IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 2nd February 2022, 07:13 AM   #281
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Hey Question

I came across this on another forum

"Oswald had two torn in half one dollar bills in his wallet"

Instead of thrashing about on the internet I thought I'd just check with the experts here.

Is that true and what evil importance do the CTs give it?
Read the thread. Seriously. It was covered about six years ago*. I think you were there for it, in fact.

Here's one time it was brought up (there were several):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1220

Key takeaways:
It's an assumption the paperwork is legitimate. It's unsigned and undated.
It's an assumption this paperwork had anything to do with Oswald.
It's an assumption this was related to spycraft.
_______________

*Four and a half approximately. August of 2017.
__________________
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 2nd February 2022, 07:28 AM   #282
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
But, did he actually have two torn-in-half bill halves in his wallet? I can't think of a logical reason for that, outside of something unusual.

I'm just asking if this is a rumor, or verified fact.
It's neither. It's BS. It's not verified fact. It's an assumption. The DPD took an inventory of his wallet, and none of the bills torn in half (which come from an undated, unsigned document not bearing any designation it is linked in any way to Oswald) were found in his wallet.

Covered this years ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1220

My suspicion is some CT was given access to the inventory and surreptitiously inserted that document into the inventory and then awaited its discovery by another CT. Or hell, they didn't even have to do that. They could just claim to have "discovered" it in the inventory. And voila, a new "mystery".
__________________
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 2nd February 2022, 07:51 AM   #283
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It's neither. It's BS. It's not verified fact. It's an assumption. The DPD took an inventory of his wallet, and none of the bills torn in half (which come from an undated, unsigned document not bearing any designation it is linked in any way to Oswald) were found in his wallet.

Covered this years ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1220

My suspicion is some CT was given access to the inventory and surreptitiously inserted that document into the inventory and then awaited its discovery by another CT. Or hell, they didn't even have to do that. They could just claim to have "discovered" it in the inventory. And voila, a new "mystery".

Here's a link to where we covered it in September of 2016. There are probably earlier references to it as well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1305
__________________
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 2nd February 2022, 08:12 AM   #284
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Hey Question

I came across this on another forum

"Oswald had two torn in half one dollar bills in his wallet"

Instead of thrashing about on the internet I thought I'd just check with the experts here.

Is that true and what evil importance do the CTs give it?
My previous answer didn't answer the second half of your question although it's implied.

They assume it means Oswald had some intelligence connection.
They assume this means the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.
__________________
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 2nd February 2022, 08:31 AM   #285
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Marras View Post
When we go on hypotheticals, how about we consider a more serious one.

What if JFK was actually shot by a duck?

What would that imply? That's certainly worth some serious consideration. If ducks aren't harmless unintelligent birds but have capability to perform targeted assassinations. What if some other high-profile assassinations were done by ducks too? Martin Luther King? Trotsky? What are the ducks trying to do?

I'm not claiming that a duck shot JFK, but we really should consider why and how they did it if they actually did it. And how can we prevent them from taking over the world. Just hypothetically, that is.
You really might be onto something there.

That helps explain why, when people suspect something is true but cannot prove it, they say, "Well, if it quacks like a duck..."

Ducks have apparently been arousing suspicion for decades. That saying goes back to the mid-1940s. https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-...t-does-it-mean

You know what they say, "Where there's smoke, there's probably fire."

And what about those Canada geese? We have them crossing the border at all hours of the day and night, with no check on them whatsoever. They come and go as they please.

And a number of pigeons were seen taking off from the Depository rooftop when the shots were fired.

And the owner of the Depository in 1963 was Col. D. Harold Byrd!

Tell me all that's not suspicious.

I think this is all starting to tie together and demands further investigation. You might really be onto something there.
__________________
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; 2nd February 2022 at 08:45 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 2nd February 2022, 12:36 PM   #286
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In response to Axxman300's comment, I would argue that wanting to murder someone is, by definition, a sign of insanity.
On some level, sure.

His actions don't meet the legal definition on insanity. I'm not sure they'd meet the definition of temporary insanity. He was a guy who couldn't connect to people on an emotional level. This made it easy for him to kill two men and attempt to kill two more. Tippit and the officer he almost shot in the theater were spur-of-the-moment/ self-defense actions. Gen. Walker was methodically planned. JFK was a target of opportunity.

