Common-Sense Inferences
David Von Pein
"Vincent Bugliosi's comments about Oswald and Cuba make perfect
sense. Vince was merely interjecting some basic, garden-variety COMMON
SENSE
there. Because if Oswald had, indeed, travelled to Cuba in late
September 1963 (AND HAD STAYED THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME), then he
obviously wouldn't have been able to kill President Kennedy in Dallas
in November. ....
"That's just a simple fact that any grade-school student could
easily figure out. But it's also the kind of logical forehead-slapping
fact that is often completely overlooked by the majority of people who
study the JFK assassination. People simply don't stop to think about
such obvious (but very important) details like that. And that is just
one example of the many common-sense and plain-as-day inferences that
Vincent Bugliosi has sprinkled throughout his book, "Reclaiming
History"." -- DVP; 2/27/2010
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fefdf90d1ca11a99
The quote shown above is something I said in the above-linked article,
and it serves as a nice segue to this post, wherein I'm going to quote
Vincent Bugliosi one more time (yes, I'm quoting him again, like it or
not).
In the 15th chapter of Bugliosi's JFK book (a 19-page chapter entitled
"Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"), Vince lists his "53 pieces of evidence"
that point toward Lee Oswald's guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit
murders.
And #19 on that list is something that I think qualifies as another
one of Vincent's "common-sense inferences" that I referred to above,
similar in nature to the Oswald/Cuba inference mentioned earlier.
And I'd bet the ranch that very few people have ever thought about
Oswald's taxicab ride in this kind of incriminating way before. I sure
hadn't thought about it in this fashion before reading pages 959 and
960 of "Reclaiming History":
"When Oswald got in the cab shortly after getting off the bus
for the trip to Oak Cliff, and the cab drove off, the cabdriver
[William Whaley], seeing all the police cars crisscrossing everywhere
with their sirens screaming, said to Oswald, "I wonder what the hell
is the uproar?" The cabdriver said Oswald "never said anything."
"Granted, there are people who are very stingy with their words,
and this nonresponse by Oswald, by itself, is not conclusive of his
guilt. But ask yourself this: If a thousand people were put in
Oswald's place in the cab, particularly if they, like Oswald, were at
the scene of the assassination in Dealey Plaza and knew what had
happened, how many do you suppose wouldn't have said one single word
in response to the cabby's question?" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages
959-960 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
------------
Food for thought, isn't it?
Also -- We can be 100% certain that Mr. Bugliosi is correct when he
said that Oswald "knew what had happened" at the time Oswald got into
Whaley's cab on November 22nd, and even most conspiracy theorists
would have a difficult time in trying to debunk that fact.
Some conspiracists might disagree, however, and argue that the
opposite is true, with Oswald not having any idea that the President
had just been shot right in front of the building that LHO had just
fled from.
But such an argument would totally ignore the testimony of Mrs. Robert
Reid, who said that she actually spoke to Lee Oswald on the second
floor of the Book Depository within a few minutes of the shooting,
with Reid saying to Oswald, "Oh, the President has been shot, but
maybe they didn't hit him" [3 H 274].
3H274:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0141b.htm
Those words spoken by Mrs. Reid to Oswald actually don't make a whole
lot of sense in their aggregate, because how could the President have
been "shot" and still possibly NOT have been "hit" at the same time?
Mrs. Reid, who was undoubtedly a bit excited at that moment, probably
meant to say: "The President has been shot AT, but maybe they didn't
hit him" or "The President has been shot, but maybe they didn't KILL
him".
Some conspiracy promoters also probably would say that Reid's use of
the word "they" in that sentence means beyond all doubt that Reid knew
there was more than one gunman firing shots at the President.
But that argument isn't a strong one at all, because the word "they"
is used as a generic term by many people (I'd wager to say MOST
people, in fact), such as when somebody says "They say it's going to
rain today"....or when Jackie Kennedy said "What are they doing to
you?" to her husband during the assassination itself....or when Jackie
later refused to change her blood-stained clothes and said "I want
them to see what they've done".
And we know that Jackie could not possibly have known for a fact that
the word "they" was literally true on those two occasions,
particularly at the exact time when the shooting was taking place on
Elm Street.
