspiracy book.

MicahJava said:

The evidence for a shooter in that area? A loud noise, a puff of smoke, Kennedy's head and body moving back and to the left, debris from Kennedy's head being thrown back, perhaps the people who smelled gunpower should be included as well. When you have powerful stuff like that, I am not too bothered that nobody (except Ed Hoffman and the possibility of Lee Bowers) claimed to see an actual gunman.

Click to expand...

Wow. Okay.

With respect, you must be new at all this.

Regnad Kcin said:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The evidence for a shooter in that area? A loud noise, a puff of smoke, Kennedy's head and body moving back and to the left, debris from Kennedy's head being thrown back, perhaps the people who smelled gunpower should be included as well. When you have powerful stuff like that, I am not too bothered that nobody (except Ed Hoffman and the possibility of Lee Bowers) claimed to see an actual gunman.

Click to expand...

Wow. Okay.

With respect, you must be new at all this.

Click to expand...

And let's don't forget- this is someone who, when challenged to produce some actual evidence besides just stories that other shell casings were found than the ones in the TSBD, said "I'm more in to the eyewitness aspect at this point." Now the only eyewitnesses that can be produced to support a scenario are one guy who doesn't say anything that really does and another who didn't tell the authorities for at least three years- and MJ isn't "too bothered." If nothing else, being a CTist requires a certain flexibility of standards when it comes to assessing evidence.

MicahJava said:

I think I'm done here, the people here are just too crazy. I regret wasting my time if something so simple can't be acknowledged.

Click to expand...

The same could be said to you.

A single person, with a deadly weapon, shot another person dead. (The circumstances are slightly complicated by the shooter's doing so from a remote location, and then fleeing the scene, but the point stands.)

Or...

Several, if not many, people conspiring to engineer and pull off a complex plan, in full daylight in front of hundreds of people (after which they would have to flee the scene and remain undetected forever), when any number of methods to murder the man would be significantly simpler, involve fewer actors, and therefore be more likely successful before, during and after.

You are proposing something extraordinary. It therefore requires extraordinary proof. Perhaps you'll be the first in over 50 years of attempts by thousands to succeed.

turingtest said:

And let's don't forget- this is someone who, when challenged to produce some actual evidence besides just stories that other shell casings were found than the ones in the TSBD, said "I'm more in to the eyewitness aspect at this point." Now the only eyewitnesses that can be produced to support a scenario are one guy who doesn't say anything that really does and another who didn't tell the authorities for at least three years- and MJ isn't "too bothered." If nothing else, being a CTist requires a certain flexibility of standards when it comes to assessing evidence.

Click to expand...

And he concedes this witness might be lying:

MicahJava said:

HSienzant said:

Hoffman came forward for the first time on record how many years after the assassination?

Click to expand...

Who knows, he could be lying.

Click to expand...

Hank

Meh. My biggest criticism of CTs is the repeated claim that critics of the Theory are all determined to support the official story at any cost, or crazy for not buying into the theory.

I think a lot of sceptics are here because on some level they know how cool it would be to have some piece of significant evidence stand up to scrutiny. We go out of our way to explain how that scrutiny works and what it would take to convince us.

The response is always a paraphrase of "Well I cant do that, but pretend this is just as good..."

Pointing out limitations to witness testimony is not calling people liars, or mistaken. It is pointing out that the evidence only goes so far, then needs something more to validate it

Pointing out that even if a chip were filled (despite a photograph to the contrary) then we can not say as a fact the intention of the filling was to cover up evidence of more bullets, is not unreasonable.

Heck, expecting evidence to form a coherent chain of information, is not unreasonable. If you are speculating silenced rifles in a storm drain, then the evidence you supply should point towards silenced rifles in a storm drain. Saying "This doesn't fit the official story, ergo any other story will do" does not cut it.

Micah, you say you're done here. Please let that be true.

Although I'd still like you to explain why anybody -- including you -- should give a good hot damn after all these years.

The smart advice I received after I had my post CT-nitwit awakening was that before I could rule in an conspiracy in Dallas I had to rule Oswald out.

Oswald is impossible to rule out as the shooter.

So if I wanted to continue to play conspiracy parlor games I would have to start with Oswald as the lone gunman, and then link him to the bogey man of my choosing (Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Castro, LBJ, the DAR, Hunt Oil, Dallas Cowboys, Cub Scouts, reptilians from Planted 10, Wally Cox, etc).