Beyond that, nothing in his life suggested extreme mental illness. At best he might have been high-functioning Aspergers. Maybe bi-polar.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 2nd February 2022, 12:40 PM   #287
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You really might be onto something there.

That helps explain why, when people suspect something is true but cannot prove it, they say, "Well, if it quacks like a duck..."

Ducks have apparently been arousing suspicion for decades. That saying goes back to the mid-1940s. https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-...t-does-it-mean

You know what they say, "Where there's smoke, there's probably fire."

And what about those Canada geese? We have them crossing the border at all hours of the day and night, with no check on them whatsoever. They come and go as they please.

And a number of pigeons were seen taking off from the Depository rooftop when the shots were fired.

And the owner of the Depository in 1963 was Col. D. Harold Byrd!

Tell me all that's not suspicious.

I think this is all starting to tie together and demands further investigation. You might really be onto something there.
Oh no, this old canard.

You know what they say, mess with the duck and you get the bill.

A duck would be a quack-shot though...
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 2nd February 2022, 12:40 PM   #288
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,404
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You really might be onto something there.

That helps explain why, when people suspect something is true but cannot prove it, they say, "Well, if it quacks like a duck..."

Ducks have apparently been arousing suspicion for decades. That saying goes back to the mid-1940s. https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-...t-does-it-mean

You know what they say, "Where there's smoke, there's probably fire."

And what about those Canada geese? We have them crossing the border at all hours of the day and night, with no check on them whatsoever. They come and go as they please.

And a number of pigeons were seen taking off from the Depository rooftop when the shots were fired.

And the owner of the Depository in 1963 was Col. D. Harold Byrd!

Tell me all that's not suspicious.

I think this is all starting to tie together and demands further investigation. You might really be onto something there.
HSienzant it has been a while, Good to see your back.

Well so the two torn bills has been dealt with before and it appears it is nothing more than complete HS, BS.

Aside from the rather obvious question of even if it was true, without some more context it is functionally meaningless.

So the request to discuss what it could mean is little more than an excuse to speculate and fantasize about an alleged data point that even if it is true probably means nothing in terms of a conspiracy to kill JFK or have anything to do with the assassination of JFK. In other words it is an attempt to create a fictional, fantasy narrative and give that fantasy an alleged basis in a "fact".

It looks to me like an attempt to smuggle in a conspiracy based on a "fact" which isn't a fact and even if it was a fact is basically meaningless without more data.
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
Old 2nd February 2022, 01:22 PM   #289
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
I'm kind of slow, but I think I've found proof Oswald was NOT an intelligence asset for anybody, CIA, KGB, or Cuba.

It's in the JFK Assassination Archives: https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...d-32108042.pdf

Oswald called Obyrdkov and told him he spoke with Kostikov. He did this on an open line, something anyone with trade-craft training WOULD NEVER DO. An intelligence asset, or operative would know that the phones are bugged. The Soviets obviously knew this as demonstrated by the brevity of the phone call.

So he wasn't working for them.

And later, the CIA figures out that Oswald was a defector to the Soviets who had returned to the US, and they fire off a cable top Langley telling them to alert the FBI that they might have a problem child. That never happened.

If Oswald was CIA the Mexico City Station would have been briefed on him, and would have cleared his activities in the city. They wouldn't have reported that they'd recorded to phone call.

Funny how this works, a huge chunk of operational evidence is right here in the open showing Oswald was not an intelligence asset. His actions, and the actions of the CIA and KGB underline this fact.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 2nd February 2022, 03:52 PM   #290
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I'm kind of slow, but I think I've found proof Oswald was NOT an intelligence asset for anybody, CIA, KGB, or Cuba.

It's in the JFK Assassination Archives: https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...d-32108042.pdf

Oswald called Obyrdkov and told him he spoke with Kostikov. He did this on an open line, something anyone with trade-craft training WOULD NEVER DO. An intelligence asset, or operative would know that the phones are bugged. The Soviets obviously knew this as demonstrated by the brevity of the phone call.

