HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » 32 Reasons and Arguments ...

Mon Apr 1, 2013, 12:52 AM

32 Reasons and Arguments There Was No Conspiracy Behind Oswald Killing Kennedy

Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History can be divided into three parts. The first, "Four Days In November," named after the 1964 documentary film, recounts the timeline of events as can best be determined by all the sources Bugliosi had available to him.

The second part concerned the evidence that Oswald was the person who killed John F. Kennedy. After extensive treatments of various issues, he sums up that evidence with 53 pieces of evidence that together show Oswald's guilt and culpability for killing JFK. He owned and was the sole possessor of both weapons involved in his crimes, the JFK assassination and the murder of Officer Tippit. His actions before and after show his planning and his flight from the JFK assassination. The physical evidence ties him and only him to the crimes. Witnesses saw him in the commission of both crimes. And his lies during interrogation sealed the picture of his guilt.

The third part concerns the various allegations that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Again, after going through many issues on the subject, Bugliosi wraps up this final part with a summation of the reasons and arguments showing that Oswald acted alone. Those 32 reasons are what I shall summarize in this thread, each reason getting its own subthread.

80 replies, 28683 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply 32 Reasons and Arguments There Was No Conspiracy Behind Oswald Killing Kennedy (Original post)
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 OP
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #1
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #2
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #3
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #4
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #5
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #6
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #7
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #8
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #9
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #10
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #11
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #12
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #13
treestar Dec 2013 #71
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #14
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #15
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #16
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #17
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #18
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #19
zappaman Apr 2013 #20
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #22
cpwm17 Apr 2013 #21
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #23
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #24
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #25
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #26
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #27
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #28
Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #29
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #30
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #31
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #32
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #33
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #34
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #35
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #36
NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #37
zappaman May 2013 #38
NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #39
NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #40
Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #41
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #43
Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #45
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #47
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #42
NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #44
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #46
NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #48
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #49
ocpagu May 2013 #51
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #58
treestar Dec 2013 #72
ocpagu May 2013 #50
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #53
Trajan May 2013 #52
Bolo Boffin May 2013 #54
cpwm17 Nov 2013 #55
MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #56
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #57
MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #59
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #60
MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #61
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #62
MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #63
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #64
Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #65
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #66
Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #67
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #68
Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #69
Ace Acme Nov 2013 #70
conectad0 Jan 2015 #73
shawnehamilton Jan 2015 #74
zappaman Jan 2015 #75
MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #78
MicaelS Jan 2015 #76
zappaman Jan 2015 #77
MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #79
frankfacts Feb 2015 #80

Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:33 AM

1. (1) There is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any suspected group actually did.

That's truncated to fit in the title form. Here's the quote from page 1439:

Perhaps the most powerful single piece of evidence that there was no conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy is simply the fact that after all these years there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any of the persons or groups suspected by conspiracy theorists (e.g., organized crime, CIA, KGB, FBI, military-industrial complex, Castro, LBJ, etc.) or anyone else conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy. And when there is no evidence of something, although not conclusive, this itself is very, very persuasive evidence that the alleged "something" does not exist. Particularly here where the search for the "something" (conspiracy) has been the greatest and most comprehensive search for anything in American, perhaps world, history.


Emphasis is Bugliosi's.

As Bugliosi points out, prosecutors in court must always present direct and substantive evidence of those persons or groups acting in concert to carry out a crime. Otherwise, they are going to lose their case, right? The burden of proof is on those alleging the conspiracy, and for a conviction, they must present solid evidence and make reasonable inferences based on that evidence. Here's the evidence this guy killed the state's witness. Here's the evidence of the hit guy meeting with the boss. Here's the phone calls from a wiretap. Here's the surveillance footage of them together. Here's the path the money takes from the boss to the hit man. Boom, conspiracy.

There is nothing like this in the entire corpus of JFK conspiracy literature. Bugliosi gives an example of what this would look like:

In the Oswald case, if, for instance, Oswald had disappeared for a few days before the assassination without adequate explanation, or within these few days he was seen in the company of a stranger, or there was evidence he had come into some serious money, or he had made any statement to anyone, such as Marina, suggesting, even vaguely, a conspiratorial relationship, or someone had called him at the Paine residence and he left the room and took the call in another room, or he was seen getting out of a car after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, or any of a hundred possible events and circumstances had occurred, that would be one thing. But here, there is nothing, nothing. Just completely foundationless speculation and conjecture.