Oswald was a loner, which means you can link him to the shadowy figure of your choice. The reasoning being that Oswald was mostly untraceable day-to-day, especially while he was in New Orleans, and this leaves a huge gap to build a cooler conspiracy in.

Arguing the shooting itself is foolish. Every CTist who's posted on this thread illustrates the futility of alleging multiple gunmen. They don't understand ballistics, logistics, or shooting on any level, and like the majority of CTists they cannot present a plausible outline of the clandestine operation that had to be involved.

I read all of those books too when I was a believer, the Jim Mars book was my bible on the subject, but the thing that nagged at me even then was the fact that they all couldn't be true, so why do some CTers see one thing, while others see different things. They can't all be true, so where are they getting their information? Back then there was no internet, so they were cherry-picking other CTer books to construct their own narrative, and few bothered to fact-check.

sackett said:

Micah, you say you're done here. Please let that be true.

Although I'd still like you to explain why anybody -- including you -- should give a good hot damn after all these years.

Click to expand...

Well, some of these folks think the government changed at that point in time and became an illegitimate one with the Kennedy assassination, and they somehow want to restore the rightful government in place.

I'm currently debating the assassination on the Amazon history customer discussion forum with one such person who feels that way.

https://www.amazon.com/forum/histor...oldest&cdThread=TxCS4AMZJN34Y0#MxAGOOLN97UT12

Although he's not really clear about how to restore the rightful government. I'm not sure we can dig up the dead President and convince him to serve out the remainder of his term.

Hank

Axxman300 said:

Oswald was a loner, which means you can link him to the shadowy figure of your choice. The reasoning being that Oswald was mostly untraceable day-to-day, especially while he was in New Orleans, and this leaves a huge gap to build a cooler conspiracy in.

Click to expand...

And his being a loner makes it harder to link him to anyone. He had no phone, so good luck connecting him to some conspirator / 'handler' out of town in Dallas or Chicago when he was living with his wife at a succession of rented apartments in New Orleans. What did they use to communicate with him, carrier pigeons?

And he wasn't untraceable. His time was well accounted for. His life is one of the most meticulously documented in history. The FBI determined what jobs he held and when he showed up for work. And according to his wife, he was home almost every night after work when they were living together. Exceptions were for things like a typing class and the night he attempted to kill General Walker, when he showed up very late. When they were living apart, he was living at the rooming house on North Beckley, and according to interviews with some of the patrons, he was there every night as well, except for those times he visited his wife at Mrs. Paine's home.

While the rooming house had a phone for the patrons, he was registered there under the alias of O.H.Lee, and he received no calls. In fact, Mrs. Paine testified she tried to reach him there the weekend before the assassination, and she failed because she asked for Lee Oswald, and she was told there was no such person living there.