So he wasn't working for them.

And later, the CIA figures out that Oswald was a defector to the Soviets who had returned to the US, and they fire off a cable top Langley telling them to alert the FBI that they might have a problem child. That never happened.

If Oswald was CIA the Mexico City Station would have been briefed on him, and would have cleared his activities in the city. They wouldn't have reported that they'd recorded to phone call.

Funny how this works, a huge chunk of operational evidence is right here in the open showing Oswald was not an intelligence asset. His actions, and the actions of the CIA and KGB underline this fact.
True but he probably wanted to be.
Hans 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 2nd February 2022, 05:44 PM   #291
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oh no, this old canard.
I see what you did there.

Canard means "duck" in French.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You know what they say, mess with the duck and you get the bill.

A duck would be a quack-shot though...
Loved that! Had me laughing out loud.
__________________
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 2nd February 2022, 05:53 PM   #292
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
HSienzant it has been a while, Good to see your back.
Truth be told, I never left. But this board, which used to see quite a few posts on a daily basis, slowed down tremendously over the past year. There wasn't a lot I could add as there weren't many critics posting.


Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Well so the two torn bills has been dealt with before and it appears it is nothing more than complete HS, BS.
I hope you meant "BS, HS", although I've been called worse.



Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Aside from the rather obvious question of even if it was true, without some more context it is functionally meaningless.

So the request to discuss what it could mean is little more than an excuse to speculate and fantasize about an alleged data point that even if it is true probably means nothing in terms of a conspiracy to kill JFK or have anything to do with the assassination of JFK. In other words it is an attempt to create a fictional, fantasy narrative and give that fantasy an alleged basis in a "fact".

It looks to me like an attempt to smuggle in a conspiracy based on a "fact" which isn't a fact and even if it was a fact is basically meaningless without more data.
Well, to a Commission critic not used to questioning his sources, it's clearly evidence of something or other. But a one-page photocopy of an unsourced document with no date and no author? It reminds me of the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter that surfaced in the 1970's after Watergate, and was eventually determined to be a Soviet forgery (the misspellings always get them: the letter was signed "Lee Harvy Oswald").
__________________
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; 2nd February 2022 at 05:55 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 2nd February 2022, 09:33 PM   #293
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,899
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You really might be onto something there.

That helps explain why, when people suspect something is true but cannot prove it, they say, "Well, if it quacks like a duck..."

Ducks have apparently been arousing suspicion for decades. That saying goes back to the mid-1940s. https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-...t-does-it-mean

You know what they say, "Where there's smoke, there's probably fire."

And what about those Canada geese? We have them crossing the border at all hours of the day and night, with no check on them whatsoever. They come and go as they please.

And a number of pigeons were seen taking off from the Depository rooftop when the shots were fired.

And the owner of the Depository in 1963 was Col. D. Harold Byrd!

Tell me all that's not suspicious.

I think this is all starting to tie together and demands further investigation. You might really be onto something there.

"Mere ducksoup"
- HC Fisher
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.
smartcooky 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 2nd February 2022, 09:36 PM   #294
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,899
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I see what you did there.

Canard means "duck" in French.

Loved that! Had me laughing out loud.

Kinda makes you wonder waddle he think of next!
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.
smartcooky 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 6th February 2022, 09:05 PM   #295
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Speaking of quacks, assassination gadfly, Cyril Wecht, has yet another book out about the assassination. Big shock, he doesn't think Oswald made either shot, and that two other gunmen did.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/jfk-as...ign=SocialFlow

Quote:
Wecht’s latest book, “The JFK Assassination Dissected” (Exposit Books), summarizes his six decades of research into the subject, and pokes holes in the conclusion made by the seven-man Warren Commission that Oswald, without any help, shot and killed Kennedy when his motorcade drove past the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
Yippie.

Quote:
Oswald “had almost certainly been a CIA agent of some kind,” says Wecht, but the directive to kill may have come from higher up.
Uh, sure.

Quote:
The first non-governmental forensic pathologist to gain access to the National Archives to examine the assassination materials in 1972, Wecht discovered and exposed the ghastly fact that the 35th president’s brain had vanished.