But, regardless of the specific words used by Mrs. Reid when she spoke
to Oswald just after the assassination, the net effect would certainly
still be very clear, and that is -- Oswald knew about the
assassination attempt against President Kennedy before he ever left
the Depository Building (even if some conspiracy theorists wish to
believe Oswald was totally innocent of firing any shots at JFK).
As an additional footnote (and an extension) to what Vince Bugliosi
said regarding William Whaley in the above book excerpt, I'd like to
offer up Whaley's nearly-identical comments that he made in David L.
Wolper's 1964 documentary film "Four Days In November", which is a
United Artists feature motion picture that includes Whaley re-enacting
Oswald's 11/22/63 cab ride to Oak Cliff. During the re-creation,
Whaley said this:
"This young man [Oswald] told me that he wanted to go to the 500
block of North Beckley. And when he got in [the cab], police sirens
was runnin' and crisscrossin' each other, and policemen on tricycles
was runnin' down, and so I thought it was a fire or a holdup or
somethin', I asked him, I said 'I wonder what the hell all this
uproar's about?' And he didn't answer me. So, I figured he was one of
these people, which we have lots of, that don't like to talk, they got
other things on their mind. And so I just carried him on to where he
wanted to go." -- William W. Whaley; 1964 [Viewable in Part 5 of the
video series linked below]
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/four-days-in-november.html
http://Four-Days-In-November.blogspot.com
yeuhd
> But such an argument would totally ignore the testimony of Mrs. Robert
> Reid, who said that she actually spoke to Lee Oswald on the second
> floor of the Book Depository within a few minutes of the shooting,
> with Reid saying to Oswald, "Oh, the President has been shot, but
> maybe they didn't hit him" [3 H 274].
Another good post, David.
Some trivia. Nowhere in the WCR or the hearings and exhibits is the
first name of Mrs. Reid given. Even she refers to herself as Mrs.
Robert A. Reid at the beginning of her testimony, and signs her FBI
affidavit Mrs. R. A. Reid.
For the record, she is Jeraldean Reid, born in Cedar Hill, Texas on 24
August 1912, died in Dallas on 21 April 1973.
(Note: The WC reporter transcribed "Cedar Hill" as "Cereal"!)
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
>
> "Vincent Bugliosi's comments about Oswald and Cuba make perfect
>sense. Vince was merely interjecting some basic, garden-variety COMMON
>SENSE
>there. Because if Oswald had, indeed, travelled to Cuba in late
>September 1963 (AND HAD STAYED THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME), then he
>obviously wouldn't have been able to kill President Kennedy in Dallas
>in November. ....
That is correct. Castro was his target then. He almost broke into tears
when his request for a 4 day visa to Cuba was declined.
David, do you REALLY not see the significance of the fact that the CIA was
obsessed with trying to assassinate the bearded dictator at the same time
that Oswald was begging for a visa to get into Cuba?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> "Vincent Bugliosi's comments about Oswald and Cuba make perfect
> sense. Vince was merely interjecting some basic, garden-variety COMMON
> SENSE
> there. Because if Oswald had, indeed, travelled to Cuba in late
> September 1963 (AND HAD STAYED THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME), then he
> obviously wouldn't have been able to kill President Kennedy in Dallas
> in November. ....
>
That is not common sense. It is stupid. If Oswald was being groomed to
kill Kennedy the Cubans would have obviously sent him back in time to do
the deed.
But in fact very little time is missing from Oswald's known activities to
take any trip to Cuba. It was just an attempt to pin the assassination on
Castro to start WWIII.
> "That's just a simple fact that any grade-school student could
> easily figure out. But it's also the kind of logical forehead-slapping
> fact that is often completely overlooked by the majority of people who
> study the JFK assassination. People simply don't stop to think about
> such obvious (but very important) details like that. And that is just
> one example of the many common-sense and plain-as-day inferences that
> Vincent Bugliosi has sprinkled throughout his book, "Reclaiming
> History"." -- DVP; 2/27/2010
>
It's the kind of stupidity typical of Bugliosi.
More stupidity.
> ------------
>
> Food for thought, isn't it?
>
> Also -- We can be 100% certain that Mr. Bugliosi is correct when he
> said that Oswald "knew what had happened" at the time Oswald got into
> Whaley's cab on November 22nd, and even most conspiracy theorists
> would have a difficult time in trying to debunk that fact.
