ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 15th October 2018, 10:14 PM   #1881
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
What can I say, Axxman300? You do it for me, bro. You tickle my undercarriage! Just found this classic post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3236
Glad you're enjoying the show.

I'm just here doing my penance to make up for all the years I spread JFK-CT Woo. MJ doesn't seem to understand that this is just a game, and Hank and I know the rules because we helped write them in our CT days.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 03:43 AM   #1882
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 968
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Glad you're enjoying the show.

I'm just here doing my penance to make up for all the years I spread JFK-CT Woo. MJ doesn't seem to understand that this is just a game, and Hank and I know the rules because we helped write them in our CT days.
I wouldn't refer to your experience as penance, rather civic duty to ensure that the truth is presented.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:45 AM   #1883
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Speaking of the truth...

On this day, October 16, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald begins his first day of work at the Texas School Book Depository.

Not out of grand design, but because his wife's landlady's friend's brother was complaining about all the overtime he was working.

Simple, random fate puts Oswald in the building.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 01:48 PM   #1884
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Oh, and on this date in 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis begins.

Beware the Ides of October.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 16th October 2018 at 01:51 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 03:47 PM   #1885
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
SIXTH REQUEST!

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Micah Java, still awaiting your reasoned response and your defense of John Armstrong, the conspiracy loon you cited. Please note that ignoring the below is not a reasoned response. A dismissal of the points made is not a reasoned response. Changing the subject is not a reasoned response.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hilarious. You've been told before that a conspiracy article isn't a valid citation. Armstrong (who believes there were TWO Lee Harvey Oswalds and TWO Marguerite Oswalds [Oswald's mother]) nonsense was reviewed above.

Quoting from the article YOU just cited:
Minutes before 12:30 PM, on the morning of November 22, 1963 many people observed two men on the 6th floor as the Presidential motorcade approached Dealey Plaza. [emphasis added]
Armstrong then goes on to name some witnesses and falsely summarize their testimony. I would like to point out the absolute false way Armstrong summarized Tom Dillard's testimony to the Warren Commission (this is prevalent throughout the conspiracy literature you read, believe, and cite here).
Tom Dillard, the chief news photographer of the Dallas Morning News, saw two men in the arched windows on the 6th floor of the Book Depository as the car he was riding in turned the corner from Main onto Houston. [emphasis added]
That's simply made up by Armstrong. Tom Dillard said no such thing. His testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dillard.htm
Mr. BALL - Did you hear something unusual as you were driving north on Houston?
Mr. DILLARD - Yes; I heard an explosion which I made the comment that I believe, in my memory, I believe I said, "My God, They've thrown a torpedo" and why I said "torpedo", I don't know. If you wish, I'll go ahead -
Mr. BALL - Go ahead with your story.
Mr. DILLARD - Well, then I later estimated, immediately later, estimated, oh, 4, about 3 or 4 seconds, another explosion and my comment was, "No, It's heavy rifle fire," and I remember very distinctly I said, "It's very heavy rifle fire."
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
Mr. BALL - What is your best estimate of the position of your car with reference to the turn at Main and Houston when you heard the first explosion?
Mr. DILLARD - Perhaps, oh, just a few feet around the corner and it seems we had slowed a great deal. It seems that our car had slowed down so that we were moving rather slowly and perhaps just passed the turn when I heard the first explosion.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anyone in your car say anything?
Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said, "There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready. He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open windows and I scanned the building.
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
Mr. BALL - You shot how many pictures?
Mr. DILLARD - Two pictures.
. . .
Mr. BALL - Did you see a rifle barrel?
Mr. DILLARD - No.
Mr. BALL - But you did see some figures or forms in the window?
Mr. DILLARD - Only in the windows which was the windows below.
[emphasis added]
Here's one of the photos Dillard took. It shows the two men in the fifth floor window. The sniper's nest window is vacant, because Dillard didn't snap his photo in time.

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-...MC-683x540.jpg

Armstrong takes the mention of the two black men in the fifth floor windows below the sixth floor Sniper's nest window and presents Dillard's testimony as if Dillard said he saw two men in the Sniper's Nest window. That is false. That's not true. That's not easy to misunderstand, as Dillard's photographs were published within hours of the assassination, and show the two men Dillard later referenced in his testimony.

That's why you get no traction here. You quote lies by conspiracy authors and expect us to accept them simply because you do.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to once again point out that your sources are lying to you, and lying to all their readers.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:07 PM   #1886
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,541
Hey, micahjava

I thought I would ask you this again, since you seems to have... ahem.... missed it the first time I posted it...

