“Loose ends” in the vaguest argument by incredulity sense. “I can’t see how it happened that way, so I’m just going to continue saying it doesn’t make sense while ignoring the evidence”.
I don’t see it that way at all. I’m not endorsing any particular conspiracy theory, but the reality is that there are a notable number of known facts around the JFK assassination that have never been adequately explained, as well as other allegations that are plausible and come from credible sources. I’ve listed some of them, and described a plausible scenario in which Oswald was a simpleton being manipulated by entities who passionately hated JFK. I accept that no one has solid evidence for this, and that the Warren Commission was on the level and simply failed to find such evidence. I find it equally an appeal to argument by incredulity to say that this incompetent pipsqueak just up and decided to kill JFK all on his own for reasons that we will never know, and that Jack Ruby then killed him also for reasons that we will never know, because any other explanation is one of them there crazy “conspiracy theories”. Oswald was exactly the type of weak dimwit who could be easily manipulated.
“He killed the president” isn’t reason enough? Think back to 9/11 and try to count how many variations of “If I had Osama bin Laden in front of me right now I’d…” that you heard.
Not for a normal person, no. Now, granted Ruby was not exactly normal, but he did allegedly have extensive mob connections that fit the Cuban+Mafia narrative. One would have to be pretty far removed from normal to put oneself in a position that would end in either a death sentence or life behind bars – or else one would have to be under intolerable pressure to do so. The shooting of RFK was also a great loss to the nation, and no one was motivated to take out Sirhan Sirhan, or any of the other presidential assassins.
There is also evidence that the Warren Commission ignored or failed to accept certain key information about Ruby that was later validated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (specifically, the testimony from White House Correspondent Seth Kantor about Ruby’s behaviours and whereabouts during and after the assassination). IOW, the Warren Commission at the very least was flawed and missed stuff – potentially important stuff.
What “known facts” are you referring to, that haven’t been adequately explained?
I mention a few in post #135. I enjoy speculating so I hypothetically connected some dots. I could be totally wrong. I don’t want to go all full-blown CT on everybody, but some of them are damned strange. But I’m not a serious student of this particular bit of history.
“Known facts”?? I see “alleged”, “speculation run wild”, and “So how about this for a theory?” in that post.
The next time you want to build a house of cards, try to remember to bring a deck along.
You seem to be trying to start an argument, which is not something I’m interested in since I have no axe to grind here. Many of the strange circumstances surrounding this event are factual – Oswald’s Russia connections, his murder by Jack Ruby, Castro’s flaming hatred of JFK, ditto the Mafia. Others are plausible allegations from sources that seem credible. Take it any way you want.
But to me, there are just too many unexplained events to comfortably conclude that this was nothing more than a random lunatic with a gun. For instance, just on the subject of the Cuban connection:
Oswald had visited Mexico City several weeks earlier, apparently to obtain a visa that would allow the self-proclaimed Marxist to defect to Cuba, and Mann, a veteran diplomat, suspected that a plot to kill Kennedy had been hatched on Mexican soil, during Oswald’s encounters there with Cuban diplomats and Mexicans who supported Fidel Castro’s revolution. How did Mann know about those meetings? It turned out the CIA had Oswald under surveillance in the Mexican capital after he had showed up at both the Cuban and Soviet embassies there.
… within days of the assassination, the ambassador received an astonishing top-secret message directly from Secretary of State Dean Rusk. According to Mann’s testimony years later to congressional investigators, Rusk ordered the embassy to shut down any investigation in Mexico that might “confirm or refute rumors of Cuban involvement in the assassination.” No reason was given for the order, the ambassador said.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/jfk-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-mexico-116195/
And it seems to me that you would prefer ask questions then to listen to answers that have been provided over and over and over and over again, because those questions allow you speculate, while the answers that have been provided mean The Big Conspiracy is over. There are no new questions in this thread that haven’t been answered.
A situation that wouldn’t have existed at all if Oswald hadn’t decided to change clothes before being transferred and if Ruby hadn’t happened to be in the exact right place at the right time to hear he was being moved, and which he wouldn’t have been able to get to if security hadn’t been lax. Ruby’s involvement was mere coincidence and there were millions of other ordinary Americans who would’ve done the exact same thing in those circumstances.
If someone wanted Oswald silenced, it would’ve been far easier to have him “hang himself” in his cell.
I’m not sure which of the facts you linked to are not adequately explained. I’m not even sure I know what “inadequately explained” means.
Everyone has “loose ends.” Oswald calling the Russian embassy in Cuba isn’t really a loose end at all, because we have evidence he wanted to emigrate to Cuba, but hardly any of the other “Facts” in your link constitute anything of interest at all regarding the assassination. Number 8: 8) The FBI warned Robert Kennedy about a book detailing his affair with Marilyn Monroe Who gives a shit? Even the ones that might connect to the assassination are without any supporting evidence and many sound like friend-of-a-friend nonsense.
Since everyone is portraying Oswald as a “lone nut” and an unstable person whom no one would want to be in an assassination conspiracy with, I looked at YouTube to see if there are any interviews of him.
The video above doesn’t strike me as of a person who is a nut or unstable or unreliable. He seems quite composed given the circumstances he is in.
I will say this: of the many conspiracy theories (fake moon landing, airplane “chemtrails”, 9/11 was an inside job, anti-vax, etc, etc, etc) all of them are so easily dismissible and clearly only supported by nutcases. However, there is something about the JFK assassination official story that is clearly off kilter.
For an example of what is off kilter, people have mentioned that one of the reasons Ruby killed Oswald was to protect Jackie Kennedy from having to relive the pain of the assassination during Oswald’s trial.
I always thought that was bullshit. No way a nightclub owner with Mafia connections would care about that. As per Wikipedia, Ruby himself states that that was a made up reason:
“In a private note to one of his attorneys, Joseph Tonahill, Ruby wrote: “Joe, you should know this. My first lawyer Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn’t have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?””
How many nightclub owners with Mafia connections have you interviewed to come to this conclusion?
If you think he was lying at first, what makes you think he’s being honest later?
Fifty five
Because the latter time was a private message to his attorney. In what possible world would someone tell the truth to the public and the lie to their personal attorney?
This (Ruby’s original “reason”) is one of those things where, if one believes it, someone likely has a bridge to sell them
In what possible world would a man who was planning to commit a murder that would absolutely land him in prison abandon his dogs in the car?
What people?
Are you arguing in bad faith? I’m just trying to see what you’re getting out of this line of questioning. Are you claiming you’ve never heard that reason being cited by anyone before?
No, I haven’t. I am just trying to find out the source of information you seem to be listening to.
All I see are questions asked, originating from unknown sources, answers ignored, then even more questions tossed onto the original pile.