Great post Kevin, I agree with most all of it. However I don't believe that Oswald was a lone nut. He was most likely working for someone or he was a full blown patsy. Saying Oswald was 'nuts' and that Ruby was 'nuts' is just too easy.
What do you make of this clip?
If you look at the Warren Report, they so didn't take the easy way out. It remains to this day one of the most complete investigations in all of history. Did they make mistakes? Yep! Are there some weird controversies? Yeah, there are. But if you do a deep dive into the person of Oswald then the "nut" thing REALLY does fit.
As for Ruby, he wasn't so much of a nut as he was a patriot who was offended by someone killing the President. He was well connected and he managed to work his way to within touching distance. Maybe it was planned, or maybe at the last minute he said to himself; "hey, I can fix things nice and neat right here and now. I don't want to see this guy get off on some technicality or some such nonsense. Maybe at the last minute he saw an opportunity and took it."
If you look into the history of Ruby you'll see that he was very much the opportunist. He was well investigated and he had no accomplices.
I sincerely think Oswald was a VERY confused and anxious man seeking some avenue of attention. And I think Ruby was quite sane (if you can see what he did as a sane act), and just took advantage of an opportunity to put his name down in history as the man who killed the man who killed the president of the United States.
So what do I make of the clip? I see an opportunistic man who is trying to make his 15 minutes of fame last a lifetime. I'd say he succeeded.
The problem is, NONE of the conspiracy theories really hold water. They're massive conspiracies, or the small ones are just too far fetched. They don't make sense to a reasonable person in light of the evidence that he was a street hood who saw an opportunity to be a name forever remembered in history.
No way Oswald was a patsy, they'd never pick someone that mentally unstable. There are about a zillion ways someone like that would unravel the whole thing before they got a chance to do the deed. And he wasn't working for someone, because again, he was just too damn crazy. He was a completely unstable and unreliable person. No one would ever in their right mind enter into a conspiracy of that magnitude with a man so mentally unbalanced. If they had, then they were rather unbalanced themselves...so much so, they would have been caught very early on.
Lastly, when I went to executive protection school; a course that was taught by USSS instructors, we studdied assins and assinations in great detail. The lone assassin has a very distinct profile and Oswald fits it perfectly. But here's the kicker. He fit the profile LONG before anyone had determined what the profile was. I find it really hard to believe that someone would be able to find a man who fits the profile even before the profile had been invented. No, Oswald was a lone gunman, and he was seriously mentally unbalanced. Take a deep dive into the personalities of both Oswald and Ruby and I think you'd agree.
THIS. Thread does have entertainment value though in addition to the kookery...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
And how exactly do you control ballistic evidence? And again...look at the film. The film confirms it all.
If you had complete control of the investigation (and that would be assuming a LARGE conspiracy, but let's just say so for arguement sake), then yes you could control a lot of evidence. But there's absolutely NO WAY to fake the Zapruder film, and the autopsy. The notes of the doctors at Parkland are consistent with those of the autopsy, even though the doctor did contradict himself a couple of times. But his written report actually confirms to the contrary of what he said in interviews. That's because what he saw was something he THOUGHT was an entrance wound on the front of the head, but that was becaue he had no experience with such wounds. Bue if you read his notes, they actually confirm the autopsy findings.
So to do that, you'd have to have both doctors in on it. And then somehow, one of those doctors went against the plan on live TV; but then contradicted himself on his written report. Not very good conspirators.
And then we keep coming back to the Zapruder film; it confirms a single shooter from above and behind. Again, we're gun people, so we know that if there were more than one shooter, there's NO WAY to guarantee that you can sell the idea of a singler shooter! You have no way of knowing exactly where the bullets will go, and what shape they will be in. They say the one bullet was planted. But that doesn't make sense. They had no way to know if there was or wasn't any bullet fragments inside the body or skull. So you're not guaranteed to be able to match a planted bullet with bullet fragments inside the body. The ammunition was recovered, and it was metallurgically tested against fragments inside the head and it was consistent. You can't control such evidence, and anyone who knows their guns can tell you it's just not doable.