Originally Posted by You
Its like comparing shooting the legs off a stool with shooting off the stool part. The footage shows no initial forward movement of the dummy's head.
Originally Posted by Me
Have a think about the BIG difference between a real human head on a living person, and a ballistics gel recreation of a head and shoulders resting on a target table, and you should be able to work out for yourself why there is no forward movement on impact.
I repeat, I'll be really disappointed if you need to have this explained to you.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:12 PM   #1887
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Hey, micahjava

I thought I would ask you this again, since you seems to have... ahem.... missed it the first time I posted it...

I repeat, I'll be really disappointed if you need to have this explained to you.
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards. The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:17 PM   #1888
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Your link doesn't work because you cut and pasted too much material.
That's like an excuse Donald Trump would make. More than one layer of hilariously not true.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:18 PM   #1889
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Speaking of the truth...

On this day, October 16, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald begins his first day of work at the Texas School Book Depository.

Not out of grand design, but because his wife's landlady's friend's brother was complaining about all the overtime he was working.

Simple, random fate puts Oswald in the building.
Weren't there employees who were laid off?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:25 PM   #1890
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards. The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
And that's exactly what happened when you take into account the position of JFK's head, and the angle of the shot from the 6th floor.

So your point is what, exactly?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:27 PM   #1891
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Weren't there employees who were laid off?
No. At least not that Wesley Buell Frazier says, and it was his sister who mentioned to Ruth Paine about a possible job opening.

Even so, what difference would it make if they had cleaned house?

The Texas trip is nowhere near being finalized by the White House.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 09:29 PM   #1892
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That's like an excuse Donald Trump would make. More than one layer of hilariously not true.
I click the hidden icon and it doesn't open.

I can only see it in the quote feature, and you just cut and pasted a spam entry without reading it.

I'm sure everyone notices you've ignored Hume's statement...again.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 01:43 AM   #1893
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards. The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
manifesto claimed that the bullet fired by the real/ second shooter (not sure if we ever got an answer to that one) entered JFK's temple and then took a sharp left turn so as to be able to exit the back of the head.
What is your position on this claim?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 02:16 AM   #1894
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,541
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards. The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
Hmmm... dodge, weave, avoid, obfuscate

So you...

1. Don't know the answer. I didn't think you were capable of reasoning it out for yourself; looks like I was right!

2. handwave away the evidence that defeats your viewpoint. Why am I not surprised?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 05:00 AM   #1895
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards.
You previously did. You argued that a movement backwards implied a shot from the right-front (the whole "back and to the left" nonsense). Now, showing frames from a high-speed camera that shows the dummy's head moving backward after a bullet striking from behind, you suddenly "don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards". A person after the truth wouldn't ignore evidence contrary to their beliefs, but would revise and refine their beliefs based on the evidence, wouldn't they? Curiously, you show no such tendency, rather your beliefs appear fixed regardless of the evidence.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
Funny, you previously argued for a deflection, claiming the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head deflected downward to exit the throat. You also argued this happened early in the assassination sequence, somewhere in the range of Zapruder frames 190-224. You also argued for a second head shot from the grassy knoll area at frame 313.

However, when asked why the bullet couldn't deflect upwards to exit the area of the top-right side of the skull (exactly where the autopsists put the exit wound), you ignored all attempts to get you to to discuss that possibility. You never told us how you knew it deflected downward and not upward. Again, you appeared to latch onto any evidence that appeared to confirm your thesis, and ignore any contrary evidence (like the autopsists' location of the head exit wound being in the top-right side of the skull). That's not the action of a truth-seeker. That's the action of someone pushing their agenda regardless of the truth of the matter.

Conclusion: Still an attempt at a fringe reset. You have no argument, and no evidence in support of your beliefs.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 05:30 AM   #1896
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Weren't there employees who were laid off?
The jury is instructed to disregard that last argument - disguised as a question - from defense counsel.

See, this is where you expose your position is nonsense. The mere asking of a question is sufficient -- for you and fellow CTs everywhere -- to dispose of evidence that disproves your beliefs.

You don't present any evidence employees were laid off. You ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Within your question is the implied supposition that, if employees were being laid off, then Oswald's hiring was a ruse, part of some master plan to set up and frame Oswald for the assassination - but this implies a grand conspiracy with someone pulling the strings from off-stage, and implies that the Depository itself wasn't a real corporation, but some shell company run by the master planners. It also implies the master planners controlled the decision as to the motorcade route and could put the President within range of Oswald's rifle. Reasonable people will reject the implications of the supposition of master planners behind the assassination buried within your question.
You have your beliefs and, by God, you're going to believe them despite anything showing you that you're wrong. Manifesto would do the same thing, dismiss a point by asking a question, and then dismiss any calls for his evidence by claiming 'it was just a question', not a statement of fact, so no evidence needed to be provided to support his argument via the JAQing off route.

By such illogic, one can dismiss any evidence conflicting with one's beliefs one wishes to, couldn't one?

