Listen to John McAdams on WGN Radio Extension 720 now

[Peter Fokes]

http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/


<quote on>

(Tuesday, November 22) On this anniversary of the assasination iof
John F. Kennedy our guest is John McAdams, political scientist from
Marquette University and author of the powerful new book, "JFK
Assasination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy." Various
sound clips will be featured from the dreaded day 48 years ago and
referencing the conspiracy theories that flouished thereafter.


<quote off>


Peter Fokes,
Toronto

[pdoherty76]

On Nov 23, 4:05 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/
>
> <quote on>
>
> (Tuesday, November 22) On this anniversary of the assasination iof
> John F. Kennedy our guest is John McAdams, political scientist from
> Marquette University and author of the powerful new book, "JFK

> Assasination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy." VariouslI

> sound clips will be featured from the dreaded day 48 years ago and
> referencing the conspiracy theories that flouished thereafter.
>
> <quote off>
>
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto

Listening now.

Is there not going to be any balance with someone from the conspiracy
side?

[Chuck Schuyler]

John is the balance.

[Pamela Brown]

He also wrote the dictionary. :-)

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Nov 22, 11:58 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

You need to reread the definition of the of the term "balance", since
you just stated that prof. McAdams is on the conspiracy side.

-Ramon

[Chuck Schuyler]

> -Ramon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Almost everything in the public conscience on the JFK assassination is
pro CT-related. John is the balance.

[pdoherty76]

How is John the balance? The host and John were both Warren Commission
cheerleaders.

John was deceptive as usual. When a caller asked about Ruby, John gave
the usual spiel about it being spur of the moment to kill oswald. Of
course. he fails to mention this exchange:

Jack Ruby - "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to
the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred,
my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such
an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let
the true facts come above board to the world".

Reporter - "Are these people in very high positions Jack"?

Jack Ruby - "Yes".

[pdoherty76]

You don't think the whole exercise would have been a little more
enlightening with a CT directly addressing John's points?

[John McAdams]

On 23 Nov 2011 09:13:32 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

"He" (me) insists that amnesty has to mean amnesty, and not that you
are allowed to stay in the country until the bureaucratic wheels
finish turning.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 23 Nov 2011 12:44:30 -0500, pdoherty76 <pdohe...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>my motives. The people had, that had so? much to gain and had such

>an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let
>the true facts come above board to the world".
>
>Reporter - "Are these people in very high positions Jack"?
>
>Jack Ruby - "Yes".

You actually think this was Ruby confessing to having been part of a
conspiracy?

See my other post.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yeah, Jack Ruby said there was a conspiracy. He said "they" were killing
Jews in the adjacent cell. That's what he wanted to tell people in
Washington.
You didn't know that Ruby went off his nut while incarcerated? Totally
bonkers.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MCVictimsEU/message/11206
/sm

[Chuck Schuyler]

No.

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Amnesty"? Oops!
That's a typo worthy of myself... ha ha.
/sm

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Nov 23, 11:44 am, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 5:58 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 10:52 pm, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 4:05 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/
>
> > > > <quote on>
>
> > > > (Tuesday, November 22) On this anniversary of the assasination iof
> > > > John F. Kennedy our guest is John McAdams, political scientist from
> > > > Marquette University and author of the powerful new book, "JFK
> > > > Assasination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy." VariouslI
> > > > sound clips will be featured from the dreaded day 48 years ago and
> > > > referencing the conspiracy theories that flouished thereafter.
>
> > > > <quote off>
>
> > > > Peter Fokes,
> > > > Toronto
>
> > > Listening now.
>
> > > Is there not going to be any balance with someone from the conspiracy
> > > side?
>
> > John is the balance.
>
> How is John the balance?  The host and John were both Warren Commission
> cheerleaders.

I just explained it. Almost everything in the public conscience on the
JFK assassination is pro CT-related. The occasional radio program,
book, blog or documentary that counters the CT silliness is the
balance. John provided that balance last night.

>
> John was deceptive as usual.  When a caller asked about Ruby, John gave
> the usual spiel about it being spur of the moment to kill oswald.

Ruby was standing in line to wire money at the Western Union office up
the street at 1117am, his dog waiting in the car. Oswald was killed at
1121am. If Oswald hadn't delayed his own transfer by changing into his
sweater, no murder. If that isn't a spur of the moment happenstance of
history event, please explain what is.

>Of course. he fails to mention this exchange:
>
> Jack Ruby - "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to
> the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred,
> my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such
> an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let
> the true facts come above board to the world".
>
> Reporter - "Are these people in very high positions Jack"?
>
> Jack Ruby - "Yes".

Methinks you are stuck in the 1960s with your conspiracy factoids and
out of context interpretations of what Ruby was trying to convey.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which conspiracy? Ruby denied being part of any conspiracy to kill
President Kennedy. After the fact of the assassination someone put him
into a situation where he had to kill Oswald. That second conspiracy is
what Ruby was alluding to.
You keep making up these straw man arguments where everything must be
part of one massive conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/23/2011 12:15 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:18 am, "Ramon F. Herrera"<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 11:58 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 10:52 pm, pdoherty76<pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 23, 4:05 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/
>>
>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>> (Tuesday, November 22) On this anniversary of the assasination iof
>>>>> John F. Kennedy our guest is John McAdams, political scientist from
>>>>> Marquette University and author of the powerful new book, "JFK
>>>>> Assasination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy." VariouslI
>>>>> sound clips will be featured from the dreaded day 48 years ago and
>>>>> referencing the conspiracy theories that flouished thereafter.
>>
>>>>> <quote off>
>>
>>>>> Peter Fokes,
>>>>> Toronto
>>
>>>> Listening now.
>>
>> >> Is there not going to be any balance with someone
>> >> from the conspiracy side?
>>
>> > John is the balance.
>>
>> You need to reread the definition of the of the term "balance", since
>> you just stated that prof. McAdams is on the conspiracy side.
>>
>

> Almost everything in the public conscience on the JFK assassination is
> pro CT-related. John is the balance.
>

It's like Fox News pretending to be fair and balanced. They have two
rightwing kooks debating an issue and they each try to outdo the other on
how much they hate Obama.