“As we sit and talk today, the president’s brain remains missing. Unaccounted for,” he said.
Good to know he's kept current on the facts. It's not like the brain was removed from the archives by RFK and reinterred with the body when it was moved to its current resting place...which it was...

Quote:
Wecht’s book contains never-before published details of his meetings with Oswald’s widow, Marina, who, although unhappily married to Oswald, validated her husband’s claim that he was “just a patsy,” as well as of Wecht’s meeting with George de Mohrenschildt, a shadowy CIA-connected figure who befriended the Oswalds prior to the assassination and, before committing suicide himself in 1977, corroborated Marina’s assessment of Oswald as a fall guy
Might be worth reading if for no other reason than to see how many leading questions he used.

You can read the article if you need comic relief.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 7th February 2022, 11:26 AM   #296
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oh no, this old canard.

You know what they say, mess with the duck and you get the bill.

A duck would be a quack-shot though...
I keep expecting Robert Harris to pop up with,
Did somebody mention 'ducks'?"

See this youtube video that explains why all the passengers ducked at the same time...
__________________
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 8th February 2022, 11:11 AM   #297
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,404
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Good to know he's kept current on the facts. It's not like the brain was removed from the archives by RFK and reinterred with the body when it was moved to its current resting place...which it was...
The fact he doesn't know this is enough for me to toss the book into the not worth reading pile.

As for Oswald's wife. Marina's changing attitude about her late husband's involvement would make an interesting study. Initially she was quite convinced Lee had indeed done it. Why?: Because she would hear his tirades against JFK etc. And certainly at the time of the Warren Commission she still thought he had done it. She changed her mind largely it appears from what she "learned" from Conspiracy theorists who basically really bothered her with their theories and "evidence". The late Vincent Bugliosi in his book Reclaiming History, mentions that he interviewed Marina several times, candidly reports she did not like him, and mentions that Marina told him that she accepted the conspiracy narrative based on what others had told her not about anything she knew about her late husband or any of his activities.

Last edited by Pacal; 8th February 2022 at 11:13 AM.
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
Old 8th February 2022, 11:16 AM   #298
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,404
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I keep expecting Robert Harris to pop up with,
Did somebody mention 'ducks'?"

See this youtube video that explains why all the passengers ducked at the same time...
Well when it comes to conspiracy loons I expect the same old duck pets not the pets of Nuns.

Yes there is a French pun there.
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
Old 10th February 2022, 02:25 PM   #299
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,627
No JFK assassination conspiracy theory is complete without a reference to George de Mohrenschildt. Definitely a core part of the JFK CT Bingo, along with the CIA, the Mob, and sketchy Cubans.
Allen773 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 March 2022, 12:15 PM   #300
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,971
Hey at another forum the following question was asked:

"What if Lee Harvey Oswald never shot? What would have happened during the trial and afterward?"

I suspect they meant that if he had set up nest had his rifle loaded, aimed but not fired - could he be charged with anything?
Hans 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 March 2022, 02:09 PM   #301
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Hey at another forum the following question was asked:

"What if Lee Harvey Oswald never shot? What would have happened during the trial and afterward?"

I suspect they meant that if he had set up nest had his rifle loaded, aimed but not fired - could he be charged with anything?
Attempting to kill the POTUS is still a crime. It can be an automatic 20 years just for publicly threatening the life of any President.

As to the question, what would his defense be? I was planning on shooting pigeons with my over-powered Italian battle rifle? I was going to shoot someone else? I was set up?

He was poor and broke. In Texas that would have meant serious prison time.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 17th March 2022, 03:46 PM   #302
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Attempting to kill the POTUS is still a crime. It can be an automatic 20 years just for publicly threatening the life of any President.
I believe this is post-1963. Most comments at the time were that killing the President was not a Federal offense then.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
As to the question, what would his defense be? I was planning on shooting pigeons with my over-powered Italian battle rifle? I was going to shoot someone else? I was set up?
His defense would be "I'm a patsy." That fits so well with CT-thought, where he is a minimal if that much participant in the assassination.
Major Major 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 March 2022, 04:46 PM   #303
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,971
Might make for an interesting what if book, "What if Oswald froze", or maybe after the missed first shot he he didn't try again.