Roy Truly testified (MJ, you can stop reading here, what follows is the actual evidence) that he hired two men on the same day of October 16th, 1963, Oswald and one other man. Truly assigned Oswald to the warehouse on Elm, by happenstance, the other man was assigned to a different Depository warehouse (at 1917 North Houston) that turned out NOT to be on the motorcade route. The other man was laid off on about November 15th, one week before the assassination.

If the assignments had been reversed, Oswald would not have been in the position to assassinate the President.

Happenstance. It disproves the whole "Oswald was setup as the patsy" argument, whether you like it or not.

The prosecution recalls Roy Truly to the stand.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Mr. DULLES. Do you recall, Mr. Truly, whether you hired any personnel for work in this particular building, in the School Depository, after the 15th of October and before the 22d of November?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I don't recall hiring anyone else other than Oswald for that building the same day that I hired Oswald. I believe, if I am not mistaken, I hired another boy for a temporary job, and put him in the other warehouse at 1917 North Houston.
Mr. DULLES. At a different warehouse?
Mr. TRULY. At a different warehouse. He was laid off November 15th, I believe November 15th, or something like that.


Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th October 2018 at 06:41 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 06:58 AM   #1897
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Speaking of the truth...

On this day, October 16, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald begins his first day of work at the Texas School Book Depository.

Not out of grand design, but because his wife's landlady's friend's brother was complaining about all the overtime he was working.

Simple, random fate puts Oswald in the building.
A random act of kindness actually. Mrs Paine felt moved to help the jobless Oswald because his wife and she were friends, and Marina was eight months pregnant. Roy Truly felt moved to hire Oswald because Oswald presented himself as an ex-Marine just out of the service whose wife was expecting a baby any day and said yes sir and no sir.

Recalling Roy Truly to the stand:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Truly, when did you first hear of the name of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. TRULY. I heard the name on or about October 15th.
Mr. BELIN. Of what year?
Mr. TRULY. Of 1963.
Mr. BELIN. And from whom did you hear the name? Could you just relate to the Commission the circumstances, if you would, please?
Mr. TRULY. I received a phone call from a lady in Irving who said her name was Mrs. Paine.
Mr. BELIN. All right. What did Mrs. Paine say, and what did you say?
Mr. TRULY. She said, "Mr. Truly,"---words to this effect---you understand---" Mr. Truly, you don't know who I am but I have a neighbor whose brother works for you. I don't know what his name is. But he tells his sister that you are very busy. And I am just wondering if you can use another man," or words to that effect.
And I told Mrs.---she said, "I have a fine young man living here with his wife and baby, and his wife is expecting a baby--another baby, in a few days, and he needs work desperately."
Now, this is not absolutely--this is as near as I can remember the conversation over the telephone.
And I told Mrs. Paine that--to send him down, and I would talk to him--that I didn't have anything in mind for him of a permanent nature, but if he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time.
...
Mr. TRULY. Yes; he did. And he told me I asked him about experience that he had had, or where he had worked, and he said he had just served his term in the Marine Corps and had received an honorable discharge, and he listed some things of an office nature that he had learned to do in the Marines.
I questioned him about any past activities. I asked him if he had ever had any trouble with the police, and he said, no. So thinking that he was just out of the Marines, I didn't check any further back. I didn't have anything of a permanent nature in mind for him. He looked like a nice young fellow to me--he was quiet and well mannered. He used the word "sir", you know, which a lot of them don't do at this time.
So I told him if he would come to work on the morning of the 16th, it was the beginning of a new pay period. So he filled out his withholding slip, with the exception of the number of dependents.


Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th October 2018 at 07:09 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 09:23 AM   #1898
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 968
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards. The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
But both you and manifesto thought it pertinent when both of you were attempting to "show" how another shooter from the front(Grassy Knoll) and moving the head Back and left, just like the movie. You got it wrong and now you are trying for a fringe reset. How predictable.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 09:36 AM   #1899
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't care about the dummy's head moving backwards. The 6.5 round exiting in a mostly straight line through the base of the skull was the important part.
Typical CTist . I recall you and manifesto and every other CTist making quite a big deal of it previously.

What changed? LOL. I think we both know, as does everyone else.

Thirty third time asking: Where did the shot come from, MicahJava?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 11:27 AM   #1900
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Hank, I'm pretty sure Oswald would have found a way to take a shot at JFK even if he was not working at the TSBD that day. If not him, he was certainly going to take another shot at General Walker.

Not to jump ahead on my real-time updates, but Oswald attends a right-wing rally where Walker is a speaker on October 23, 1963, less than a week from now. Three days later marks his first appearance at the Sportsdrome Gun Range in Grand Prairie, TX. That's not a coincidence. It suggests that Oswald was so worked up over Walker's speech that he talked someone into driving him out there to get some range-time in.

Oswald has made up his mind that he's going to kill someone. If not Walker, someone else high-profile.