>
> Some conspiracists might disagree, however, and argue that the
> opposite is true, with Oswald not having any idea that the President
> had just been shot right in front of the building that LHO had just
> fled from.
>
> But such an argument would totally ignore the testimony of Mrs. Robert
> Reid, who said that she actually spoke to Lee Oswald on the second
> floor of the Book Depository within a few minutes of the shooting,
> with Reid saying to Oswald, "Oh, the President has been shot, but
> maybe they didn't hit him" [3 H 274].
>
Maybe Oswald suspected by then that they were framing him for the
assassination.
> 3H274:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0141b.htm
>
> Those words spoken by Mrs. Reid to Oswald actually don't make a whole
> lot of sense in their aggregate, because how could the President have
> been "shot" and still possibly NOT have been "hit" at the same time?
>
> Mrs. Reid, who was undoubtedly a bit excited at that moment, probably
> meant to say: "The President has been shot AT, but maybe they didn't
> hit him" or "The President has been shot, but maybe they didn't KILL
> him".
>
> Some conspiracy promoters also probably would say that Reid's use of
> the word "they" in that sentence means beyond all doubt that Reid knew
> there was more than one gunman firing shots at the President.
>
Silly. Just like Jackie's comment about letting THEM see what THEY have
done. Proof of nothing.
> But that argument isn't a strong one at all, because the word "they"
> is used as a generic term by many people (I'd wager to say MOST
> people, in fact), such as when somebody says "They say it's going to
> rain today"....or when Jackie Kennedy said "What are they doing to
> you?" to her husband during the assassination itself....or when Jackie
> later refused to change her blood-stained clothes and said "I want
> them to see what they've done".
>
> And we know that Jackie could not possibly have known for a fact that
> the word "they" was literally true on those two occasions,
> particularly at the exact time when the shooting was taking place on
> Elm Street.
Jackie could have known by the fact that bullets came from more than one
direction. Except for some morons here most people can figure out that
more than one rifle means conspiracy.
>
> But, regardless of the specific words used by Mrs. Reid when she spoke
> to Oswald just after the assassination, the net effect would certainly
> still be very clear, and that is -- Oswald knew about the
> assassination attempt against President Kennedy before he ever left
> the Depository Building (even if some conspiracy theorists wish to
> believe Oswald was totally innocent of firing any shots at JFK).
>
And he may also have known that he was being framed.
David Von Pein
>>> "David, do you REALLY not see the significance of the fact that the
CIA was obsessed with trying to assassinate the bearded dictator at the
same time that Oswald was begging for a visa to get into Cuba?" <<<
No. Certainly not. There's absolutely no connection there at all. In fact,
those two things go together like oil and water. They are total OPPOSITES.
You REALLY think Oswald, who adored Fidel, wanted to KILL him? Good Lord.
You belong in Camp Judyth, it seems.
David Von Pein
>>> "Except for some morons here most people can figure out that more than
one rifle means conspiracy." <<<
It looks like Marsh has free reign on every post now. No moderation
whatsoever.
This makes at least three highly-insulting posts that Marsh has managed to
slip past McAdams/Fokes.
Marsh seems to run (and ruin) this forum daily.
He's awfully funny though. So I don't really mind.
David Von Pein
>>> "That is not common sense. It is stupid. If Oswald was being groomed to kill Kennedy[,] the Cubans would have obviously sent him back in time to do the deed." <<<
It's only stupid if you want to pretend that Oswald's strings were
being pulled by Cuban "conspirators". Otherwise, it's something called
"common sense".
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Except for some morons here most people can figure out that more than
> one rifle means conspiracy."<<<
>
> It looks like Marsh has free reign on every post now. No moderation
> whatsoever.
>
What are you babbling about now? You insult conspiracy believers every
day. You call them kooks, idiots and liars. I did not name which people
here are the morons.
> This makes at least three highly-insulting posts that Marsh has managed to
> slip past McAdams/Fokes.
>
Slip past? Maybe because I've been posting here for more than four times
the number of you years that you have and had hundreds of my messages
deleted and rejected. It has taken a lot of trial and error to find the
correct wording to slip past the censors.
Anthony Marsh
I was replying to YOUR hypothetical trip to Cuba.