Another JFK Conspiracy?

[spifflog]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Happy to oblige

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-23166.html

Only one in ten Americans think Oswald acted alone. Many also believe there was a government cover-up.

Half of the people are dumber than the average guy.

In all seriousness, if one reads about this case, and sees or reads an intelligent discourse on it, such as "Case Closed" or the some recent TV shows on PBS or the like and still believes in the conspiracy, I don't have any confidence in their judgment.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

He killed Oswald. His story was a very weak motive.

If he was part of a conspiracy, wouldn't he have made up a half-decent story ahead of time? Or wouldn't someone with a more convincing motive have been used instead of Ruby? We could play this game all day. Ruby offered multiple stories to explain his actions, so I'm skeptical of all of them. I think he was an unstable guy who wanted to be a big shot. There may not be much to it beyond that. Both Ruby and Oswald told more than one story about what happened, so we don't need to rely on their words. As noted, Ruby would not have even had a chance to kill Oswald if Oswald hadn't stopped to change his shirt. Ruby couldn't have known about that. What kind of plot is that? The point of a murder for hire is that you want to be sure the job gets done and not rely on coincidence or the decisions of a guy who stops to go to the bank, has a dog in the car, and only happens to get there at the right time by luck.

If there was a secret plot there would only be hints.

There aren't any hints. But you're making a typical CT-ish move in that this appears to suggest the lack of evidence of a conspiracy is itself evidence of the work of the conspiracy. That doesn't work logically.

Ruby shut Oswald up. It is the simpler explanation.

It's not simpler because it requires a large conspiracy that involves both Ruby and Oswald when there is no evidence of either and abundant evidence that they acted alone.

To me it looks like it was to take care of Oswald as a loose end.

It might be more psychologically satisfying, but that doesn't count as evidence.

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I have not read Posner yet, but plan to do so. However, if this is the kind of thing he does to "prove" Oswald was the lone assassin, then I'm already questioning his outcome.

I shall commence pretending to be surprised.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Marley23

If he was part of a conspiracy, wouldn't he have made up a half-decent story ahead of time? Or wouldn't someone with a more convincing motive have been used instead of Ruby? We could play this game all day. Ruby offered multiple stories to explain his actions, so I'm skeptical of all of them. I think he was an unstable guy who wanted to be a big shot.

A lot of people do believe Ruby's story. I don't find it credible. And it is correct that the Platonic form of the history here isn't a majority vote. It did get Ruby out of the death penalty.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

A lot of people do believe Ruby's story. I don't find it credible.

Which story? We're talking about the evidence here, not Ruby's story. I don't believe much of what Ruby said. I'm especially dubious of his claim that the conspiracy gave him cancer while he was in prison.

[FinnAgain]

Come on, as the documentary Watchmen clearly showed,

SPOILER:

shadowy conspiracies are totally not above giving people cancer if it fits in with their nefarious plots.

Wake up, Sheeple23!

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by spifflog

You've told him to kill Oswald, he knows who you are, and why you're telling him to do it and now Ruby can sell you out. What do you do now, kill him too?

You inject him with cancer!

Originally Posted by Marley23

As noted, Ruby would not have even had a chance to kill Oswald if Oswald hadn't stopped to change his shirt. Ruby couldn't have known about that.

The Second Stone was saying that Oswald changing his shirt was part of the plan, to make the whole "hothead" idea more credible. So Oswald was participating in helping his killers get away with killing him.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

. . . the documentary Watchmen . . .

I love you and wish you were my pirate captain!

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by CurtC

You inject him with cancer!




The Second Stone was saying that Oswald changing his shirt was part of the plan, to make the whole "hothead" idea more credible. So Oswald was participating in helping his killers get away with killing him.

I said nothing of the sort. I don't believe the changing of the shirt mattered. I believe that Ruby premeditated the murder of Oswald and shot when he got his opportunity.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

I don't believe the changing of the shirt mattered. I believe that Ruby premeditated the murder of Oswald and shot when he got his opportunity.

The timeline says he lucked into his opportunity, which undercuts your argument about premeditation. Oswald should have already been out of the station by the time Ruby got there and there's no evidence Ruby would have had any way to know about the delay.