Just an interesting idea/concept.
Hans 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 March 2022, 05:04 PM   #304
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
The Dallas Police would have made sure he did jail time for being a Communist alone.

And it's been against Federal law to threaten the lift of the President since 1917. According to this, Oswald would have got five years on top of what Texas hit him with:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

Quote:
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
U.S. Code


(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69 Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L. 97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Oswald was an interesting guy. He had many chances to turn his life around. Had he put as much effort into being productive as he did defecting, and then moping around, his life would have been different.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 March 2022, 03:54 AM   #305
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Hey at another forum the following question was asked:

"What if Lee Harvey Oswald never shot? What would have happened during the trial and afterward?"

I suspect they meant that if he had set up nest had his rifle loaded, aimed but not fired - could he be charged with anything?
I suspect some high-school kid has a paper to write and doesn't want to do any real research.

My answer depends on the hidden assumptions behind the question.

Do they mean if he was a lone nut, brought the rifle to work, and then never fired it?

Probably nothing. Oswald takes the rifle home, still wrapped in the paper sack, and no one is the wiser. JFK and Tippit survive and JFK serves a second term. Lyndon Johnson is probably never president. The children of JFK, Oswald, and Tippit don't grow up fatherless. There is no trial because it's not illegal to take your rifle to work in Texas. Indeed, Warren Caster brought two rifles into the Depository on Wednesday, 11/20/63, just two days before the assassination, and shows them to others.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/ru...ony/caster.htm

But because they reference a trial, that leads me to believe their hidden assumption is Oswald is one of the three (or 43) other shooters, and the other two (or 42) kill JFK, even if Oswald never shoots. If that's their hidden assumption, then it depends on what happens before, during, and after the assassination.

If Oswald never sticks his rifle out of the Depository window, there are no eyewitnesses to a weapon in the building, and the building is perhaps never searched, or not searched thoroughly enough to find the weapon still disassembled and wrapped in the paper bag. Police concentrate their search on the knoll and the other buildings.

If it is found, he says he brought it in to show to his co-workers, like Warren Caster. Oswald referenced that incident in his interrogations.

See the second paragraph here:
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...port_0322a.htm

But if his weapon is seen sticking out of a window and found in the building, then he could be tried as a member of a conspiracy, even if he never fired a shot, and no shells, no large fragments, and no nearly whole bullet are found traceable to his weapon. The presumption would have to be that he fired and missed, scooped up the shell(s), and discarded them elsewhere.

Does Oswald leave the Depository, go to his rooming house to pick up his revolver, and still shoot Tippit? If he hasn't shot the President, most likely he stays behind and leaves with the rifle still wrapped up when the workers are dismissed early that day. He's never a suspect, just a person of interest, because of his defection.

But if he does leave the rifle behind and goes to his rooming house, gets his revolver, and then shoots Tippit? Then that most likely plays out as it did on 11/22/63, with Oswald being arrested in the movie theatre after trying to kill Officer McDonald.

That leads to a trial for the Tippit murder (Ruby doesn't shoot Oswald over that). Oswald is convicted and executed for that crime.

Oswald by default becomes the chief suspect in the assassination as well when his rifle is discovered at his rooming house or in the Depository after a search there. But there's insufficient evidence to charge him with conspiracy to shoot the President, because there's no evidence he brought the rifle to the Depository with that intent. Perhaps some of the other 42 shooters are tracked down and the full conspiracy is revealed in this scenario.
__________________
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 March 2022, 11:11 AM   #306
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,899
I'm sure someone made a video of a mock trial on a rewritten history that Oswald wasn't shot dead by Jack Ruby. In fact, I think it has been done more than once, in the late 1970s and 1980s and maybe even earlier.
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

Last edited by smartcooky; 18th March 2022 at 11:17 AM.
smartcooky 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 March 2022, 11:28 AM   #307
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm sure someone made a video of a mock trial on a rewritten history that Oswald wasn't shot dead by Jack Ruby. In fact, I think it has been done more than once, in the late 1970s and 1980s and maybe even earlier.
One was done in 1964.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ThSEbRW1_Y
__________________
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 19th March 2022, 05:27 PM   #308
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,627
Another issue with a conspiracy is that no one who knew either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby (who is always implicated in the alleged "cover-up" of the JFK assassination because he killed Oswald) came forward to either confess to their own guilt and/or rat someone else out.