One example of these assumptions is the idea Oswald was an unwitting participant in a conspiracy. Building on this, another assumption is made that Oswald becomes aware of this conspiracy to frame him of the assassination as it is happening, and on this a final assumption that this is why he ran from the Texas School Book Depository. Where is any evidence to support any of these assumptions? There is none. The assumptions are taken as givens and then the evidence that does exist is laboriously fitted into and around these assumptions, never allowed to be questioned or falsified. It's as painful to watch sometimes as the efforts of creationists who work to preserve the validity of their peculiar creation myths as science.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But after 50 years of painstaking examination of the minutia of this case, there still is no credible evidence of any conspiracy? No one on the conspiracy side can manage to come up with a viable theory that satisfies most of the conspiracy advocates at all, much less us "lone gunman" advocates. And as the other reasons and arguments and evidence here will show, there is plenty of evidence that there is no conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Mon Apr 1, 2013, 05:30 AM

2. (2) Any entertainment of a conspiracy by them would have been "reckless, irrational, and dangerous."

Bugliosi mentions this quickly and moves on. This is what I think he means by this:

This argument is in addition to no evidence of these groups' involvement. There was simply too much that could go wrong and too much to lose by any of the usual suspects mentioned by JFK conspiracy theorists. What level of assurance of success could have been had to proceed with such an outlandish plot (to kill Kennedy and frame Oswald)? What level of assurance would you require? Such a plan could only have been seen as "unlikely and far-fetched."

Ask yourself, seriously, what would it take for you to clear the hurdle to have become part of any such plot? Now think of the institutional hurdles that any such suspect organization would have to overcome on top of persuading individual members of the conspiracy. Every group ever mentioned as suspects would have such inhibitions, such risk aversion. This isn't some lout muscling in on your territory. This is the President of the United States. This is precisely why only one President out of four has ever been assassinated by a conspiracy - and those conspirators did not recognize Lincoln as their president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Mon Apr 1, 2013, 05:37 AM

3. (3) Since there's no credible evidence against the "usual suspects," who else?

The conspiracy advocates have minutely examined all the most promising groups to have been a part of a conspiracy, and still no credible evidence has been presented against any of them. Who else is left? The Girl Scouts? Any other group of people or institutions will only be even more remote than the ones already posited.

We have the suspects gathered. There can be none other within the realm of plausibility. And yet the credible evidence only points to one person: Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD sixth floor window with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 04:34 AM

4. (4) The implausibility of keeping such a conspiracy secret.

I report this knowing what will be said: Tuskegee. The Manhattan Project. Engima. Jimmy Hoffa.

The list of conspiracies that remained secret for extended periods of time, and may yet be secret is long. But the list of conspiracies that unravel upon the commission of the crime is even longer. Once the atom bomb exploded, the Manhattan Project's secrecy had a short shelf life, for example. And a conspiracy holding up against dedicated investigation is even more unlikely.

Yet for the 50 years JFK's assassination has been unceasingly investigated by anyone with a mind to do so, no credible evidence of anyone other than Oswald committing the crime has been unearthed. No credible confessions. Nothing has been achieved but the support of a vague, unsupported doubt. No whistleblowers. No peripheral players cashing in on Oprah.

Yes, conspiracies have held. But the experience of humanity has been that on the whole, conspiracies break loose. Credibility is not strained by the conspiracy being exposed, but in the conspiracy holding.

And so the fourth argument against conspiracy in the JFK assassination is the implausibility of such a conspiracy secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 04:57 AM

5. (5) The complexity of any proposed JFK assassination conspiracy argues against it working.

I've mentioned this before: On recognizing JFK would be riding below the TSBD windows that day, Oswald only had to get his rifle to the TSBD and shoot the President. And even this simple plot is full of complexity and what ifs.

But a plot to assassinate Kennedy AND frame Oswald increases the complexity exponentially. Add to this the general incompetence level of any government or institutional endeavor - the Challenger disaster is cited by Bugliosi, as is the long career of Aldrich Ames.

