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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
If only all the CIA’s files on Oswald were available and unredacted.They might be evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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 can’t expect me to be impressed by an appeal to popularity.
Oops:smack:It 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.
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