It also begs the question: Was Oswald armed when he attends this rally to see Walker? I would not be surprised if he had his .38 with him, but never got the opportunity.

Oh, and the Dallas trip will not be finalized until November 4, 1963. On that date the Dallas Secret Service gets warning order, and begins making arrangements.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 17th October 2018 at 11:29 AM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 11:56 AM   #1901
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
A random act of kindness actually. Mrs Paine felt moved to help the jobless Oswald because his wife and she were friends, and Marina was eight months pregnant. Roy Truly felt moved to hire Oswald because Oswald presented himself as an ex-Marine just out of the service whose wife was expecting a baby any day and said yes sir and no sir.

Recalling Roy Truly to the stand:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Truly, when did you first hear of the name of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. TRULY. I heard the name on or about October 15th.
Mr. BELIN. Of what year?
Mr. TRULY. Of 1963.
Mr. BELIN. And from whom did you hear the name? Could you just relate to the Commission the circumstances, if you would, please?
Mr. TRULY. I received a phone call from a lady in Irving who said her name was Mrs. Paine.
Mr. BELIN. All right. What did Mrs. Paine say, and what did you say?
Mr. TRULY. She said, "Mr. Truly,"---words to this effect---you understand---" Mr. Truly, you don't know who I am but I have a neighbor whose brother works for you. I don't know what his name is. But he tells his sister that you are very busy. And I am just wondering if you can use another man," or words to that effect.
And I told Mrs.---she said, "I have a fine young man living here with his wife and baby, and his wife is expecting a baby--another baby, in a few days, and he needs work desperately."
Now, this is not absolutely--this is as near as I can remember the conversation over the telephone.
And I told Mrs. Paine that--to send him down, and I would talk to him--that I didn't have anything in mind for him of a permanent nature, but if he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time.
...
Mr. TRULY. Yes; he did. And he told me I asked him about experience that he had had, or where he had worked, and he said he had just served his term in the Marine Corps and had received an honorable discharge, and he listed some things of an office nature that he had learned to do in the Marines.
I questioned him about any past activities. I asked him if he had ever had any trouble with the police, and he said, no. So thinking that he was just out of the Marines, I didn't check any further back. I didn't have anything of a permanent nature in mind for him. He looked like a nice young fellow to me--he was quiet and well mannered. He used the word "sir", you know, which a lot of them don't do at this time.
So I told him if he would come to work on the morning of the 16th, it was the beginning of a new pay period. So he filled out his withholding slip, with the exception of the number of dependents.


Hank
It might also be worth quoting some of the testimony of Linnie Mae Randle, Wesley Frazier's sister, who was the neighbor who originally mentioned the TSBD, as a place Oswald might find work, to Mrs Paine.

Quote:
Mr. BALL. Did you ever meet Marina Oswald?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. When did you meet her?
Mrs. RANDLE. The first time I met her was over at this Mrs. Roberts. I had gone up there to see Mrs. Roberts and her. Mrs. Oswald and Mrs. Paine was over there drinking coffee, that was the first time I met her...

Mr. BALL. Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee Oswald?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby. Of course. I didn't know where he was or anything. And of course you know just being neighborly and everything, we felt sorry for Marina because her baby was due right away as we understood it, and he didn't have any work, so they said, so it was just--
Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation.
Mr. BALL. Marina didn't take part in the conversation?
Mrs. RANDLE. No. She couldn't. So far as I know, she couldn't speak.
Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work.
So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned.
Now the thing is, CTists don't like to admit that sometimes, things just happen, without any larger direction or reason than contingency- that the little things that make up ordinary life can lead to larger results. But what we have here is a chain of circumstances that led to Oswald working at the TSBD, a chain that is supported by evidence- i.e., the consilient testimony of the people involved in it. And the CTists counter that, when they even acknowledge it, by simply asserting, without evidence, that Mrs Randle and Mrs Paine were lying- IOW, they just construct a scenario to support the conspiracy that is the conspiracy, or at least a necessary part of it. Could those ladies have been lying? Sure, they could've. But if the CTist wants that to be part of his "theory," he needs evidence for it- contradictory testimony from someone else saying "no, that's not what happened, this is," for instance- not just asserting whatever is necessary for the conspiracy to work as evidence for it.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 02:53 PM   #1902
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
You're correct.

There is a huge disconnect between CTists and the real world.

In the case of the JFK Assassination they're fixated on a second, or multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza - none of which are Oswald, and it puts them in the position of defending incredibly stupid theories. Never once do they stop and ask the question: How would the CIA kill JFK? How would the Maffia kill JFK? How would the Cubans kill JKF? How would anti-Castro Cubans kill JFK?

There are four very different answers to each of those questions.

The CIA would have used poison. JFK had a number of ailments requiring daily medications, and it would have been easy to slip something to him.