[David Von Pein]

Oh, sure Tony. Some OTHER group of conspirators put Ruby up to killing
Oswald, but it had nothing whatever to do with the first (unrelated)
conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

Yeah, right Tony.

You're even funnier than yesterday when you said that *I* hired Humes
& Company to do the autopsy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. You are deflecting. Your point has absolutely nothing to do
with who was selected to participate.

>>
>> John was deceptive as usual. When a caller asked about Ruby, John gave
>> the usual spiel about it being spur of the moment to kill oswald.
>
> Ruby was standing in line to wire money at the Western Union office up
> the street at 1117am, his dog waiting in the car. Oswald was killed at
> 1121am. If Oswald hadn't delayed his own transfer by changing into his
> sweater, no murder. If that isn't a spur of the moment happenstance of
> history event, please explain what is.
>

Someone let Ruby into the basement and he is seen waiting a couple of
minutes before Oswald came down. It wasn't a chance meeting.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, I thought it was the basement. But don't let the facts get in your
way. But in fact Ruby did not say he saw this. He was talking about his
nightmares.

[David Von Pein]

Another John McAdams' interview (from Wisconsin Public Radio)(Nov. 21,
2011):

http://www.box.com/s/mxsdcjyj8qg1a5ckp7ak

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-mcadams.html

[claviger]

On Nov 22, 11:58 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

Meaning a large majority of the population believes LHO did not act
alone. Typical polling numbers of 70-80% don't think LHO did this
crime by himself. A large majority of books about this case are pro-
conspiracy. As a learned student of this case and a recognized expert
after years of study who believes otherwise, Professor McAdams is
acting as a balance to this majority opinion.

To date there is no evidence of any other sniper involved that can be
confirmed or corroborated. The so called "acoustic evidence" has not
been confirmed or corroborated. This dubious theory has been
challenged and criticized in the scientific community. It is a
fascinating study in human nature that a large majority of Americans
believe in a theory with no supporting evidence after 47 years of
relentless investigation by professionals, amateurs, professors,
students, and technical experts using the scientific method.

The authorities did arrest a suspect while gathering overwhelming
evidence he was the culprit. His own wife and brother believed he was
guilty. LHO purchased a cheap but deadly WWII military rifle and
smuggled it into the building where he was employed. From an elevated
position overlooking the parade route he was able to put 2 of 3 shots
on a slow moving target inside what is considered short range for a
rifle of this type. He left the rifle behind and was lucky to escape
the building while making a run for his home base where he armed
himself with a pistol. Shortly thereafter he shot and killed a police
officer who attempted to question him and fled the scene. His
suspicious behavior in a movie theater led to his arrest.

None of this story indicates LHO was anything but an amateur
assassin. There is no evidence of a crossfire from any other
direction. All wounds came from behind the victims. The only
possibility of another shooter involved is an accidental discharge of
a weapon by a bodyguard in the follow-up security vehicle.

[Sandy McCroskey]

He said all sorts of things, and he doesn't seem to have been capable
of distinguishing what he had actually seen from what he imagined.
That's what it means to be "delusional," you know.

<quote on>
Not everyone was convinced of the sincerity of Ruby's delusions. When
he'd sometimes put his ear to the wall and say to his guards, "Shh. Do
you hear the screams? They are torturing Jews again down in the
basement," they would tell him, "O.K., Jack, cut the crap or we won't
play cards with you anymore." (Wills and Demaris, Jack Ruby, pp.
255-256)
After Ruby's sentence of death, Ruby's lawyers had a psychiatrist,
Louis Jolyon West, examine Ruby for them.... West's conclusion was
that Ruby was "obviously psychotic" and "completely preoccupied with
his delusions of the persecution of the Jews," believing that "all the
Jews in America were now being slaughtered" because "the president's
assassination and its aftermath were now being blamed on him," a Jew.
West was convinced Ruby was not feigning psychosis, giving several
reasons, among which were that West doubted "that someone unfamiliar
with technical psychiatry could play the part of a paranoid delusional
psychotic person with such accuracy, consistency and typical detail."
</quote off>
(Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, pg. 1137, footnote).

/sm

[Chuck Schuyler]

Competition is a good thing.

[Chuck Schuyler]

John was selected to talk about the JFK assassination free from the
silliness guys like you offer. He did a fine job.

>
>
>
> >> John was deceptive as usual.  When a caller asked about Ruby, John gave
> >> the usual spiel about it being spur of the moment to kill oswald.
>
> > Ruby was standing in line to wire money at the Western Union office up
> > the street at 1117am, his dog waiting in the car. Oswald was killed at
> > 1121am. If Oswald hadn't delayed his own transfer by changing into his
> > sweater, no murder. If that isn't a spur of the moment happenstance of
> > history event, please explain what is.
>
> Someone let Ruby into the basement and he is seen waiting a couple of
> minutes before Oswald came down. It wasn't a chance meeting.

Marsh apparently thinks Western Union was in on it too. 1117am at
Western Union to the Oswald shooting at 1121am was four minutes---and
Oswald delayed his own transfer. If this isn't unscripted, you've got
a much bigger conspiracy than the small little conspiracy you claim
you believe.

>
>
> >> Of course. he fails to mention this exchange:
>
> >> Jack Ruby - "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to
> >> the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred,
> >> my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such
> >> an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let
> >> the true facts come above board to the world".
>
> >> Reporter - "Are these people in very high positions Jack"?
>
> >> Jack Ruby - "Yes".
>
> > Methinks you are stuck in the 1960s with your conspiracy factoids and

> > out of context interpretations of what Ruby was trying to convey.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[John McAdams]

On 23 Nov 2011 17:23:34 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

Well . . . my student papers sometimes talk about the "Kennedy
assignation." There were many Kennedy assignations, but only one
assassination. :-)

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

You had to depend on Bugliosi to correct you?
Basement, not adjacent cell. Maybe you don't know what adjacent means?
Are you now going to admit that you used the wrong word? Or are you
going to call Bugliosi and West liars? Do we need the testimony of the
guards?