Furthermore, shouldn't the most compelling evidence for a JFK assassination conspiracy connect both Oswald and Ruby? There had to have been someone, in the event of a conspiracy, who was directly tied to both and thus "in on" the conspiracy, but then you have to be able to identify such a person and alas, no one ever has.

And it's not enough to have someone who knew both Oswald and Ruby well enough to be trusted with a conspiracy. There has to be some strong physical, documentary, or even circumstantial evidence tying at least one person to both Ruby and Oswald and a conspiracy to kill JFK, and if there is none, well now the conspiracy just got bigger and more complicated, because now Oswald and Ruby operate at more than one degree of separation. That's just more people involved who could talk. Not to mention their wives, their husbands, their illicit lovers, their brothers, their sisters, their in-laws, their butlers, their maids, their children. You have to be confident that none of them had any evidence that could credibly implicate someone other than Oswald or Ruby.

Wait...that's all assuming that Ruby was involved in the conspiracy, or was sent by others who were to silence Oswald. There's literally ZERO evidence that Ruby had any connection to Oswald, let alone to a conspiracy to either kill the President or at least cover up after the fact. And we certainly haven't found any good evidence of Oswald acting with or behalf on someone else, though God knows tons of people have tried, including, as we've more recently learned via declassified documents, multiple agencies of the United States government.

If we can't actually connect either Oswald or Ruby to a conspiracy to kill JFK, why in God's green Earth should we even assume that anyone other than Oswald was involved in the assassination? Where is the better theory for what happened that day other than what was laid out in the Warren Commission, the one that doesn't take all kinds of evidentiary shortcuts or make tremendous logical leaps in the absence of evidence or even contrary to existing evidence (aka, every JFK assassination conspiracy theory thus far).

Various people have told colorful stories and tall tales about the JFK assassination in the nearly 60 years since it happened. But after all that time, we still only have Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, Jack Ruby as the assassin's assassin, and no connection to one another - let alone to anyone else.

Occam's Razor strikes yet again.

Last edited by Allen773; 19th March 2022 at 05:37 PM.
Allen773 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 19th March 2022, 05:38 PM   #309
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,899
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Various people have told colorful stories and tall tales about the JFK assassination in the nearly 60 years since it happened. But after all that time, we still only have Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, Jack Ruby as the assassin's assassin, and no connection to one another - let alone to anyone else.

Occam's Razor strikes yet again.
If Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy in which his job was to tie up a loose end by killing LHO before he had a chance to spill his guts, then what about Jack Ruby himself? He wasn't a professional hitman, he was a low key Dallas nightclub owner/operator. That makes him a loose end, so why wasn't an assassin's, assassin's assassin sent to cap him?
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.
smartcooky 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 19th March 2022, 05:39 PM   #310
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy in which his job was to tie up a loose end by killing LHO before he had a chance to spill his guts, then what about Jack Ruby himself? He wasn't a professional hitman, he was a low key Dallas nightclub owner/operator. That makes him a loose end, so why wasn't an assassin's, assassin's assassin sent to cap him?
Why indeed.

It just gets more absurd the more you think about it. These supposed conspirators were both incredibly good at covering their own tracks and yet on Planet Reality, Oswald and Ruby were the last people you would want for something as audacious and high-risk as killing the President of the United States and then covering up your involvement.

Both men's actions reveal impulsivity, recklessness, and an unhealthy desire for personal recognition, and these actions were consistent with the personalities of both men as told by those who knew them.