Mr. JENNER - And you were relating that you inquired as to how you could reach them if you had to reach them, and Mr. Lee Oswald wrote--
Mrs. PAINE - His work, the name of the company and the telephone number.
Mr. JENNER - I take it they did not have a telephone?
Mrs. PAINE - They did not; no.
Mr. JENNER - Did they ever have a telephone even when they were in New Orleans?
Mrs. PAINE - No; they did not.
Mr. JENNER - When they came back again to Dallas, they did not?
Mrs. PAINE - They did not.
...
Mrs. PAINE - Whether he called that Saturday or whether he had called Sunday, I am not certain. Indeed, I am not certain but what he had called the very day, had already called and talked with Marina the very day that I then, at her request, tried to reach him at the number he had given me, with his number in my telephone book.
Junie was fooling with the telephone dial, and Marina said, "Let's call papa" and asked me--
... [discussion of side issue omitted]
Mr. JENNER - You are absolutely clear about that. All right. Now, state, you began to state the circumstances of the telephone call. Would you in your own words and your own chronology proceed with that, please?
Mrs. PAINE - Marina had said, "Let's call papa," in Russian and asked me to dial the number for her, knowing that I had a number that he had given us. I then dialed the number--
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, did you dial the first or the second number?
Mrs. PAINE - The second number.
Mr. JENNER - And that number is?
Mrs. PAINE - WH 3-8993.
Mr. JENNER - When you dialed the number did someone answer?
Mrs. PAINE - Someone answered and I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" And the person replied, "There is no Lee Oswald here," or something to that effect.
Mr. JENNER - Would it refresh your recollection if he said, "There is nobody by that name here"?
Mrs. PAINE - Or it may have been "nobody by that name" or "I don't know Lee Oswald." It could have been any of these.
Mr. JENNER - We want your best recollection.
Mrs. PAINE - My best recollection is that he repeated the name.
Mr. JENNER - He repeated the name?
Mrs. PAINE - But that is not a certain recollection.
Mr. JENNER - I take it then from the use of the pronoun that the person who answered was a man?
Mrs. PAINE - Was a man.
Mr. JENNER - And if you will just sit back and relax a little. I would like to have you restate, if you now will, in your own words, what occurred? You dialed the telephone, someone answered, a male voice?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - What did he say and what did you say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said, "Is Lee Oswald there." He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house." He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up.
Mr. JENNER - When you hung up then what did you next do or say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said to Marina, "They don't know of a Lee Oswald at that number."
Mr. JENNER - What did she say?
Mrs. PAINE - She didn't say anything.
Mr. JENNER - Just said nothing?
Mrs. PAINE - She looked surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did she evidence any surprise?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; she did, she looked surprised.
Mr. DULLES - You are quite sure you used the first name "Lee," did you, you did not say just "Mr. Oswald," or something of that kind?
Mrs. PAINE - I would not say "Mr. Oswald." It is contrary to Quaker practice, and I don't normally do it that way.
Mr. JENNER - Contrary to Quaker practice?
Mrs. PAINE - They seldom use "Mister."

Hank

HSienzant said:

Well, some of these folks think the government changed at that point in time and became an illegitimate one with the Kennedy assassination, and they somehow want to restore the rightful government in place.

I'm currently debating the assassination on the Amazon history customer discussion forum with one such person who feels that way.

https://www.amazon.com/forum/histor...oldest&cdThread=TxCS4AMZJN34Y0#MxAGOOLN97UT12

Although he's not really clear about how to restore the rightful government. I'm not sure we can dig up the dead President and convince him to serve out the remainder of his term.

Hank

Click to expand...

Seems like that Magnus Maverik has his own "special" opinion about you:

Magnus Maverik said:

I am pretty certain that Roy C. is well aware that his simple list of points is far from Argumentum Verbsioum as the Shilmeister Sienzant asserts with his jejune pop term for the fallacious argument: "Gish Gallop".

I am equally certain that Roy C. is aware of the fallacious nature of Shilmeister Sienzant's entire agenda and adherence to the common dogmatic shill routines; which rely in the main to appeals to false authority.

So yes Roy, let the stooge begin on his own fallacious terms, as he is all ready beaten on those terms here over and again.
\\][//

Click to expand...

First time I've heard someone use the word "Shillmeister"...

HSienzant said:

And his being a loner makes it harder to link him to anyone. He had no phone, so good luck connecting him to some conspirator / 'handler' out of town in Dallas or Chicago when he was living with his wife at a succession of rented apartments in New Orleans. What did they use to communicate with him, carrier pigeons?

And he wasn't untraceable. His time was well accounted for. His life is one of the most meticulously documented in history. The FBI determined what jobs he held and when he showed up for work. And according to his wife, he was home almost every night after work when they were living together. Exceptions were for things like a typing class and the night he attempted to kill General Walker, when he showed up very late. When they were living apart, he was living at the rooming house on North Beckley, and according to interviews with some of the patrons, he was there every night as well, except for those times he visited his wife at Mrs. Paine's home.

...
Hank

Click to expand...

I know, but in Conspiracy World, nothing the FBI said can be trusted because they're obviously in on the whole thing because Hoover, and blah, blah, blah...

Plus, Oswald and Spiderman were never seen in the same room at the same time, just to draw an untapped suspect into this.

tinribmancer said:

Seems like that Magnus Maverik has his own "special" opinion about you:

First time I've heard someone use the word "Shillmeister"...

Click to expand...

He's called me a lot of names, shillmeister among them. Here's another: "It is his job, his bread and butter to obfuscate and misdirect, for he is a stooge for the illegitimate national security state: An enemy propagandist."

He doesn't appear to like me much because I make a practice of popping his CT balloons.