[Anthony Marsh]

Ruby said that he went to the Friday night press conference to shoot
Oswald, but he couldn't get off a clean shot because there were too many
reporters in the way. On that day he had bad luck. On Sunday he had good
luck. And some help.

[Anthony Marsh]

But there were previous assassination attempts.

[Anthony Marsh]

So that the discussion would be biased.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> John was deceptive as usual. When a caller asked about Ruby, John gave
>>>> the usual spiel about it being spur of the moment to kill oswald.
>>
>>> Ruby was standing in line to wire money at the Western Union office up
>>> the street at 1117am, his dog waiting in the car. Oswald was killed at
>>> 1121am. If Oswald hadn't delayed his own transfer by changing into his
>>> sweater, no murder. If that isn't a spur of the moment happenstance of
>>> history event, please explain what is.
>>
>> Someone let Ruby into the basement and he is seen waiting a couple of
>> minutes before Oswald came down. It wasn't a chance meeting.
>
> Marsh apparently thinks Western Union was in on it too. 1117am at
> Western Union to the Oswald shooting at 1121am was four minutes---and
> Oswald delayed his own transfer. If this isn't unscripted, you've got
> a much bigger conspiracy than the small little conspiracy you claim
> you believe.

In the real world conspirators sometimes get lucky and sometimes have
bad luck, but often someone helps them regardless of luck.

[jas]

On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> > Marsh apparently thinks Western Union was in on it too. 1117am at
> > Western Union to the Oswald shooting at 1121am was four minutes---and
> > Oswald delayed his own transfer. If this isn't unscripted, you've got
> > a much bigger conspiracy than the small little conspiracy you claim
> > you believe.
>
> Ruby said that he went to the Friday night press conference to shoot
> Oswald, but he couldn't get off a clean shot because there were too many
> reporters in the way. On that day he had bad luck. On Sunday he had good
> luck. And some help.
>
>

And there were no reporters in the basement Sunday morning?

If Ruby had been hired by the Mob (or some other nefarious force) to
shut Oswald up, he would have done it Friday night when he was right
there in the corridor.

Better yet, if Oswald was a hired assassin, he more than likely would
have been conveniently "put away" shortly after the assassination,
within minutes.

What conspiracy is going to allow him to be captured to sing like a
bird?

The whole premise of conspiracy falls apart.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Frothing at the mouth over *this*? You're too much.

The passage described Ruby putting his ear to the wall and saying he
could hear screams.
He didn't put his ear to the floor, and I didn't remember the word
"basement" in the guards' account. I alluded to the story as I
remembered it, and what I said was accurate in *substance.*

What difference does that one word make, Tony? I can believe that Ruby
said something like that, but I doubt if the guard remembered his
words with 100 percent accuracy anyway.
Do you remember what the issue was we were debating?

/sm

[Chuck Schuyler]

You think Ruby killed Oswald as some sort of organized plot? Yes or no
please.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but not the same one which killed Kennedy.
And Ruby had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

[John McAdams]

On 25 Nov 2011 20:25:11 -0500, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 11/24/2011 9:19 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 3:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/24/2011 9:06 AM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>
>>> Ruby said that he went to the Friday night press conference to shoot
>>> Oswald, but he couldn't get off a clean shot because there were too many
>>> reporters in the way. On that day he had bad luck. On Sunday he had good
>>> luck. And some help.
>>>
>>
>> You think Ruby killed Oswald as some sort of organized plot? Yes or no
>> please.
>>
>
>Yes, but not the same one which killed Kennedy.
>And Ruby had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
>

But Ruby insisted he was not part of any plot, either to kill Kennedy
or to kill Oswald.

You can say he's lying, of you want, but buffs lie about what he said.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/24/2011 7:00 PM, jas wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Marsh apparently thinks Western Union was in on it too. 1117am at
>>> Western Union to the Oswald shooting at 1121am was four minutes---and
>>> Oswald delayed his own transfer. If this isn't unscripted, you've got
>>> a much bigger conspiracy than the small little conspiracy you claim
>>> you believe.
>>
>> Ruby said that he went to the Friday night press conference to shoot
>> Oswald, but he couldn't get off a clean shot because there were too many
>> reporters in the way. On that day he had bad luck. On Sunday he had good
>> luck. And some help.
>>
>>
> And there were no reporters in the basement Sunday morning?
>
> If Ruby had been hired by the Mob (or some other nefarious force) to
> shut Oswald up, he would have done it Friday night when he was right
> there in the corridor.
>

Let me remind you again that Ruby said he tried on Friday, but there
were too many reporters in the way. Can you show me where Ruby was there
in the corridor on Friday? Friday was the press conference.

> Better yet, if Oswald was a hired assassin, he more than likely would
> have been conveniently "put away" shortly after the assassination,
> within minutes.
>

So your argument proves Oswald's innocence because it was a conspiracy
and you say Oswald could not have been part of a conspiracy. Why, thank
you kind sir.

> What conspiracy is going to allow him to be captured to sing like a
> bird?
>

You mean like Watergate?

> The whole premise of conspiracy falls apart.
>

Your straw man falls apart under its own weight.

[Anthony Marsh]

We quote him directly. You, not so much.
We also quote JFK directly. You, not so much.
We also quote Obama directly. You, not so much.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[pdoherty76]

On Nov 26, 3:45 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2011 20:25:11 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>

> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 11/24/2011 9:19 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> >> On Nov 24, 3:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >>> On 11/24/2011 9:06 AM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> >>> Ruby said that he went to the Friday night press conference to shoot
> >>> Oswald, but he couldn't get off a clean shot because there were too many
> >>> reporters in the way. On that day he had bad luck. On Sunday he had good
> >>> luck. And some help.
>
> >> You think Ruby killed Oswald as some sort of organized plot? Yes or no
> >> please.
>
> >Yes, but not the same one which killed Kennedy.
> >And Ruby had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
>
> But Ruby insisted he was not part of any plot, either to kill Kennedy
> or to kill Oswald.
>
> You can say he's lying, of you want, but buffs lie about what he said.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Why do you believe what Ruby said about this but in the next breath
say hes nuts and delusional?