The notes of the doctors at Parkland are consistent with those of the autopsy, even though the doctor did contradict himself a couple of times. But his written report actually confirms to the contrary of what he said in interviews. That's because what he saw was something he THOUGHT was an entrance wound on the front of the head, but that was becaue he had no experience with such wounds. Bue if you read his notes, they actually confirm the autopsy findings
The doctors at Parkland never turned Kennedy's body over to see an entrance wound on his back, they had no need. One doctor was interviewed about it and confirmed this.
The notes of the doctors at Parkland are consistent with those of the autopsy, even though the doctor did contradict himself a couple of times. But his written report actually confirms to the contrary of what he said in interviews. That's because what he saw was something he THOUGHT was an entrance wound on the front of the head, but that was becaue he had no experience with such wounds. Bue if you read his notes, they actually confirm the autopsy findings
The doctors at Parkland never turned Kennedy's body over to see an entrance wound on his back, they had no need. One doctor was interviewed about it and confirmed this.
While that's interesting, it's irrelevant. They were concerned with the head wound. And where he contradicted himself was in relation to the head wound. Which is the one that is the most controversial.
Again, such a conspiracy means the Parkland doctors were in on it, as well as the ME at Bethesda. And dont forget that individual interviews with the nursing staff at Parkland which all basically supported what the doctors had in their reports...so the nursing staff would have had to be in on it as well. You find that believable?
And again, you can't fake the ballistics. There is no way to guarantee there would be no bullet fragments inside the body; that's not doable then, and not doable now.
You mean the Z Film the FBI confiscated and when released had 4 frames destroyed?
So you're saying that 4 frames turns everything around completely? And let's just say for a minute that they were able to doctor the film (which is for the most part beyond the technology back then, but not completely impossible; just highly unlikely). Would you doctor the film in such a way that it looks like he was shot from the front (appear to those who are ballistically ignorant) if you were trying to cover for that other shooter? Does that make sense to you?
So thus far, the conspiracies that are being thrown around would involve the FBI planting or controling evidence, the ER doctors & staff, and the medical examiner at Bethesda. Then you'd have to have consulted an expert in film making to know how to successfully "doctor" a film...yet you run the risk of it contradicting the film of someone else who could have been there filming. And you'd run the risk of it being in conflict with still photos. There's no way you could completely control the crowd. You couldn't know who was and wasn't there, who had cameras, of what type, etc. So to pull it off, you'd have to make EVERYONE with any sort of camera that was at Daly Plaza a plant who was in on the conspiracy.
The whole thing had to be cooked up at very high levels, but then you'd have to have one or more agents at the Dallas FBI field office in on the conspiracy. Then you'd have to have some of the lawyers on the Warren Commission in on the conspiracy, and you'd have to have someone on the grand jury in on the conspiracy just to make sure the official inquest headed in the direction of your supporting evidence.
This sounds like something real to you?
Think...When Clinton got a hummer in the Oval Office, there were TWO (2) people in the Oval Office at the time; and he was completely unable to keep that a secret.
I really think those who buy into all the conspiracy theories do so because of a few basic premises:
1- They're pre-disposed to thinking it was some grand conspiracy. 2- They have only studdied the evidence put forth by the critics and conspiracy theorists. 3- They're so up to their necks in the conspircy, their ego can't accept that they've been sold a pile of goods. 4- It's just fun to think of such grand conspiracies.
Here's the film frame by frame. Skip ahead to 5:12, the moment the bullet impacted. Study that frame. Which direction does the blood, brain matter and skull flap go?
It goes forward. Why? Because he was shot from behind.
The first bullet most likely deflected off the tree in front of the SBD and hit the curb under the overpass. It then shattered and then a frag hit the guy standing there in the cheek.
Not familiar with the one in the dash but several frags were found throughout the limo from the kill shot to the head.
One can accept the WC report and never consider other evidence or, if one is doubtful, they can consider new, previously unconsidered evidence and theories.
If one doesn't want to see disputing evidence, that's fine.
I can't fathom denigrating other findings, however, without being exposed to them.
I can't denigrate the new, supposedly more advanced ocular meds without trying them on a patient and evaluating them, just because previous meds have worked for me in most cases.
Last edited by eyeball; 11/15/13.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