Hank

HSienzant said:

He's called me a lot of names, shillmeister among them. Here's another: "It is his job, his bread and butter to obfuscate and misdirect, for he is a stooge for the illegitimate national security state: An enemy propagandist."

He doesn't appear to like me much because I make a practice of popping his CT balloons.

Hank

Click to expand...

Well in the true CT world people like yourself who burst their bubbles HAVE to be 'enemy' agents - it is simply unthinkable that someone would do so unless they were being paid....lol

Still waiting for the first CT'er to have a timeline from that day.

Never Fear, Murray's Here

Yes, universal genius Murray N. Rothbard saw through it all too, and his acolyte Lew Rockwell has blessed us with a selection of his piercing thought on the assassinations:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/murray-n-rothbard/assassination-revisionism-2/

You will note that, in effect, he's "merely asking questions".


This sort of discussion may explain why Rothbard is the great expert in a limited circle, and in the greater world not worth the bother of even refuiting.

Tomtomkent said:

Meh. My biggest criticism of CTs is the repeated claim that critics of the Theory are all determined to support the official story at any cost, or crazy for not buying into the theory.

I think a lot of sceptics are here because on some level they know how cool it would be to have some piece of significant evidence stand up to scrutiny. We go out of our way to explain how that scrutiny works and what it would take to convince us.

The response is always a paraphrase of "Well I cant do that, but pretend this is just as good..."

Pointing out limitations to witness testimony is not calling people liars, or mistaken. It is pointing out that the evidence only goes so far, then needs something more to validate it

Pointing out that even if a chip were filled (despite a photograph to the contrary) then we can not say as a fact the intention of the filling was to cover up evidence of more bullets, is not unreasonable.

Heck, expecting evidence to form a coherent chain of information, is not unreasonable. If you are speculating silenced rifles in a storm drain, then the evidence you supply should point towards silenced rifles in a storm drain. Saying "This doesn't fit the official story, ergo any other story will do" does not cut it.

Click to expand...

That's it!

Skeptics have and will make up CT just to have something to kick around, if no CTers are available.

Axxman300 said:

Oswald was a loner, which means you can link him to the shadowy figure of your choice. The reasoning being that Oswald was mostly untraceable day-to-day, especially while he was in New Orleans, and this leaves a huge gap to build a cooler conspiracy in.

Click to expand...

I am not taking issue with your statement, what I want to know is how LHO "untraceable day-to-day" was determined. As I best understand LHO had a daily job at the Reilly Coffee Company (I am sure the full and correct name is more than I stated) and his time stamps have been provided. Was LHO any less traceable than, let's say, Clay Shaw? Again, I am not disputing your claim, I am looking for a baseline or reference point. thx

No Other said:

I am not taking issue with your statement, what I want to know is how LHO "untraceable day-to-day" was determined. As I best understand LHO had a daily job at the Reilly Coffee Company (I am sure the full and correct name is more than I stated) and his time stamps have been provided. Was LHO any less traceable than, let's say, Clay Shaw? Again, I am not disputing your claim, I am looking for a baseline or reference point. thx

Click to expand...

The key is to think like a CTist. You're being rational, and that will never work if you want to sell a book, or put up a website to pimp advertising and malware.

A realistic example is Oswald's firing range visits before the assassination. He didn't have a car, and someone drove him to and from. We know because the witnesses claim he was there with another man. Where things get fuzzy is exactly how many times he went to the range as one occasion where witnesses claim they saw him, Oswald was actually in Mexico City.

In the real world this would draw the shooting range witnesses into question, but using CT standards it's a goldmine. CTers would ask why the FBI never pressed these witnesses while normal people would point out that it's not all that important to the story because IT'S TEXAS - PEOPLE SHOOT GUNS THERE...so a guy giving Oswald a ride to the range is on par with a guy giving a fellow golfer a ride to the course.

Again, I know Oswald was the lone gunman. I accept the facts as stated, and everything I have read about Oswald points to him. I can't see anybody putting him up to the killing because he was clearly unstable. Proof here being that the USMC didn't try him for desertion, the KGB thought he was a nutjob and only allowed him to stay in Russia because he tried to kill himself, and he could never get his act together in any meaningful way. This is not a man the mafia, or the CIA does business with as he would be too big of a risk...and the biggest risk of putting a guy like Oswald in place as your shooter is that there would be a 50% chance he chickens out.