The Maffia would have used a pretty woman. JFK regularly had sex on the side, sending Secret Service agents out to bring them to his hotel room. The Maffia's signature is always up-close and personal.

A Cuban operation to kill JFK would look a lot like what happened in Dallas. They would have pre-positioned assets in a location where the President was scheduled to appear, and hoped for the best. The problem is that an anti-Castro plot against the President would also look like what took place in Dallas too. The problem here is that Cuba would have signed their death warrant had they killed JFK, there would be no holding back the USA, and Johnson came into office looking for a war somewhere.
The problem with anti-Castro Cubans is that there were on-going MONGOOSE and AM/LASH operations against Cuba that would have continued the length of JFK's time in office. Johnson shut them down, and did more damage to the anti-Castro cause than the Bay of Pigs ever did.

In the end we're left with Lee Harvey Oswald. All of the evidence points to him acting alone.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 05:15 PM   #1903
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
In the end we're left with Lee Harvey Oswald. All of the evidence points to him acting alone.
Yep. And yet we still get the random CT who thinks he knows better coming on here to lecture us about everything we've missed.

But they can't tell us where the shots came from, they can't tell us who fired them, they can't tell us where those bullets ended up, they can't provide any evidence that points to other shooters (their 'evidence' consists of arguments amounting to "It couldn't be Oswald because..."), and they typically aren't aware of the actual evidence in the case at all. All they know is what they've read in conspiracy books and on conspiracy sites.

This was the case with Manifesto, and it's the case with our most recent CT poster as well. They always seemed surprised to find that the evidence doesn't support whatever claim they are repeating from their favorite CT website or CT book.

Right now we've got Micah Java ignoring the falsehoods he cited from John Armstrong (that I've asked him to support six times now), as well as his more recent claims about employees being laid off, the import of the dummy's head moving backward and whether the bullet that struck the back of the head deflected or traveled in a straight line.

Ultimately, the fringe reset is the only card they can play.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th October 2018 at 05:16 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 08:03 PM   #1904
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
In MJ's case he's clearly misinterpreting medical evidence that he doesn't understand, and is absolutely ignore obvious medical evidence like Humes's testimony of removing the skull-cap in the standard way with a bone saw.

Worse, his theory hinges on a silenced weapon, and in 1963 this would be asking a lot from a marksman, and there would be visual evidence of a bullet strike to the back of the head prior to the 6.5x52mm impact.

He's piggybacking bad information to form a silly theory, and then wonders why it keeps exploding on the launch pad.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 05:46 AM   #1905
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Perhaps our resident conspiracy theorists could do the same for their version of events?
You know, detailed timelines of how the x-rays and photos were faked, where, and by whom. The process of putting together the elaborate plan to frame Oswald and set up the other shooters. The movements of the various players on and around the fateful day. That sort of thing.
This, naturally, should be done with the same attention to detail as Axman300's posts.
Piece of cake, I'd say. Anyone up for it?
There is a distinct absence of timelines coming from the Not-Oswald camp.

Can't say I'm surprised, but I do wonder how such theories can be sustained without any kind of coherent narrative. Don't they ever wonder who really did kill JFK (in their world), and how it was done? Surely incessant anomaly hunting and sneering at anyone who disagrees with you isn't enough.
Or is it? Over to you, MJ.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 06:54 AM   #1906
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 968
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yep. And yet we still get the random CT who thinks he knows better coming on here to lecture us about everything we've missed.

But they can't tell us where the shots came from, they can't tell us who fired them, they can't tell us where those bullets ended up, they can't provide any evidence that points to other shooters (their 'evidence' consists of arguments amounting to "It couldn't be Oswald because..."), and they typically aren't aware of the actual evidence in the case at all. All they know is what they've read in conspiracy books and on conspiracy sites.

This was the case with Manifesto, and it's the case with our most recent CT poster as well. They always seemed surprised to find that the evidence doesn't support whatever claim they are repeating from their favorite CT website or CT book.

Right now we've got Micah Java ignoring the falsehoods he cited from John Armstrong (that I've asked him to support six times now), as well as his more recent claims about employees being laid off, the import of the dummy's head moving backward and whether the bullet that struck the back of the head deflected or traveled in a straight line.

Ultimately, the fringe reset is the only card they can play.

Hank
I suspect he will try a misdirection if anything in a post, assuming he makes one.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 08:06 AM   #1907
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,161
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:

Quote:
From Star Trek 6: First rule of assassination: kill the assassin.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 08:10 AM   #1908
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,323
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
There's an even more interesting one from another forum:

Quote:
From The Princess Bride: "Inconthevable!"
But I'm not sure that quoting other forums quoting fiction is of much use.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 08:15 AM   #1909
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,947
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
Since this requires another assassination, we're into infinite regress.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 08:18 AM   #1910
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,323
I wonder if that other forum is known for making idiotic and vapid comments.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 09:49 AM   #1911
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,599
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
Knowledge of the facts not in evidence, but quotes science fiction.