[jas]

On Nov 25, 8:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> Let me remind you again that Ruby said he tried on Friday, but there
> were too many reporters in the way. Can you show me where Ruby was there
> in the corridor on Friday? Friday was the press conference.

Too many reporters in the way? Ha. What a crock.

So, using your logic (or lack thereof), when he reached the basement on
Sunday morning, he suddenly decided the onslaught of the media and
reporters there was okay to go ahead and shoot?

Give it up Marsh.

>
> > Better yet, if Oswald was a hired assassin, he more than likely would
> > have been conveniently "put away" shortly after the assassination,
> > within minutes.
>
> So your argument proves Oswald's innocence because it was a conspiracy
> and you say Oswald could not have been part of a conspiracy. Why, thank
> you kind sir.

What the hell are you blabbering about in this last paragraph?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/26/2011 4:47 PM, jas wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:54 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Let me remind you again that Ruby said he tried on Friday, but there
>> were too many reporters in the way. Can you show me where Ruby was there
>> in the corridor on Friday? Friday was the press conference.
>
> Too many reporters in the way? Ha. What a crock.
>
> So, using your logic (or lack thereof), when he reached the basement on
> Sunday morning, he suddenly decided the onslaught of the media and
> reporters there was okay to go ahead and shoot?
>

He jumped in front of all the reporters to shoot Oswald on Sunday. That
was his LAST CHANCE to complete his mission.

[jas]

On Nov 27, 9:09 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 4:47 PM, jas wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 8:54 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> >> Let me remind you again that Ruby said he tried on Friday, but there
> >> were too many reporters in the way. Can you show me where Ruby was there
> >> in the corridor on Friday? Friday was the press conference.
>
> > Too many reporters in the way? Ha. What a crock.
>
> > So, using your logic (or lack thereof), when he reached the basement on
> > Sunday morning, he suddenly decided the onslaught of the media and
> > reporters there was okay to go ahead and shoot?
>
> He jumped in front of all the reporters to shoot Oswald on Sunday. That
> was his LAST CHANCE to complete his mission.

Complete his mission? Oh please. Why thank you, Mr. Phelps. I suppose
since he was captured, the secretary disavowed any knowledge of his
actions.

You live in a spy novel world Marsh. I did too -- in 5th grade.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "He [Ruby] jumped in front of all the reporters to shoot Oswald on

Sunday. That was his LAST CHANCE to complete his mission." <<<

Why is that?

Didn't he know any Deputy Sheriffs at the County Jail? Surely he could
have also maneuvered his way into the County Jail, via his sandwich runs
and back-slapping and "free drink" offers, to plug Oswald sometime after
November 24.

But all of the talk about a pre-arranged "hit" on Oswald on Nov. 24 at
City Hall is totally destroyed (and always will be) when we examine the
details of HOW Ruby shot LHO.

After studying the details of the "Ruby Shoots LHO" scenario, there is
simply no way that a REASONABLE person can believe the murder was anything
but spontaneous and spur-of-the-moment on Sunday morning.

That's not to say that perhaps Ruby didn't think about plugging Oswald at
some earlier time--on Friday night or maybe Saturday too. But the way
things unfolded on SUNDAY just scream "happenstance"--not "conspiracy".

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-did-jack-ruby-enter-basement.html

[pdoherty76]

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-did-jack-ruby-enter-base...

Gee, you don't think Ruby and his handlers might have wanted you to
think it was happenstance? You know, make it look like a spur of the
moment thing to keep the heat off. Gullible people will fall for
stuff like that.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/27/2011 6:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "He [Ruby] jumped in front of all the reporters to shoot Oswald on
> Sunday. That was his LAST CHANCE to complete his mission."<<<
>
> Why is that?
>
> Didn't he know any Deputy Sheriffs at the County Jail? Surely he could
> have also maneuvered his way into the County Jail, via his sandwich runs
> and back-slapping and "free drink" offers, to plug Oswald sometime after
> November 24.
>

Sure Ruby was in the building several times but not in the hallway when
the were moving Oswald around. He didn't camp out waiting for them to move
Oswald.

He said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald on Sunday
morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the basment, his last
chance to get Oswald.

> But all of the talk about a pre-arranged "hit" on Oswald on Nov. 24 at
> City Hall is totally destroyed (and always will be) when we examine the
> details of HOW Ruby shot LHO.
>
> After studying the details of the "Ruby Shoots LHO" scenario, there is
> simply no way that a REASONABLE person can believe the murder was anything
> but spontaneous and spur-of-the-moment on Sunday morning.
>

There is no way that you can look at Ruby milling around waiting for
Oswald to come down minutes before the shooting and claim that it was just
luck that Ruby got there at the last second.

> That's not to say that perhaps Ruby didn't think about plugging Oswald at
> some earlier time--on Friday night or maybe Saturday too. But the way
> things unfolded on SUNDAY just scream "happenstance"--not "conspiracy".
>

He said that he planned to shoot Oswald Friday night. That is not a last
minute chance meeting.

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-did-jack-ruby-enter-basement.html
>

[jas]

On Nov 27, 7:34 pm, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>

> > >>> "He [Ruby] jumped in front of all the reporters to shoot Oswald ..

>
> Gee, you don't think Ruby and his handlers might have wanted you to
> think it was happenstance?  You know, make it look like a spur of the
> moment thing to keep the heat off.  Gullible people will fall for
> stuff like that.