Look at it this way, the guy forgets to bring his pistol with him that morning. He brings his rifle but not a backup piece? Why go back for it? He had a locker at work, why not bring a change of clothes to change into and escape? Why not pay for a ticket at the movie theater?

He's not James Bond. Sorry about rambling...

Axxman300 said:

A realistic example is Oswald's firing range visits before the assassination. He didn't have a car, and someone drove him to and from. We know because the witnesses claim he was there with another man. Where things get fuzzy is exactly how many times he went to the range as one occasion where witnesses claim they saw him, Oswald was actually in Mexico City. In the real world this would draw the shooting range witnesses into question, but using CT standards it's a goldmine.

Click to expand...

Yes. And in the CT world, that doesn't imply a mistaken witness; in the CT world that implies an Oswald double.

Axxman300 said:

Again, I know Oswald was the lone gunman. I accept the facts as stated, and everything I have read about Oswald points to him. I can't see anybody putting him up to the killing because he was clearly unstable. Proof here being that the USMC didn't try him for desertion,

Click to expand...

He was already discharged for a medical reason... his mother, he said, needed his help at home due to an injury she suffered. She really didn't, but that was a way to advance his discharge. After his defection, it was changed to an undesirable discharge, which Oswald felt was unfair. He didn't desert his post, he was already discharged.

Axxman300 said:

... the KGB thought he was a nutjob and only allowed him to stay in Russia because he tried to kill himself, and he could never get his act together in any meaningful way. This is not a man the mafia, or the CIA does business with as he would be too big of a risk...and the biggest risk of putting a guy like Oswald in place as your shooter is that there would be a 50% chance he chickens out.

Click to expand...

No argument there.

Axxman300 said:

Look at it this way, the guy forgets to bring his pistol with him that morning.

Click to expand...

No. The revolver was stored at the rooming house, not the Paine's. So if he wanted the revolver on Friday, he had to take it to work on Thursday morning, when he left his rooming house, and then keep it with him all day (or stow it somewhere in the building) and then take it to the Paine's on Thursday evening and back on Friday morning.

The problem with this is he DOESN'T want to be in possession of the revolver when he attempts to leave the building after the assassination. If he does have it, he cannot be certain he won't be searched as he leaves the building, and if he is searched, he's going to be detained as a suspect. So he has to look innocent by NOT having the weapon. Bear in mind he almost was searched by officer Baker on the second floor within about 90 seconds of the assassination - but Roy Truly vouched for him ("He works here") and Baker abandoned any thought of Oswald being the guilty party.

So his thinking was sound on that point... leave the revolver at the rooming house and go back for it after the assassination.

Axxman300 said:

He brings his rifle but not a backup piece?

Click to expand...

Yes, see above.

Axxman300 said:

Why go back for it?

Click to expand...

To the rooming house? Because he had unfinished business. General Walker was still alive. Ask yourself why he didn't shoot JFK from Elm Street with the revolver. Shooting at JFK with the rifle gave him an opportunity to go get the revolver and shoot Walker. Shoot JFK with the revolver and he doesn't have an opportunity to kill the guy he once compared to Hitler.

Axxman300 said:

He had a locker at work, why not bring a change of clothes to change into and escape?

Click to expand...

I was unaware Oswald had a locker at work. A search of the WR pdf reveals the only occasion the word 'locker' appears is in relation to Oswald having an illegal weapon in the marines and shooting himself in the arm.

On October 27, when Oswald opened his locker to remove some gear, a derringer .22 caliber pistol fell to the floor and discharged ; the bullet hit him in the left elbow. Paul Edward Murphy, a fellow marine who was in the next cubicle, heard the shot, rushed in, and found Oswald sitting on the locker looking at his arm ; without emotion, Oswald said to Murphy, "I believe I shot myself." He was in the naval hospital at Yokosuka until November 15. The Judge Advocate General concluded that Oswald had "displayed a certain degree of carelessness or negligence" by storing a loaded revolver in his locker, but that his injury was incurred "in the line of duty" and was not the result "of his own misconduct."

Any delay in leaving the building might prevent him from leaving at all. Just as Oswald couldn't be sure he would not be searched, he couldn't be certain how quickly the police would seal off the building and prevent anyone from entering or leaving.

If he wanted to leave, his best opportunity - maybe his only opportunity - was to leave quickly.