This is why we can't have nice things.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 11:07 AM   #1912
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,484
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
Can you provide an example of an ACTUAL assassination where the conspirators killed the assassin?

I mean, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a major conspiracy, but none of the conspirators killed Booth.

Apparently, they violated the first rule. I want to know anyone who followed it.

In real life, not on Star Trek.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 11:49 AM   #1913
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Hank, I'm pretty sure Oswald would have found a way to take a shot at JFK even if he was not working at the TSBD that day.
I'm not so certain of that. JFK wasn't a known target until happenstance delivered him right to Oswald's doorstep. I discount Nechiporenko's story about Oswald threatening to kill JFK in Mexico City because he didn't reveal this until the publication of his book. There's no contemporaneous evidence this actually occurred and isn't just a story invented to boost the sale of his book.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If not him, he was certainly going to take another shot at General Walker.
Undoubtedly. Walker was compared to Hitler in one of the Communist publications Oswald subscribed to, and he echoed those sentiments to Marina in explaining why he tried to kill Walker in April of 1963.

Walker's assassination was the whole point of the FPCC charade in New Orleans and of his TV and radio appearances, his attempting to infiltrate the anti-Castro through Carlos Bringuer and Sylvia Odio. His plan (as I see it) was to open an escape hatch to Cuba and hence his trip to Mexico City where he explained how he was a friend of the Cuban Revolution and should be granted a visa to Cuba.

He couldn't exactly come out and say he planned to kill Walker, and hence he got really angry when 'the petty bureaucrats' wouldn't cooperate and issue the visa.

Part and parcel of this is his insistence that Marina sign the request to return as a family to the Soviet Union, beating her until she complied. Unbeknownst to Marina (she only found out during her Warren Commission testimony) he had enclosed a note saying he wished his application to return to be considered 'separtably'. This confused Marina exceedingly. But the evidence indicates he viewed the separation as temporary, not permanent, and he felt he would be reunited with Marina in Havana after the assassination of Walker and he would be hailed as a hero for having slain an enemy of the Revolution.



Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Not to jump ahead on my real-time updates, but Oswald attends a right-wing rally where Walker is a speaker on October 23, 1963, less than a week from now. Three days later marks his first appearance at the Sportsdrome Gun Range in Grand Prairie, TX. That's not a coincidence. It suggests that Oswald was so worked up over Walker's speech that he talked someone into driving him out there to get some range-time in.
Yep. It also shows Walker was still in his sights, even though the escape hatch he imagined was not available to him. It also shows that Oswald still felt the best way to assassinate Walker was with the rifle, not his revolver. Oswald originally purchased the revolver with the intent to kill Walker that way, but after scoping out the house in early March of 1963, he then purchased the rifle in addition.



Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oswald has made up his mind that he's going to kill someone. If not Walker, someone else high-profile.
I see this differently than you. He had started to assimilate into the community to some extent. As Linnie May Randle was quoted above, Oswald didn't drive, and that prevented him from getting some jobs that either required driving or were too distant without a car. Ruth Paine had been teaching him to drive, and I'm certain you'll cover what he did on Veteran's Day that year when the time comes around. Michael Paine had also discussed the necessity of a car, and he felt Oswald might be receptive to the idea:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever discuss with him driving an automobile or obtaining a driver's license?
Mr. PAINE - I probably said it would be well to get a driver's license. It would be well--I probably said, "You probably need a car to get around here." In other words, effectively; no.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he ever indicate to you that he planned to purchase an automobile?
Mr. PAINE - I bought this second-hand car for $200.
Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of a car is that?
Mr. PAINE - That is a 1956 Oldsmobile.
Mr. LIEBELER - When did you buy it?
Mr. PAINE - I bought it while they were there, while Marina was staying with us, which was sometime in November. Either October or November, probably the early part of November. They went out to admire the car. $200, I suppose, didn't seem out of their reach then.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he indicate to you that he was thinking--
Mr. PAINE - Therefore, I think Ruth, they went out to admire the car and, of course, I was thinking that it, this might make it appear to them that the car was within reach, and driving was something to be sought.


I see a bit of maturation of Oswald as he started to think of being able to drive, to own a car, to get a better job. I don't want to oversell this, but I think if JFK's trip occurred a year later, Oswald wouldn't have attempted the assassination. He would have been in a different place mentally.