Looks like pdoherty76 has knighted himself another of the selected few
of the enlightened conspiracists who possess the omnipotent ability to
know for a fact there was a conspiracy.

Sure, you guys always have the answers. You just don't have the
evidence to prove it.

Ruby and his handlers? What handlers? His strippers?

.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Gee, you don't think Ruby and his handlers might have wanted you to
think it was happenstance? You know, make it look like a spur of the
moment thing to keep the heat off. Gullible people will fall for stuff
like that." <<<

Which means, of course, that 20-year-old stripper Karen Carlin was one of
the KEY plotters, since it was her phone call that put Ruby in a position
to make it "look" like the shooting of Oswald was happenstance.

And I imagine the Western Union employees were probably part of the plot
too. And maybe even there were some plotters who were controlling the
traffic signals that Ruby had to encounter between his apartment and
downtown Dallas. If the lights had stayed red for just a few seconds
longer (each), or if Ruby had driven downtown just a tad slower, or if
Ruby hadn't made that illegal turn that he said he made to park in front
of Western Union (which evidently trimmed a few seconds off the time
needed to get into the WU office) -- then Jack would have missed Oswald
altogether.

IOW -- Even when it's obvious that something was HAPPENSTANCE instead of
CONSPIRACY, the conspiracy theorists will still bitch and moan, and come
up with a "PRE-ARRANGED TO LOOK LIKE HAPPENSTANCE" plot (involving
20-year-old strippers, and having Ruby take a shower before he leaves to
shoot Oswald, and making sure to place Sheba in the car, etc.).

Beautiful.

Impossible. But beautiful.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "He [Ruby] said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald
on Sunday morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the bas[e]ment,

his last chance to get Oswald." <<<

Then why wasn't Ruby in the basement at 10 AM?

You surely aren't going to suggest that Ruby WAS in the basement at 10:00,
are you?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Ruby was in the building several times but not in the hallway when
the were moving Oswald around. He didn't camp out waiting for them to move
Oswald." <<<

I said COUNTY JAIL, not CITY HALL (DPD).

Get better reading glasses.

[OT -- Robert Morrow needs some better glasses too. Did you see the goofy
error he made on Edu. Forum yesterday? It was quite humorous. Just wanted
to throw that in for a bonus.] :)


>>> "He [Ruby] said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald

on Sunday morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the basment,
his last chance to get Oswald." <<<

I'll ask again -- Why did Sunday morning in the basement necessarily
represent Ruby's "last chance" to plug Oswald?

Given Ruby's "I Know Everybody In Town" status, why couldn't he have
gained easy access into Sheriff Decker's County Jail building in order to
complete his nefarious "mission" on poor Patsy Lee? (Especially in light
of the fact that so many conspiracy theorists believe that virtually ALL
of Dallas law enforcement was "in" on some kind of plot. Surely, Decker's
boys would have more than happy to put out the "Come In & Shoot Oswald"
welcome mat for ol' Jack.)

>>> "There is no way that you can look at Ruby milling around waiting for
Oswald to come down minutes before the shooting and claim that it was just
luck that Ruby got there at the last second." <<<

You're making stuff up out of thin air. Ruby wasn't "milling around"
waiting for Oswald on Sunday morning in the basement. There's ample proof
that he could not possibly have arrived in that basement until (at most)
one minute prior to Oswald coming out.

"Milling around" indeed. Where the heck are you getting that from?

[bigdog]

On Nov 27, 11:27 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "There is no way that you can look at Ruby milling around waiting for
>
> Oswald to come down minutes before the shooting and claim that it was just
> luck that Ruby got there at the last second." <<<
>
> You're making stuff up out of thin air. Ruby wasn't "milling around"
> waiting for Oswald on Sunday morning in the basement. There's ample proof
> that he could not possibly have arrived in that basement until (at most)
> one minute prior to Oswald coming out.
>
> "Milling around" indeed. Where the heck are you getting that from?

His handler told him to say that.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Nov 27, 11:27 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

>

> You're making stuff up out of thin air. Ruby wasn't "milling around"
> waiting for Oswald on Sunday morning in the basement. There's ample proof
> that he could not possibly have arrived in that basement until (at most)
> one minute prior to Oswald coming out.
>
> "Milling around" indeed. Where the heck are you getting that from?

One person can't "mill around" anyway! It's an idiom applicable only
to large numbers of people.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/mill-around
/sm

[bigdog]

> stuff like that.- Hide quoted text -
>

Oh, here we go again with the handler nonsense. This is a concept the CTs
have invented to explain why patsy Oswald did so many things that a guilty
man would have done and why Ruby did so many illogical things. Their
handlers made them do it. Give me a break.

[pdoherty76]

Now that isn't what I said, I was only asking if you had considered
the possibility.

It could be that Ruby's arrival was the signal to move Oswald. Notice
I said COULD. The point is that you do not have sufficient evidence
to say for certain that this was happenstance.

[pdoherty76]

The handlers statement was hypothetical and somewhat tongue in
cheek. I was hoping the intelligent among you would notice.

[jas]

Yes, and according to CTs Ruby was doing this "milling around" in that
vast span of time between 11:17 and 11:22 too -- what, all of 5 minutes?
Hell, with all that time on his hands he could have stopped off to do a
little early Christmas shopping before ducking into the basement.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/27/2011 11:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Ruby was in the building several times but not in the hallway when
> the were moving Oswald around. He didn't camp out waiting for them to move
> Oswald."<<<
>
> I said COUNTY JAIL, not CITY HALL (DPD).
>
> Get better reading glasses.
>
> [OT -- Robert Morrow needs some better glasses too. Did you see the goofy
> error he made on Edu. Forum yesterday? It was quite humorous. Just wanted
> to throw that in for a bonus.] :)
>
>
>>>> "He [Ruby] said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald
> on Sunday morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the basment,
> his last chance to get Oswald."<<<
>
> I'll ask again -- Why did Sunday morning in the basement necessarily
> represent Ruby's "last chance" to plug Oswald?
>
> Given Ruby's "I Know Everybody In Town" status, why couldn't he have
> gained easy access into Sheriff Decker's County Jail building in order to
> complete his nefarious "mission" on poor Patsy Lee? (Especially in light
> of the fact that so many conspiracy theorists believe that virtually ALL
> of Dallas law enforcement was "in" on some kind of plot. Surely, Decker's

> boys would have more than happy to put out the "Come In& Shoot Oswald"

> welcome mat for ol' Jack.)
>

No one has said that Jack Ruby was chummy with the Sheriffs Department the
way he was with Dallas cops. If you know of a link, please tell us.
Otherwise you are just inventing straw man arguments again.