Axxman300 said:

Why not pay for a ticket at the movie theater?

Click to expand...

He was cheap, and probably thought nobody saw him enter. It's usually some dumb action that gets a criminal ensnared... like dropping your car keys at the scene of the murder or something like that.

If he had paid, he still might have been arrested (he had already drawn the attention of Johnny Brewer by acting suspiciously in the Hardy shoe store alcove), but maybe Brewer shrugs it off and doesn't ask Postal to call the police and report the guy.

Hank

To the rooming house? Because he had unfinished business. General Walker was still alive. Ask yourself why he didn't shoot JFK from Elm Street with the revolver. Shooting at JFK with the rifle gave him an opportunity to go get the revolver and shoot Walker. Shoot JFK with the revolver and he doesn't have an opportunity to kill the guy he once compared to Hitler.

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of Walker. Maybe he had a bigger day planned...which makes sense because it insures he gets caught.

No. The revolver was stored at the rooming house, not the Paine's. So if he wanted the revolver on Friday, he had to take it to work on Thursday morning, when he left his rooming house, and then keep it with him all day (or stow it somewhere in the building) and then take it to the Paine's on Thursday evening and back on Friday morning.

Click to expand...

This is where his planning broke down. Going back to the rooming house was his mistake. At least in downtown Dallas he could remain invisible for a while longer.

Axxman300 said:

I hadn't thought of Walker. Maybe he had a bigger day planned...which makes sense because it insures he gets caught.

Click to expand...

I'm not at all certain he wanted to get caught. I think he planned to gun down Walker and then try to escape to Cuba.

Axxman300 said:

This is where his planning broke down. Going back to the rooming house was his mistake. At least in downtown Dallas he could remain invisible for a while longer.

Click to expand...

If he was content to just stay free, he could have taken a bus out of town at the Greyhound Bus Station after leaving the Depository - it was only a few blocks from Dealey Plaza.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/G...a9d506071e199a!8m2!3d32.7783864!4d-96.8042972

Instead, he walks beyond the Greyhound Bus Station to catch a local bus that will take him to the rooming house, but when that gets stuck in traffic, he gets off the local bus, gets a bus transfer, and walks to the Greyhound Bus Station. Given another opportunity to leave the state entirely, he instead hails a cab and takes it past his rooming house (so he could scope it out). Clearly, given all he went through to obtain it, at that point the revolver was worth its weight in gold to him (if not more so).

The other thing these actions show is that Oswald had no co-conspirators. If there was anyone else in on a plot with him, they could have handed him the revolver (or a revolver) a few blocks away from the assassination scene once he departed the Depository. They could have driven him to the rooming house, or to Walker's residence. Or to Tijuana.

Instead, he had to rely on public transportation to get his revolver, and had to hoof it to the transfer point on Jefferson Avenue where he could catch the bus to take him to Walker's residence. While hoofing it, of course, he was seen by Officer Tippit, leading to his shooting Tippit, and eventually to his arrest.

Hank

Axxman300 said:

I hadn't thought of Walker. Maybe he had a bigger day planned...which makes sense because it insures he gets caught.



This is where his planning broke down. Going back to the rooming house was his mistake. At least in downtown Dallas he could remain invisible for a while longer.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the LHO type bad actor goes after bigger fish each time they act - I haven't heard of a instance where somebody returned to finish something they didn't complete, outside of failed criminal hits, Danny Greene in Cleveland comes to mind first on that type of deal:

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

BStrong said:

Generally speaking, the LHO type bad actor goes after bigger fish each time they act - I haven't heard of a instance where somebody returned to finish something they didn't complete, outside of failed criminal hits, Danny Greene in Cleveland comes to mind first on that type of deal:

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

Click to expand...

Granted, I'm not a mind-reader, but his urgency in getting his revolver (abandoning a bus to take a cab for what he said in custody was the first time in his life) speaks to me of seeking that weapon for more than defensive purposes, as some conspiracy theorists claim. His best defense was either getting out of town as quickly as possible, or turning himself in to the nearest police officer as he left the depository, and saying "I've been set up for the assassination. I think. Here's what I know..."

He didn't do that. He went and got the revolver. To me, it was for an offensive purpose. And Walker appears to be the obvious target.

But it's clearly a speculation on my part.