Again, which is more probable here? That a flawless conspiracy to assassinate the President and frame Oswald went off without a hitch by an untold number of necessary conspirators, or that Oswald alone shot the President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:24 AM

6. (6) If Oswald was part of a conspiracy, they waited a long time to bring him aboard.

Oswald couldn't have been part of any conspiracy before October 1, 1963. At that point, he was still trying desperately to get into Cuba via the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. If he'd succeeded, he couldn't have been in Dallas to assassinate Kennedy. In fact, JFK's trip to Dallas was announced on September 26, 1963, when Oswald was on a bus to Mexico City.

Kennedy's route past the TSBD wasn't determined until November 18, and it was announced in the Dallas Morning News the next day. So Oswald getting a job at the TSBD October 15 had nothing to do with a conspiracy. In fact, says Bugliosi, "any conspiracy involving Oswald as the hit man would have had to be hatched no earlier than November 19, just three days before Kennedy's death."

Is there anyone who claims to believe the CIA, or the mob, or the anti-Castro Cubans, or whoever recruited Oswald to kill Kennedy three days before the assassination? That's the only time they could have done it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:35 AM

7. (7) Oswald's conduct in the month before the assassination (until Nov 19) precludes a conspiracy.

Oswald was taking driving lessons from Ruth Paine and had applied for a learner's permit November 16. Is this the act of a man who knows he'll be leaving almost all his cash and his wedding ring for his wife on the morning of the assassination? This "speaks loudly for the proposition that Oswald's intent to murder the president was formed somewhat on the spur of the moment not long before the day of..."

Oswald rented a post office box at the Terminal Annex near the TSBD for two months on November 1. Oswald was notorious for being tightfisted with money and could not afford to rent an apartment for he and his family to live together. It strains credibility for Oswald to have spent cash on a second month he would not have used, had he known he was part of an assassination conspiracy.

Other things Bugliosi lists: joining a local chapter of the ACLU and asking the director of information for the American Communist Party how he could help "heighten (the ACLU's) progressive tendencies." He also wrote a letter on November 9th to the Soviet embassy, asking about Marina's and his entrance visas, and mailed it on the 12th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:51 AM

8. (8) Oswald's actions on the evening of November 22 preclude a conspiracy.

You're the hired hit man for the biggest murder case in American history. Are you preparing for the hit and making yourself available to your employers for last-minute changes and consultation? Or are you going to see your wife to beg her to come live with you in Dallas?

None of this makes sense if Oswald is the hired hit man in a conspiracy. Is he not going to do the job if Marina will move the family in with him in Dallas? How does he report that back to his employers? "Sorry, guys, can't kill the President, I'm getting back with the wife, we're moving to Dallas, no hard feelings!"

(Most likely Oswald's intent to kill the president was conditional. This is in no way an attempt to blame Marina, since she could not and did not know what Oswald would go on and do as a result. But it was a pretty shitty thing for Oswald to do. Indeed, I could also see Oswald knowing what his actions would bring down on Marina and their family, and having Marina reject him one last time being a way he could blame her for that part of it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 01:00 AM

9. (9) Oswald wasn't the kind of person anyone would hire to be the point person.

Oswald was, as Bugliosi puts it, "a highly unreliable, highly disturbed, and emotionally unhinged political fanatic." It's something Bugliosi spends a lot of time demonstrating. He was not someone a group like the CIA or the Mafia would have hired to carry out the most important murder of their institution's history. He was living in a tiny room and couldn't take care of himself or his own family!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 01:16 AM

10. (10) Oswald wasn't the kind of person who would work with or for a conspiracy.

Jean Davison calls this (Bugliosi's description) "the ultimate weakness of the conspiracy theorists' contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was framed... their erroneous conception of Oswald." Far from being a "piece of chaff," Oswald was the exact opposite. He was belligerent in his independence from others. He described himself as having "a mean streak of independence." He bristled at rules and regulations and seemed to dislike any authority. Any attempt to manipulate him into place would have drawn his ire and bullheadedness, and so also he would not have welcomed the constraints of working together with others to carry out the assassination.

Marina also testified and told her biographer that he would never have taken part in a conspiracy to kill the president. Said Priscilla McMillian, "Lee had no use for the opinions of anybody but himself. He had only contempt for other people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:26 PM

11. (11) Those who then knew Oswald and Ruby rejected the idea either acted in concert with others.