Last edited by Allen773; 19th March 2022 at 05:47 PM.
Allen773 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 2nd April 2022, 02:21 PM   #311
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,564
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy in which his job was to tie up a loose end by killing LHO before he had a chance to spill his guts, then what about Jack Ruby himself? He wasn't a professional hitman, he was a low key Dallas nightclub owner/operator. That makes him a loose end, so why wasn't an assassin's, assassin's assassin sent to cap him?
Well, if Ruby could be trusted not to spill his guts, but Oswald couldn't, wouldn't it make more sense to have Ruby kill Kennedy, rather than count on the Dallas police to be inept enough to give Ruby the chance to kill Oswald? The whole idea that Ruby's killing of Oswald points to a conspiracy only make sense on the B-movie level.
CORed 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 2nd April 2022, 05:18 PM   #312
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,023
You: Two decades of grumbling that went nowhere.

Me: 6 years of fact-checking and information-sorting.

Guess what? The JFK conspiracy crowd has the forensic evidence nailed down.

Last edited by MicahJava; 2nd April 2022 at 05:21 PM.
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 2nd April 2022, 05:20 PM   #313
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
No JFK assassination conspiracy theory is complete without a reference to George de Mohrenschildt. Definitely a core part of the JFK CT Bingo, along with the CIA, the Mob, and sketchy Cubans.
De Mohrenschidt's alleged physician, Dr. Charles Mendoza, is a very interesting obscure figure in the case. Died just a few years ago after practicing medicine for years in Texas. Who knows.
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 2nd April 2022, 05:24 PM   #314
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,023
May as well casually mention that we may or may not be on the cusp of having physical proof of a conspiracy. From over a year ago now, here is the Youtube video of the updated version of Angelos Leiloglou's 3d model of Dealey Plaza - just watch 90 seconds in to 16:03: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niyDUSF02Zc&t=963s

Of course, it will take further verification that this is the one and only true interpretation of the photographic/geometrical evidence in Dealey Plaza. And even if the Single Bullet Theory were proven false, we may even see years of copium for the possibility of the official story being true without the single bullet theory being true.

Last edited by MicahJava; 2nd April 2022 at 05:26 PM.
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 2nd April 2022, 06:19 PM   #315
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You: Two decades of grumbling that went nowhere.

Me: 6 years of fact-checking and information-sorting.

Guess what? The JFK conspiracy crowd has the forensic evidence nailed down.
It's FIVE decades, almost six. Then again, not being able to count is key to JFK-CT loons.

And no, they don't have anything locked down.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 2nd April 2022, 06:28 PM   #316
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
May as well casually mention that we may or may not be on the cusp of having physical proof of a conspiracy. From over a year ago now, here is the Youtube video of the updated version of Angelos Leiloglou's 3d model of Dealey Plaza - just watch 90 seconds in to 16:03: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niyDUSF02Zc&t=963s

Of course, it will take further verification that this is the one and only true interpretation of the photographic/geometrical evidence in Dealey Plaza. And even if the Single Bullet Theory were proven false, we may even see years of copium for the possibility of the official story being true without the single bullet theory being true.
This guy is full of crap. His computer model is wrong. He had Connally too far to the right of where he was actually sitting in the limo. This is obvious as he flips between his lame animation and the Zapruder film.

To prove something you need to be accurate, this clown show of a computer animation is not accurate, except where it clearly shows the President was shot from the 6th Floor of the TSBD. The CT has deteriorated to the point where all of the smart people left the room decades ago, and all that's left are old acid casualties, and Qanon dorks.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 2nd April 2022, 06:28 PM   #317
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
De Mohrenschidt's alleged physician, Dr. Charles Mendoza, is a very interesting obscure figure in the case. Died just a few years ago after practicing medicine for years in Texas. Who knows.
...And?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 2nd April 2022, 06:47 PM   #318
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It's FIVE decades, almost six. Then again, not being able to count is key to JFK-CT loons.

And no, they don't have anything locked down.
Hank has been grumbling and meandering for two decades, which is nothing to say of the other lone nutters that have existed.
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 2nd April 2022, 07:01 PM   #319
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,899
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank has been grumbling and meandering for two decades, which is nothing to say of the other lone nutters that have existed.
Hank has absolute truckloads of credibility! You, on the other hand, have ZERO!
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.
smartcooky 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 2nd April 2022, 09:27 PM   #320
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,971
Trivia question who are the top 3 JFK conspiracy theorist these day - or are they all dead?
Hans 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

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 08:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.