EDIT: Some other conjectures I've read is he was going to take a bus to Mexico, and take a bus to Love Field and use the revolver to hijack a plane to Cuba.

Hank

Instead, he had to rely on public transportation to get his revolver, and had to hoof it to the transfer point on Jefferson Avenue where he could catch the bus to take him to Walker's residence. While hoofing it, of course, he was seen by Officer Tippit, leading to his shooting Tippit, and eventually to his arrest.

Click to expand...

If he'd left the pistol and remembered his A.J. Hidell I.D. he probably would have been able to talk his way out of the situation with Tippit. From what I've read about Tippit he seemed to be an easygoing guy.

Axxman300 said:

If he'd left the pistol and remembered his A.J. Hidell I.D. he probably would have been able to talk his way out of the situation with Tippit. From what I've read about Tippit he seemed to be an easygoing guy.

Click to expand...

Well, Oswald's name had not been announced yet and the description of JFK's shooter was kind of sketchy, so we don't know what caused Tippit to pull over near Oswald.

But the ID could not have helped Oswald any - because at the time of Tippit's shooting, Oswald wasn't a wanted man in any sense. It was just 45 minutes after the assassination.

Some of the witnesses described Oswald as going west, others said he was going east. Perhaps Oswald saw Tippit's patrol car approaching and did an about-face -- attracting Tippit's attention (and causing the differences in the witnesses recollections). With both men dead, we'll probably never know the exact cause.

Hank

Oswalds actions to me suggest no more than he had planned the shot, and panicked when it worked. His plans fell away as the weight of his actions hit him. CTs all talk about what a real shooter would do. They all assume everybody thinks clearly, all the time. I for one am not surprised by stories that Oswald went downstairs and got a coke. The guy was probably number. As he begins to think through the fog, he panics and goes to get another gun. Sees Tippit, assumes he is the target (even if Tippit hadn't even seen him), and pulls the trigger. More blood. More panic. He goes to the cinema to hide...

Tomtomkent said:

Oswalds actions to me suggest no more than he had planned the shot, and panicked when it worked. His plans fell away as the weight of his actions hit him. CTs all talk about what a real shooter would do. They all assume everybody thinks clearly, all the time. I for one am not surprised by stories that Oswald went downstairs and got a coke. The guy was probably number. As he begins to think through the fog, he panics and goes to get another gun. Sees Tippit, assumes he is the target (even if Tippit hadn't even seen him), and pulls the trigger. More blood. More panic. He goes to the cinema to hide...

Click to expand...

Yet he was thinking clearly enough to get off the bus when it got stuck in traffic and take a cab for the first time in his life; AND then gave the cabbie an address PAST his rooming house so he could apparently scope it out and see if the police had arrived there yet... no sense in delivering yourself right into the hands of the police who are looking for you. And smart enough to abandon a jacket to try to change his appearance after shooting Tippit, and then getting off the streets now swarming the area looking for the cop killer by ducking into a theatre. If Brewer doesn't step up and have Julia Postal call the cops, Oswald leaves the theatre a few hours later and slips away. Those aren't necessarily panicked actions to me.

I grant that people can see those actions differently than I do.

Hank

HSienzant said:

Yet he was thinking clearly enough to get off the bus when it got stuck in traffic and take a cab for the first time in his life; AND then gave the cabbie an address PAST his rooming house so he could apparently scope it out and see if the police had arrived there yet... no sense in delivering yourself right into the hands of the police who are looking for you. And smart enough to abandon a jacket to try to change his appearance after shooting Tippit, and then getting off the streets now swarming the area looking for the cop killer by ducking into a theatre. If Brewer doesn't step up and have Julia Postal call the cops, Oswald leaves the theatre a few hours later and slips away. Those aren't necessarily panicked actions to me.

I grant that people can see those actions differently than I do.

Hank

Click to expand...

Well yeah. Being in a panic, and being scared do not have to mean stupid. Shooting Tippit makes sense, and fits into the image neatly if you view it as the action of somebody who is scared and having to stay a step ahead of his own fears. He thinks to duck into a theatre, but rather than pay and risk somebody recognising him, he sneaks in and draws attention to himself, or whatever.

LHO was no criminal mastermind - something that exists in popular fiction as a nornal day-to-day occurrence but in the wild it's extremely rare.

He was a little man with more ambition than talent and a screwed world view.

Throw in access to firearms and you've got a recipe for tragedy.