>
>>>> "There is no way that you can look at Ruby milling around waiting for
> Oswald to come down minutes before the shooting and claim that it was just
> luck that Ruby got there at the last second."<<<
>
> You're making stuff up out of thin air. Ruby wasn't "milling around"
> waiting for Oswald on Sunday morning in the basement. There's ample proof
> that he could not possibly have arrived in that basement until (at most)
> one minute prior to Oswald coming out.
>

The video shows Ruby waiting with the other reporters a couple of minutes
before Oswald comes down. Not arrive at the last possible second. Your
timing arguments are based on false assumptions. The Time stamp on the
telegram does not indicate that Ruby was still standing there watching it
get sent.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one said that Ruby had to be in the basement at exactly 10:00:00 AM.
Just one or two minutes before Oswald came down is sufficient. Was
Hinckley waiting outside the Hotel at 6 AM and not attracting SS attention
by doing so?

[pdoherty76]

Do handlers not exist?

[Anthony Marsh]

His lawyer maybe?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/27/2011 11:21 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Gee, you don't think Ruby and his handlers might have wanted you to
> think it was happenstance? You know, make it look like a spur of the
> moment thing to keep the heat off. Gullible people will fall for stuff
> like that."<<<
>
> Which means, of course, that 20-year-old stripper Karen Carlin was one of
> the KEY plotters, since it was her phone call that put Ruby in a position
> to make it "look" like the shooting of Oswald was happenstance.
>

Tell us the EXACT time that she called and prove it with the phone
records.

> And I imagine the Western Union employees were probably part of the plot
> too. And maybe even there were some plotters who were controlling the
> traffic signals that Ruby had to encounter between his apartment and
> downtown Dallas. If the lights had stayed red for just a few seconds
> longer (each), or if Ruby had driven downtown just a tad slower, or if
> Ruby hadn't made that illegal turn that he said he made to park in front
> of Western Union (which evidently trimmed a few seconds off the time
> needed to get into the WU office) -- then Jack would have missed Oswald
> altogether.
>

Traffic signals? What you been smoking? Ruby got to the Western Union in
plenty of time. Then he WALKED across the street. Are you claiming that
Ruby would never Jay Walk because he was such a law abiding citizen?

> IOW -- Even when it's obvious that something was HAPPENSTANCE instead of
> CONSPIRACY, the conspiracy theorists will still bitch and moan, and come
> up with a "PRE-ARRANGED TO LOOK LIKE HAPPENSTANCE" plot (involving
> 20-year-old strippers, and having Ruby take a shower before he leaves to
> shoot Oswald, and making sure to place Sheba in the car, etc.).
>

So according to you assassins never take a shower before they go out to
assassinate their victim?

Why do you give Oswald only 2 minutes to get up to the sixth floor,
assemble the sniper's nest, reassemble the rifle and get ready to fire?
Isn't that cutting it kinda close?

> Beautiful.
>
> Impossible. But beautiful.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Like the excuse that one lawyer told him to make up that he didn't think
of killing Oswald until he saw the smirk on his face. Ignoring the fact
that he admitted that he went to the Friday night press conference to kill
Oswald, and that he made elaborate plans for his dog to be taken care of
when he parked his car and left his keys behind.

The official story is that Ruby took Sheba with him in his white 1960
Oldsmobile that morning, parking the car in the All State Parking lot at
2035 Main Street, directly across from the Western Union office. He put
his keys in the trunk of the car, then locked the trunk, which contained
almost $900 in cash, and placed the trunk key and his billfold in the
glove compartment. (The report erroneously states that he put the billfold
in the trunk.) "He did not lock the car doors." 12 Naturally Ruby would
not want to leave Sheba locked up in the car if he knew he wasn't
returning. One should never leave a pet locked up in a car, of course, due
to the heat factor. 15 But it was cool that late November morning, with
Oswald given a sweater to wear for his transfer. 16 So perhaps Ruby felt
confident that Sheba would be safe in the car for a reasonably short time.
(It would be over two hours, the car being impounded at 1:30 p.m.) So Ruby
left the doors unlocked, to be certain, once his mission was quickly
accomplished, that someone from DPD, or some Good Samaritan, could easily
rescue Sheba. And that person would know, by the IDs in the conveniently
left billfold, to whom the dog belonged.

Sure enough, according to the record, DPD sent Lt. Vernon S. Smart, a
detective in the Auto Theft Division, to search Ruby's car, get the money
out of it, impound the car, and send the dog in the car to an animal
shelter. Sheba reportedly wound up in the care of Ruby employee Andrew
Armstrong, Jr. 17

[jas]

On Nov 28, 4:20 pm, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:21 am, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 7:34 pm, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com>
>

> > Ruby and his handlers?  What handlers? His strippers?
>
> > .
>
> The handlers statement was hypothetical and somewhat tongue in
> cheek.   I was hoping the intelligent among you would notice.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. In a crowd of conspiracists,
ridiculous statements are a dime a dozen. It can be difficult to decipher
seriousness from hypotheticals and/or kidding, and frankly, it's not the
job of the reader to figure it out.

IOW when there are conspiracists out there who can actually believe Greer
turned around and shot JFK, and stand firm by their convictions, anything
is fair game.