[The Second Stone]

You've offered a timeline to show intent that Ruby could not possibly have premeditated intent to kill Oswald. To read his inner thoughts. Ruby's actions refute your timeline with a gunshot that killed Oswald. Spitting or a slap on the face would not refute your argument so loudly.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

I said nothing of the sort. I don't believe the changing of the shirt mattered. I believe that Ruby premeditated the murder of Oswald and shot when he got his opportunity.

Well, jtgain in post #38 had described the unlikely chain of events that led to Ruby having the opportunity, including the delay in Oswald's transfer (due to his wanting to change shirts). In response to that, you replied in post #43, " All of the things you mention could have been arranged for Ruby."

If those things were arranged for Ruby, they would have to include the transfer delay, else Ruby would have been in another location. And the transfer delay was dependent on Oswald's actions.

That's why I thought you were specifically saying that Oswald was complicit in his own shooting. If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean?

And there's still the even weaker link in your chain, that a mob hit on Oswald implies that Oswald's killing of Kennedy was a mob hit, and I can't imagine anyone trying to make the case that the mob would even begin to think about the possibility of hiring someone like Oswald for a major operation.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

You've offered a timeline to show intent that Ruby could not possibly have premeditated intent to kill Oswald. To read his inner thoughts. Ruby's actions refute your timeline with a gunshot that killed Oswald. Spitting or a slap on the face would not refute your argument so loudly.

I can't parse this. Anyone?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

You've offered a timeline to show intent that Ruby could not possibly have premeditated intent to kill Oswald.

I've showed there was a lack of preparation, which argues against a conspiracy. Hired killers don't show up late and rely on luck. Your explanations for the facts are getting more and more silly.

[CurtC]

The Second Stone, let me see if I can paraphrase what you think happened. I'm not trying to strawman your ideas, so let me know if I don't represent them accurately, and please explain where I got it wrong.

Ruby's shooting of Oswald was just too smelly, and Ruby himself was a shady character, so the more likely explanation is that Ruby was taking him out on the orders of some organization, most likely the mob. We know for sure that Ruby was late to the police station, and would have missed the opportunity but for the delay. However, there could have been more than one person ready to take out Oswald, and Ruby just happened to be the one who stepped up first and did it. The other(s) who would have killed Oswald at that moment slinked back into the crowd.

End paraphrasing. Do you not see the HUGE problems with this? Can you imagine any organization working that way? There was a very brief opportunity to take the shot - how do you know you'll get it, and how do the hitmen coordinate so that one of them will commit? Why would Ruby be wiring money to an employee at the critical time when he's supposed to be doing the most important task of his life? And why would he agree to give the rest of his life on a task that he would know he could not get away with? Did the mob not fear that Ruby would spill the beans, like they feared with Oswald? Why would the mob hire Oswald in the first place, being such an unstable flake? Why would they allow Oswald to be captured for three days before killing him? Wouldn't they be afraid that he'd spill the beans right away?

Every one of these questions is a killer for your theory. And the only evidence you seem to have in favor of it is that it feels suspicious. Do you see the problem here?

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Every one of these questions is a killer for your theory. And the only evidence you seem to have in favor of it is that it feels suspicious. Do you see the problem here?

Yes. But do you see the problem with saying there is no evidence other than suspicion? Ruby killing Oswald is evidence. Inferences are drawn from evidence, either strong or weak. The consensus in this thread is that Ruby killing Oswald was coincidental and not at all planned and it is one of Ruby's intent.

Even the people who insist it was a coincidental killing do not accept Ruby as credible. Is there someone else to charge? No. I concede that. What I don't concede is that Ruby did not intend to kill Oswald, was hoping for a chance to get it, and got it, even though other people here would have missed it because of shirt changes and western union wirings. Ruby got his opportunity. I infer his intent from his presence with a gun at a place where he had no business and his shooting his intended victim in the torso.

Say what you will about his intent alibis, be got the job done. Can I prove it was at the behest of someone else? No. Ruby was motivated. If it was at the behest of someone else, there would have been others waiting for opportunities.