In the spirit of conjecture, it might be that LHO originally thought he would either be fired on by Secret Service/FBI agents while still at the window or immediately taken into custody and when that didn't happen he believed he might have a chance to get clear.

Viewed w/ 2016 eyes, it's hard to believe that in the wake of a Presidential assassination a LEO wouldn't have weapon in hand approaching anyone of interest, but '63 sure isn't 2016. I've always wondered why Tippet wasn't more switched on, but he wouldn't be the first LEO to get caught flat-footed.

I know of plenty of instances, many more than I wish, where an officer wasn't switched on and prepared to act in defense of their own life and was murdered - it's no excuse for excessive or unlawful use of force but an officer absolutely needs to have their thinking cap on when they're otj in uniform or otherwise.

The Hulu mini-series "11.22.63", based on the Stephen King novel is out on DVD this week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXUx__qQGew

I binge-watched it yesterday. It's excellent. I recommend it to history buffs of all types as well as JFK assassination buffs regardless of which side of the CT world you're on.

Once you get past the premise the show puts you on the ground in Texas from October 1960 to November 23, 1963. The filmed at many actual locations while faithfully recreating others.

Daniel Weber is an excellent Lee Oswald.

The show explores all of the CTs respectfully while working to the climax where LHO is the lone shooter. While doing this the show reveals how situations can look like something that they're not.

We also get to see General Walker and his followers, which is a key component to understanding Oswald, and while the shooting at his house is detailed, the show never lays it at LHO's feet until the final episode.

I was born in 1964, and much of this series brought back memories - it is done so well.

Yes, it's a Stephen King story and there is Stephen King stuff throughout, but is explained at the beginning, and makes the story work (at least for me). The story only gives you about 7 minutes of the alternate history, which is predictable, and focuses mostly on the countdown to the assassination while the hero tries to live a normal life.

Good stuff.

Axxman300 said:

Yes, it's a Stephen King story and there is Stephen King stuff throughout,

Click to expand...

You mean, like, a possessed car?

That would be cool.

pgwenthold said:

You mean, like, a possessed car?

That would be cool.

Click to expand...

Christine makes a cameo, along with a dozen other King Easter Eggs.

Axxman300 said:

The Hulu mini-series "11.22.63", based on the Stephen King novel is out on DVD this week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXUx__qQGew

I binge-watched it yesterday. It's excellent. I recommend it to history buffs of all types as well as JFK assassination buffs regardless of which side of the CT world you're on.

Once you get past the premise the show puts you on the ground in Texas from October 1960 to November 23, 1963. The filmed at many actual locations while faithfully recreating others.

Daniel Weber is an excellent Lee Oswald.

The show explores all of the CTs respectfully while working to the climax where LHO is the lone shooter. While doing this the show reveals how situations can look like something that they're not.

We also get to see General Walker and his followers, which is a key component to understanding Oswald, and while the shooting at his house is detailed, the show never lays it at LHO's feet until the final episode.

I was born in 1964, and much of this series brought back memories - it is done so well.

Yes, it's a Stephen King story and there is Stephen King stuff throughout, but is explained at the beginning, and makes the story work (at least for me). The story only gives you about 7 minutes of the alternate history, which is predictable, and focuses mostly on the countdown to the assassination while the hero tries to live a normal life.

Good stuff.

Click to expand...

If anyone is interested in JFK (and MLK and RFK) assassination fiction, I highly recommend James Ellroy's American Underworld trilogy - American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's a Rover - gratuitous namedropping here - I know Elroy and he busts my balls about our long running difference of opinion on the subject, giving me an advance copy of Blood's signed by him with the name Carlos Marcello underlined three times with an exclamation point included.

BStrong said:

If anyone is interested in JFK (and MLK and RFK) assassination fiction, I highly recommend James Ellroy's American Underworld trilogy - American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand and Blood's a Rover - gratuitous namedropping here - I know Elroy and he busts my balls about our long running difference of opinion on the subject, giving me an advance copy of Blood's signed by him with the name Carlos Marcello underlined three times with an exclamation point included.

Click to expand...

Ellroy is a master plotter. Love his stuff.

Are there CTers that think that "they" have already cloned JFK?

tinribmancer said:

Are there CTers that think that "they" have already cloned JFK?

Click to expand...

"They" haven't?