[pdoherty76]

What is a conspiracist?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Traffic signals? What you been smoking? Ruby got to the Western Union in plenty of time. Then he WALKED across the street. Are you claiming that Ruby would never Jay Walk because he was such a law abiding citizen?" <<<

Oh, good God. ~sigh~

I wasn't talking about traffic lights when Ruby was walking the half-
block from WU to DPD.

I was talking about the various traffic lights Ruby undoubtedly
encountered on his DRIVE (in his CAR) from his apt. to downtown, which
I CLEARLY indicated in the post of mine that you just mangled.

~sigh~

~eyeroll~

[jas]

And who, or what, alerted Ruby that Oswald was going to be an hour and
20 minutes late from the announced time of his transfer?

Name the person, or situation, with credible citations.

No. Of course you can't. So stop demandng proof from other posters
until you can put your own money where your mouth is.

[bigdog]

Not the kind of handlers you guys talk about who can make people act
in ways they wouldn't otherwise do. The idea that a handler could get
Oswald robotically follow their commands without giving it a thought
is absurd. Same for Ruby. This concept of a handler is just a device
the CTs came up with to get around the fact that Oswald acted
precisely like a guilty man would act and they don't want to accept
that he was guilty.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said 11:17 to 11:22? Quote please. All I have said is a COUPLE of
minutes.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/29/2011 10:07 AM, jas wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:20 pm, pdoherty76<pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 4:21 am, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 7:34 pm, pdoherty76<pdohert...@googlemail.com>
>>
>>> Ruby and his handlers? What handlers? His strippers?
>>
>>> .
>>
>> The handlers statement was hypothetical and somewhat tongue in
>> cheek. I was hoping the intelligent among you would notice.
>
> Intelligence has nothing to do with it. In a crowd of conspiracists,
> ridiculous statements are a dime a dozen. It can be difficult to decipher
> seriousness from hypotheticals and/or kidding, and frankly, it's not the
> job of the reader to figure it out.
>

Same with the WC defemders.

> IOW when there are conspiracists out there who can actually believe Greer
> turned around and shot JFK, and stand firm by their convictions, anything
> is fair game.
>

OTOH when there are WC defenders out there who can actually believe that
a Secret Service agent shot JFK in the head, and stand firm by their

[Sandy McCroskey]

I was going to ask you, but Googled instead.
Everything after the first paragraph is from
http://hobrad.angelfire.com/rubysdog.html


/sm

[bigdog]

We get so many legitimately goofy statements from the CT side, it's hard
to distinguish them from the tongue-in-cheek ones.

[Anthony Marsh]

Recently Sirhan Sirhan has claimed that he was hypnotized into shooting
at RFK. In the 50's and 60's the CIA had a program trying to develop a
programmed assassin.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/29/2011 3:05 PM, jas wrote:
> On Nov 28, 7:33 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2011 11:23 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "He [Ruby] said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald
>>> on Sunday morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the bas[e]ment,
>>> his last chance to get Oswald."<<<
>>
>>> Then why wasn't Ruby in the basement at 10 AM?
>>
>>> You surely aren't going to suggest that Ruby WAS in the basement at 10:00,
>>> are you?
>>
>> No one said that Ruby had to be in the basement at exactly 10:00:00 AM.
>> Just one or two minutes before Oswald came down is sufficient. Was
>> Hinckley waiting outside the Hotel at 6 AM and not attracting SS attention
>> by doing so?
>
> And who, or what, alerted Ruby that Oswald was going to be an hour and
> 20 minutes late from the announced time of his transfer?
>

Don't know. Can you prove that the police announced that Oswald would be
transferred at exactly 9:00 AM? Ruby said he heard it on the radio that
Oswald would be moved at 10:00AM.

Supposedly Ruby got a phone call at 10:15 and was in the Western Union
office at 10:17.

[Anthony Marsh]

According to what Ruby said and what the record indicate Ruby got a call
at 10:15 and by 10:17 had sent a telegram.

> ~sigh~
>
> ~eyeroll~
>

[Anthony Marsh]

See how easy it is?

I only quoted the relevant parts about how Ruby left the key in the car. I
think the author did go a little overboard with some of his speculation.
But he also mentioned one other possibility which no WC defender wants to
admit.

His roommate George Senator testified that when Ruby left the apartment
that morning, he said, "George, I am taking the dog down to the club." 18
But how trustworthy a witness was Senator? He testified that he couldn't
remember a meeting that he had that night in the apartment with attorney
Tom Howard and two reporters. Howard and the two reporters were all three
dead by 1965. So if certain people were told to tell a dog story about
Ruby, Senator may have been the easiest to intimidate. He also said that
Ruby was at the apartment until about 10:30 a.m. But John Allison Smith, a
video operator for WBAP-TV in Dallas, told the FBI and Warren Commission
that he saw Ruby standing on the sidewalk on the Commerce Street side of
DPD about 8:00 a.m. that morning, and again about 10:00 a.m. Smith said
that Ruby came over to the truck at one point and asked, "Have they
brought Oswald down yet?" 19

[pdoherty76]

Eh? When did I mention robotically? I meant handlers in the commonly
known sense of people who handle people in the intelligence agencies.
Why have you added this robotically follow commands strawman? I am
not suggesting Ruby and Oswald were mind controlled. I am suggesting
they could have had handlers.

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's easy to find that, because it really exists. I simply put the first
several words inside quotemarks.
To find some things that you claim to have provided yourself, right on
this newsgroup... impossible.
/sm

[David Von Pein]

>>> "According to what Ruby said and what the record indicate Ruby got a
call at 10:15 and by 10:17 had sent a telegram." <<<

He wired the money from WU at 11:17. Not 10:17.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Explain in more detail about these handlers. I'm fascinated. Research the
subject, interview real CIA agents, Tony Marsh (his dad did some sort of
intelligence work, you know, and Marsh was once visited by the FBI) and
get back to us in a few years when you've got the subject well covered,
sourced and verified.