Remember as well that on the eve of the assassination, he was practically begging Marina to give him a reason not to go through with the assassination, asking her to get back together with him, promising her the moon (well, a washing machine so she wouldn't have to wash the baby's diapers by hand), and she declined. And the tragedy of the situation is that if she hadn't been playing games with Oswald, the assassination would not have happened:

Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband give any reason for coming home on Thursday?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he was lonely because he hadn't come the preceding weekend, and he wanted to make his peace with me.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to him then?
Mrs. OSWALD. He tried to talk to me but I would not answer him, and he was very upset.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you upset with him?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was angry, of course. He was not angry--he was upset. I was angry. He tried very hard to please me. He spent quite a bit of time putting away diapers and played with the children on the street.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you indicate to him that you were angry with him?
Mrs. OSWALD. By not talking to him.
Mr. RANKIN. And how did he show that he was upset?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was upset over the fact that I would not answer him. He tried to start a conversation with me several times, but I would not answer. And he said that he didn't want me to be angry at him because this upsets him.
On that day, he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas.
He repeated this not once but several times, but I refused. And he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him, and that I didn't need him.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said it would be better if I remained with Ruth until the holidays, he would come, and we would all meet together. That this was better because while he was living alone and I stayed with Ruth, we were spending less money. And I told him to buy me a washing machine, because two children it became too difficult to wash by hand.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said he would buy me a washing machine.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you. That it would be better if he bought something for himself--that I would manage.

Mr. RANKIN. Did this seem to make him more upset, when you suggested that he wait about getting an apartment for you to live in?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He then stopped talking and sat down and watched television and then went to bed.
....
Mrs. OSWALD. ...This time he didn't blame me for anything, didn't ask me any questions, just wanted to make up.
Mr. RANKIN. I understood that when you didn't make up he was quite disturbed and you were still angry, is that right?
Mrs. OSWALD. I wasn't really very angry. I, of course, wanted to make up with him. But I gave the appearance of being very angry. I was smiling inside, but I had a serious expression on my face.
Mr. RANKIN. And as a result of that, did he seem to be more disturbed than usual?
Mrs. OSWALD. As always, as usual. Perhaps a little more. At least when he went to bed he was very upset.




Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It also begs the question: Was Oswald armed when he attends this rally to see Walker? I would not be surprised if he had his .38 with him, but never got the opportunity.
I would guess not. His plan was modified in March to shooting Walker from a distance at night and escaping in the darkness. I don't think he planned or thought to attempt to kill Walker that evening in front of a crowd of Walker supporters and get captured, especially when he could always try again with the rifle.



Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oh, and the Dallas trip will not be finalized until November 4, 1963. On that date the Dallas Secret Service gets warning order [marching orders?] and begins making arrangements.
Yep. Again, this is after Oswald already has the TSBD job and there's no evidence that Oswald's position there had any influence on the eventual motorcade route. Those two things happened independent of each other.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2018 at 11:53 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 11:52 AM   #1914
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Today, October 18, 1939 - Lee Harvey Oswald is born.

Today, October 18, 1963, Oswald gets a ride from Wesley Buell Frazier to Ruth Paine's home where a surprise birthday party is waiting for him.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 12:02 PM   #1915
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
Quote:
From Star Trek 6: First rule of assassination: kill the assassin.
No. Don't be absurd. Star Trek 6 post-dates the assassination by decades. This is simply a case of a Hollywood writer being influenced by the conspiracy literature and the movie JFK and the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby.

Now, if you had something in writing from the CIA or KGB that says the first rule of assassination is kill the assassin, then we might have a good place to start the discussion.

But you don't have anything like that, do you?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2018 at 12:07 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 12:10 PM   #1916
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
Well, it's never a good idea to quote idiots.

The first rule of assassination is to ask if it's worth it?

A conspiracy to murder a high ranking government official can put you at the end of a rope, or seated in an electric chair, strapped to a table with an IV in your arm, or lined up against a wall and shot if things go wrong.

The second rule of assassination is to keep it simple.

Most assassins have lived to a ripe old age, either living free, or in prison.

As we saw with Manifesto, most people have bought into the myth of JFK while overlooking the reality of his clandestine foreign policies. The embrace the lie that JFK was going to do away with the CIA and kick Hoover out of his job at the FBI. The reality was that Kennedy expanded the scope of the CIA's operational capabilities, and created a dedicated commando force in both the US Army and Navy. As for Hoover? The Kennedy brothers knew that couldn't mess with him.

Killing JFK made no sense.

The CIA had more powers under his administration than ever before.

For Hoover, JFK was a blackmailer's dream come true. The same philosophy can also be said for the Mafia, Kennedy was low hanging fruit for them.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 12:35 PM   #1917
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,333
Hank, it's possible that Oswald might have matured to become a productive human being. I just don't see it.

Two days from now, in 1963, Marina gives birth to their second child, Audrey. Two days after this he's at the Walker rally, and two days after the Walker rally he attends an ACLU meeting.

I see a man longing to be more than he is, but lacks the discipline to work toward his goals, and instead is always looking for the easy way to the top, to being a celebrity, to being an important man.

I see a man buckling under the weight of the world he's created in his personal life by choices he went to great lengths to make happen.