It was Ruby killing Oswald more than any other known factor that leads me towards believing Oswald was put up to it. The second most important factor is that the CIA has never come up with all the unredacted information on Oswald. Perhaps for legitimate protecting Soviet asset reasons. Oswald was a volatile and unreliable man. He was known to a lot of un-normal elements, including the CIA, Soviets, Cubans, radicals and possibly others. I don't know if he had mafia ties.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Ruby killing Oswald is evidence.

It's also not in dispute, so it doesn't do you much good. You'd need other evidence, and you don't have it.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

The consensus in this thread is that Ruby killing Oswald was coincidental and not at all planned and it is one of Ruby's intent.

Not sure what you're saying here about "coincidental."

Obviously, Ruby intended to kill Oswald, because he pulled out his gun and shot him point-blank.

It's also quite apparent that Ruby didn't plan on killing him more than a few minutes ahead of time. I'll grant that the thought had probably crossed his mind, but if he had been planning it, he would have been there at the scheduled time instead of down the street. In my opinion, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that Ruby stopped by the police station to see what the latest goings-on were, after taking care of some business that had him in the area anyway, and realized that he was about to be in a position to do something that (he thought) would make him into a hero.

I just wish that Ruby had mentioned the day before to a friend, that he thought someone should just kill Oswald. A clear-thinking friend would have told him that any person who killed Oswald would then be seen not as a hero, but many people would believe him to be an accomplice to Kennedy's assassination. Had Ruby thought of that possibility, he never would have gone through with it.

[ralph124c]

Interesting.. I do believe that Oswald had some very strange relationship with the CIA. Just what that was will probably never be known..bear in mind the CIA has, in its history, conspired with criminals and murderers (the plot to kill Castro). It has also underwritten highly illegal activities around the world. I for one would like to know what the CIA was doing with the late Bobbie Seal-a pilot who admitted to flying loads of drugs into the USA. Seal was murdered, probably to keep him quiet.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Interesting.. I do believe that Oswald had some very strange relationship with the CIA.

Sure, the CIA had a relationship with him, in that they watched him and talked to him. Oswald did, after all, defect to the USSR and then un-defect, was admittedly a Marxist, supported Castro, and traveled to Mexico to visit the Cuban embassy. Did they CIA try to use him? That's where it gets doubtful to me - he was just too flaky.

I for one would like to know what the CIA was doing with the late Bobbie Seal-a pilot who admitted to flying loads of drugs into the USA. Seal was murdered, probably to keep him quiet.

I don't know anything about this. Is it related to the assassination?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Have someone behind him at the book depository to plug him after he kills the President.

Not to quote myself, but wouldn't this have been a simple and easy way to dispatch with Oswald, were there a conspiracy? Have a guy put one right in Oswald's head after he shoots Kennedy. Here is his story:

"Officer, I was walking down the street looking for a good vantage point to watch the motorcade. Yes, I carry a pistol on my person, and I admit that it violates Texas law, but I do so for protection only, and thank God I did so today."

"Anyway, I saw the Texas School Book Depository and thought, 'What a great location to see the President!' I got there a little late because there were so many people, and I didn't realize how many steps there were! I got to the top floor and walked to the window and there was this GUY firing a rifle! He turned to me, and I pulled my personal weapon and killed him in self defense. If only I had gotten there a few seconds earlier, I could have prevented this terrible tragedy."

Any holes?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Not to quote myself, but wouldn't this have been a simple and easy way to dispatch with Oswald, were there a conspiracy? Have a guy put one right in Oswald's head after he shoots Kennedy. Here is his story:

"Officer, I was walking down the street looking for a good vantage point to watch the motorcade. Yes, I carry a pistol on my person, and I admit that it violates Texas law, but I do so for protection only, and thank God I did so today."

"Anyway, I saw the Texas School Book Depository and thought, 'What a great location to see the President!' I got there a little late because there were so many people, and I didn't realize how many steps there were! I got to the top floor and walked to the window and there was this GUY firing a rifle! He turned to me, and I pulled my personal weapon and killed him in self defense. If only I had gotten there a few seconds earlier, I could have prevented this terrible tragedy."

Any holes?

Besides the Book Depository being a not public-accessible building you mean?

[spifflog]

This is like virtually all of the Kennedy conspiracy theories now. While sitting in their mother's basement with fellow CTers, theories like this seem plausible. But 50 years later the facts are known and largely not in dispute. Once they are discussed logically in the light of day among those not wedded to their beliefs, they just fall apart.