In fact, I'm granting you a two year hiatus from this discussion board to
finish looking into this "handler" thing.

Can't wait to see what you come up with.

[jas]

You're an hour early on the telegram.

[Sandy McCroskey]

A two-minute (!) interval between the two events was impossible anyway.
/sm

[jas]

On Nov 29, 4:18 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 3:05 PM, jas wrote:
>

>
> > On Nov 28, 7:33 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
>

> Don't know. Can you prove that the police announced that Oswald would be
> transferred at exactly 9:00 AM? Ruby said he heard it on the radio that
> Oswald would be moved at 10:00AM.

Yes, the announced time was 10 am. But we know Oswald was interrogated
a little more, which postponed the transfer unti 11:20.

The public, nor Ruby, had any knowledge of this delay and because the
telegram was stamped 11:17, and Oswald was shot at about 11:22, that
leaves about 5 minutes.

>
> Supposedly Ruby got a phone call at 10:15 and was in the Western Union
> office at 10:17.

You're an hour early on the telegram-sending.

[bigdog]

> they could have had handlers.- Hide quoted text -
>
So you think Oswald knew he was being framed and went along with it
anyway? That seems to be the alternative. Either Oswald did what he
did without wondering why he was doing it (i.e. robotically) or he
knew why he was doing it and did it anyway. Maybe the conversation
went something like this on 11/21/63:

Handler: OK, Lee, we have an important job for you. Tonight, instead
of going home to your rooming house, go back to Irving to visit Marina
and the kids. When you come back into work on Friday, bring this paper
bag in with you. Put anything you want in it. If somebody asks you
what's in it, just tell them it's curtain rods. Don't forget to bring
the bag into the TSBD. It will really screw things up if you forget to
do that. Don't worry about doing any of your assigned tasks in the
morning. We've got more important things in mind for you. Sometime
after noon, after you think everyone has left the 6th floor, rip the
bag open and leave it near the southeast corner of the building. Just
shit can whatever you had put in it. Around 12;15, make yourself
invisible. Why don't you duck into the shitter and close the door. Use
the last stall. After 12:30, you can leave the shitter. Head on down
to the lunchroom and grab a Coke. After someone sees you there, leave
the building immediately. Go back to your rooming house and grab your
pistol and meet us at the Texas Theater to wait further instructions.
If you get stopped by some pain in the ass cop on your way there, just
blow his brains out.

Oswald (the robot): Uh, OK, I guess.

So tell us how the non-robotic Oswald might respond to such
instructions.

[pdoherty76]

So, you agree that they could have had CIA handlers?

[pdoherty76]

Stop building strawmen.

BTW, when did I suggest Oswald was innocent?

[Anthony Marsh]

You have an overactive imagination. Instead of making up silly straw man
arguments maybe you should get out some books on the spy agencies and see
how they really work. In one operation the CIA officer recruited an
embassy employee and asked him to go to a certain place and mark an X on a
mailbox. That's it. The employee did not know what it was supposed to mean
or anything about the operation.

In my father's case the CIA asked him to be at a certain place at a
certain time and he had no idea why. He was being used as a decoy because
the opposition would recognized him and follow him instead of the real
target.

The CIA has a whole category for "unwitting collaborator." That means that
the person is actually participating in an Agency operation without
knowing it. He just thinks he is doing a favor for a friend.

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks for spotting that.

[jas]

No, can't put out straw man arguments to a conspiracy-monger, no way.
They can't play along because it would make too much sense for them to
swallow.

But yet, they can fabricate whatever scenario they want out of whole
cloth, and are offended when an LN doesn't agree.

>
> BTW, when did I suggest Oswald was innocent?

When you defended the 'other people in the 6 th floor windows"
scenario.

But, bottom line, the only reason you conspiracists -- at least the
ones that don't want to look too ridiculous -- have to keep Oswald in
the mix is because you just can't get rid of that nasty mountain of
evidence against him.

[pdoherty76]

Eh??? I suggested oswald had an accomplice in the snipers nest. I
have never suggested oswald is innocent. That is another strawman you
built.

[jas]

On Dec 1, 10:17 am, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Eh???  I suggested oswald had an accomplice in the snipers nest.  I
> have never suggested oswald is innocent.  That is another strawman you
> built.

Well then, if Oswald is not innocent, and given the evidence, what in
hell are you arguing about?

[pdoherty76]

Are you being deliberately dense?

[jas]

You suggested Oswald had an accomplice in the sniper's nest.

Prove it.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Nov 30, 2:47 pm, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> So, you agree that they could have had CIA handlers?

No.

[pdoherty76]

What exactly rules out this possibility?

[pdoherty76]

There are 2 witnesses who saw an accomplice and there was a fingerprint of
one of LBJ's henchmen in the sniipers nest. What more can I give you?
CCTV?

[bigdog]

OK, if Oswald was a willing accomplice, why did he need a handler? The
handler angle was dreamed up by the CTs to explain why an innocent Oswald
did so many things that a guilty man would have done. His handler made him
do it. If Oswald was a willing participant, the handler is irrelevant.

[jas]

On Dec 1, 8:19 pm, pdoherty76 <pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Time to stop feeding the troll.

[jas]

[Anthony Marsh]

I guess it depends on which theory is being promoted.
Someone could mean two different people not including Oswald. Or someone
else could mean two TSBD employees before Oswald. Or someone could mean
Oswald and Givens.

[HistorianDetective]

The names of the two witnesses that you are referring to for
starters.

JM/HD

[Anthony Marsh]

The Mac Wallace thing is old news and it is NOT TRUE. Time to throw away
the old myths.

[pdoherty76]

On Dec 3, 5:19 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Are you saying they don't exist? One of them was suggested by
McAdams. You would know that if you had bothered to read the OP.

I am going to tell you what your fellow Lone Nut, Jas, told me; go
watch evidence of revision and listen to the McAdams interviews, I am
not going to do your work for you.

[pdoherty76]

How do we know it isn't true?