Here's a guy who could have moved to any Texas college town and made decent money tutoring Russian language students. He wouldn't have become rich, but he wouldn't have been packing book orders in a hot, dusty warehouse all day. And you know how academics can be; after a few years he would have had plenty of letters of reference to make his case for a general discharge, maybe even a pardon from the President for defecting. Had he been wise he could have gone to college, and today would be a retired Russian language teacher, or political science teacher.

And yet right now, in 1963, all he can think about is getting to Cuba.

At the end of October, FBI agent Hosty will make his first visit to see Marina since the return to Dallas, and Oswald gets upset when he finds out.

In his mind every failure since returning from the Soviet Union is the fault of the FBI doing things behind his back. While this is not true, all that matters is what Oswald believes is true.

Bottom line is you have a guy who's now the father of two children he can't take care of at that moment, and is in a marriage that is barely hanging together, and doesn't see a future where he makes more than minimum wage without the FBI screwing him over.

In his mind, Oswald is a man with nothing to lose.

(at least that's the way I see it)
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 01:01 PM   #1918
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since this requires another assassination, we're into infinite regress.

Dave
And that's why the complete set of rules are too lengthy to repeat here, but start with:

First rule of assassination: kill the assassin.
Second rule: kill the assassin's assassin.
Third rule: kill the assassin's assassin's assassin.
Fourth rule: kill the assassin's assassin's assassin's assassin.
Fifth rule: kill the assassin's assassin's assassin's assassin's assassin.

Way down at the bottom of the rules of assassination - once you get past the infinite regression - are rules like kill the inconvenient witnesses, swap out the evidence to frame a patsy, alter the victim's body, set up a panel of authority figures to rule in your favor, control the mass media, and pay shills to post online for decades after the event.

But since we've already heard from Manifesto that the conspirators' resources for plotting and covering up the assassination were unlimited - unlimited! - that infinite regression seems like a good way to spend that unlimited budget and still have enough money left over at the end of the year for a pretty big Christmas party.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 01:11 PM   #1919
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting comment on another forum about all this:
Quote:
From Star Trek 6: First rule of assassination: kill the assassin.
Any reason they couldn't inject the assassin with cancer cells and kill him off that way while he was awaiting trial like it is alleged they did with Jack Ruby? Why kill the assassin in front of a television audience of millions? Is that the second rule of assassinations according to Star Trek 6?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2018 at 02:04 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 01:21 PM   #1920
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 973
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Well, it's never a good idea to quote idiots.

The first rule of assassination is to ask if it's worth it?

A conspiracy to murder a high ranking government official can put you at the end of a rope, or seated in an electric chair, strapped to a table with an IV in your arm, or lined up against a wall and shot if things go wrong.

The second rule of assassination is to keep it simple.

Most assassins have lived to a ripe old age, either living free, or in prison.

As we saw with Manifesto, most people have bought into the myth of JFK while overlooking the reality of his clandestine foreign policies. The embrace the lie that JFK was going to do away with the CIA and kick Hoover out of his job at the FBI. The reality was that Kennedy expanded the scope of the CIA's operational capabilities, and created a dedicated commando force in both the US Army and Navy. As for Hoover? The Kennedy brothers knew that couldn't mess with him.

Killing JFK made no sense.

The CIA had more powers under his administration than ever before.

For Hoover, JFK was a blackmailer's dream come true. The same philosophy can also be said for the Mafia, Kennedy was low hanging fruit for them.
You say:

Quote:
For Hoover, JFK was a blackmailer's dream come true. The same philosophy can also be said for the Mafia, Kennedy was low hanging fruit for them.
This is what absolutely gets me about all those people who talk about Kennedy being murdered by one or more of various groups. Kennedy was in fact a highly vulnerable President to pressure and yes blackmail. Further he had a serious case of Addington disease and in my opinion should never have been President to begin with given his physical extreme vulnerability. Kennedy's handlers with the assist of a supine media had very successfully supressed widespread knowledge of this. However some people did know. And this is without counting his other vulnerabilities.

We already know a lot about Kennedy's womanizing including with a Mob Mistress, which made him vulnerable and we might has well add the unpleasant story of the influence of the Mafia in helping him in the very close 1960 Presidential election.

Kennedy was highly vulnerable to political pressure and blackmail of various kinds. Killing someone you can blackmail to do and not do various things is just stupid. And has for the story that the Mob killed Kennedy because Robert Kennedy was about to launch an attack non organized crime. That is just fantasy given how complicit the Kennedy's were with the Mafia. The Mob stood in no danger from Kennedy and would not of had to do much to stop him if he tried to do anything.

The same can be said of all the other fantasies about why X would kill Kennedy. It simply would have been relatively easy to destroy Kennedy without killing him and avoid the truly serious risks of trying to kill him / kill him and being caught.

Last edited by Pacal; 18th October 2018 at 01:23 PM.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.