Most of the CTers I see know now are either very young and haven't worked thought the facts yet, or those who just don't have the self esteem to admit they are wrong.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Sure, the CIA had a relationship with him, in that they watched him and talked to him. Oswald did, after all, defect to the USSR and then un-defect, was admittedly a Marxist, supported Castro, and traveled to Mexico to visit the Cuban embassy. Did they CIA try to use him? That's where it gets doubtful to me - he was just too flaky.

If only all the CIA's files on Oswald were available and unredacted.They might be evidence.

Originally Posted by Marley23

It's also not in dispute, so it doesn't do you much good. You'd need other evidence, and you don't have it.

No, I don't. I draw the inference from the available evidence. You find it insufficient. You and a minority of Americans. Along with a majority of Americans, I find the existing evidence sufficient to draw the conclusion that it was an assassination.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

If only all the CIA's files on Oswald were available and unredacted.They might be evidence.

Sure, they might be. But the fact that they're not completely available is not itself evidence one way or another, since in both cases (Oswald was used by the CIA or he wasn't), you would expect redacted files.

You and a minority of Americans. Along with a majority of Americans, I find the existing evidence sufficient to draw the conclusion that it was an assassination.

I'm surprised to see such a flagrant argumentum ad populum fallacy here at the SDMB. Most Americans are not informed of the details of the assassination, and even if they were, many simply don't have enough critical thinking skills for me to trust their opinions. I don't care what the majority of Americans think about this.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

I draw the inference from the available evidence.

Yes. Of course none of that evidence supports your theory in any particular way - it's one basic fact that nobody disputes and which could support millions of theories.

You and a minority of Americans.

You can't expect me to be impressed by an appeal to popularity.

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Sure, the CIA had a relationship with him, in that they watched him and talked to him. Oswald did, after all, defect to the USSR and then un-defect, was admittedly a Marxist, supported Castro, and traveled to Mexico to visit the Cuban embassy. Did they CIA try to use him? That's where it gets doubtful to me - he was just too flaky.




I don't know anything about this. Is it related to the assassination?

OopsIt was BARRY Seal. He had nothing to do with the Kennedy hit-I bring him up merely as an example of the unsavory people that the CIA has employed. Seal was a pilot and major drug smuggler. So we have an agency of the US Government, doing business with an international criminal. Does that inspire confidence in the CIA?

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

OopsIt was BARRY Seal. He had nothing to do with the Kennedy hit-I bring him up merely as an example of the unsavory people that the CIA has employed. Seal was a pilot and major drug smuggler. So we have an agency of the US Government, doing business with an international criminal. Does that inspire confidence in the CIA?

I don't think anyone would dispute that the CIA has done work with criminals. Barry Seal was a big-time drug smuggler, and after he was arrested, the US government used him as an informant against Central American drug cartels.

That's very different from Oswald. If Oswald had high-level contacts and his political interests didn't conflict with those of the US government, and Oswald wasn't such a flake, maybe the CIA would be interested in using him. But he had none of that - Oswald was a wannabe, a nobody, whose expressed political ideals were in opposition to the US government, and was apparently pretty unstable to boot.

[chargerrich]

Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic

This should be required reading for anyone referencing that series:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland3.htm

One of the best and most reasoned sites on the subject you can find.

CT'ers are a fascinating bunch and their theories are a ton of fun to review, but come on people... Occam's Razor

We DID land on the moon
Oswald DID kill Kennedy
Sirhan DID kill the other Kennedy
STS-51 was just a horrible accident
WTC attacks were NOT an inside job

[Gedd]

Originally Posted by chargerrich

One of the best and most reasoned sites on the subject you can find.

CT'ers are a fascinating bunch and their theories are a ton of fun to review, but come on people... Occam's Razor

We DID land on the moon
Oswald DID kill Kennedy
Sirhan DID kill the other Kennedy
STS-51 was just a horrible accident
WTC attacks were NOT an inside job

You FOOL! All the EVIDENCE shows that STS-51-L was a CONSPIRACY! The PROOF proves it WAS the FES!

WHEN will you ACCEPT the TRUTH??

[Did I do the CAPS right?]