It's only the thousands of conspiracy theorists, none of whom knew Oswald or Ruby, that say they did. Who would know them better, their family and friends or the people who were neither?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:40 PM

12. (12) The Warren Commission's conclusions were supported by JFK's brothers and son.

Robert Kennedy Jr's recent assertion aside, let's let Robert Kennedy speak for himself. He always supported the Warren Commission's conclusion. His statement on September 27, 1964:

I am convinced (Lee Harvey) Oswald was solely responsible for what happened and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. I have not read the report, nor do I intend to. But I have been briefed on it and I am completely satisfied that the Commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The (Warren) Commission's inquiry was thorough and conscientious.


This was not said as a private citizen. This was while he was the US Attorney General. As such and as the brother of a beloved, assassinated president, he could have brought tremendous pressure on the Commission and the FBI for not doing enough or not doing the right things. He never did. In fact, he told the commissioners in August 1964 that he knew of no "credible evidence to support the allegations" of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic, and that he had no suggestions for an additional investigation before releasing the report.

Edward Kennedy in 1975 said that he was fundamentally satisfied with the findings of the Warren Commission.

John F. Kennedy, Jr. could barely sit at the table with Oliver Stone when the director of "JFK" brought up the notion of conspiracy, not even to score a interview for the second issue of his new magazine George.

The brothers and the son of the assassinated president accepted the conclusion of no conspiracy. They would have the strongest reasons of all to press for the truth if they felt they did not have it. And with the power they had, both in the government and public opinion, they could have done so. They never did. Their familiarity with the evidence satisfied them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:52 PM

13. (13) Oswald never showed any evidence of having a mysterious source of money.

If Oswald had been hired as the hit man, are we expected to believe he didn't get a large part of his fee up front? The man had under $200 to his name on the morning of the assassination. He lived in a converted telephone room of the boarding house on North Beckley. He paid $8 a week for the privilege. His wife and children were living off the charity of her landlady.

This cuts into the patsy hypothesis as well. Oswald was supposed to be a double agent, working to infiltrate the Soviet Union and then various Communist groups in America, right? That's how THEY knew to set him up to take the fall. So Lee Harvey Oswald was such an incredible patriot that he was doing all that work for free?

There is no evidence that Oswald was spending more money than he was making at his various menial jobs. He had to borrow money to pay for the trip back to the United States for Marina and himself. He owned a single woolen Russian-made suit, completely inappropriate for Texas weather. They were practically starving in New Orleans. They never had an extra penny anywhere. Ever.

I'll go further: is Marina living the life of Reilly today? From what I understand, she married again, she works at a shop, and she raised her children. Is there any evidence at all that she's got a pot of cash somewhere? No?

How about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:49 PM

71. this ^^^^^

One thing CTs lack is any connection of Oswald to the supposed source of the conspiracy - that is, some definite connection or meeting in the weeks before the assassination. By now anyone of that kind would have been followed up.

Surely there would be money, etc. And how to plan it when the parade route changed, or even plan it at all before Oswald got the job at the book depository?

It's all possible but not really provable. Yes, maybe one of the conspirators was in charge of hiring at the book depository. Or had the ability to change the parade route. But anything is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:55 PM

14. (14) Oswald's rifle is evidence of no conspiracy.

Yeah!

Think about it: this is the most important hit job in the history of the United States. What group would send their assassin out with a $19 mail-order rifle? With only four bullets in the six-round clip?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:57 PM

15. (15) No group would have let Oswald use a rifle so easily traceable to him.

Since Oswald would be a link to the group itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:08 PM

16. (16) Any group who hired Oswald would want him to escape, but no silencer?

This group allegedly sent Ruby out to kill Oswald, right? To keep him quiet, right? He knew something and had to be silenced, right?

I know a better way to keep Oswald quiet. HELP HIM ESCAPE.

Oswald sitting in Cuba with a cigar and a mojito is going to find it very easy to not say anything to the authorities.

Patsy or killer, if Oswald knew something on the conspirators, he's a liability in the hands of the authorities. What's the guarantee the patsy Oswald wouldn't cooperate with authorities and tell what he knew, loudly, with much protestation about his rights and the corruption of the United States? Frame him or hire him, you'd want him to stay quiet, and so logic dictates that you would help him get away (or find a way to kill him on the spot).

So if you've hired Oswald to do the murder, why wouldn't you give him (along with a high-quality weapon) a silencer? Silencers were of high enough quality in 1963 that the gunshots might not even have been heard over the crowd noise. Would Howard Brennan even have known where to look to see the killer take the third shot? A silencer would have helped Oswald escape.

Instead, this mysterious group then had to arrange a second assassination of Oswald to silence him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:21 PM

17. (17) The use of a military rifle that could not use soft-point bullets argues against conspiracy.

Soft-point bullets are more likely to break apart in the body and cause more damage, and hence a greater likelihood of death. The murder weapon could only use 6.5mm FMJ bullets. The Hague Conventions specify an army only use these types of bullets because there's a greater chance that the bullet will pass through the body without breaking up. That means it will only incapacitate rather than maim and kill.

A conspiracy from the usual suspects would have known this and have been able to produce a rifle with soft-point bullets to further guarantee the kill. Indeed, as Bugliosi points out, a good reason to suspect James Earl Ray was involved in a conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King, Jr is that he used a brand-new $700 rifle ($2000 in today's money) that did use soft-point bullets, one of which killed MLK. By contrast, Oswald had a $19 rifle, which would have been $57 today, that only used full metal jacket bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:27 PM

18. (18) Conspirators would not have chosen someone with Oswald's shooting expertise.

Good enough to make the shot? Yes. Were there others more likely to make the shot? Yes. If you were trying to assassinate the president, would you have chosen someone with Oswald's known ability to fire a weapon accurately, or would you have spent up to get a better marksman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:30 PM

19. (19) Oswald had no track record as a hit man with any suspected organization.

This is the most important hit ever, right? Most of the organizations mentioned (the mob, CIA, military-industrial complex) would have had associations with plenty of people with proven track records to take Kennedy out. But there's no evidence Oswald ever worked as a hit man for any of them. His one attempt at killing a public figure (General Walker) before JFK wasn't successful!

These groups are going to employ someone like Oswald to take out the President? Hogwash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:42 PM

20. Keep 'em coming! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:39 PM

22. Will do! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:08 AM

21. I enjoy your Kennedy posts

 

I look forward to the rest of this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:39 PM

23. Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:45 PM

24. (20) Oswald's attempt to kill Edwin Walker argues against conspiracy.

How likely is it that you would let your hired assassin try to assassinate some other public figure first? If you were the hit man with a long relationship with your client, how likely is it that you would attempt another public assassination months before the big hit?

Furthermore, what ideological group would have had enough animus to both Walker and Kennedy that they would want either or both dead? It's a very narrow framework that lets you aim a rifle at both men. How many people in the world could, not to mention organizations of these people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:48 PM

25. (21) Oswald's desire to blow up the Dallas FBI office argues against conspiracy.

If Oswald was part of a conspiracy, how likely is it that he would be threatening to blow up the FBI office for harassing his wife just a couple of weeks before the assassination? Was his preparation for the biggest job in his life so immaterial that this is something that would concern him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:50 PM

26. (22) Oswald would not have done anything to draw attention to himself before the hit.

If he were part of a conspiracy, that is. Why would an hired assassin court any attention, particularly that of the FBI?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:56 PM

27. (23) Oswald's many applications for employment in October preclude a conspiracy.

In the first two weeks of October, Oswald made four different applications for employment in Dallas, all businesses that would have no access to the eventual motorcade route. Only one rejected him for his perceived political beliefs. One rejected him for having no sales experience. One could not recall the reasons why, and the last saw his stalling about an honorable discharge record as reason to reject him.

Clearly if Oswald had gotten those jobs, he would not have been able to commit the crime or even be plausibly framed. Were all these people in on the conspiracy to make sure Oswald ended up in the TSBD? Would Oswald's real employers, the ones not paying him to assassinate the president, have let him take a job where he had no access to the future motorcade route?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:01 PM

28. (24) Oswald could easily have been assigned to a different TSBD building.

Roy Truly, Oswald's supervisor, said that when Oswald was hired, he showed up at the same time as another new hire. There were two jobs available - one in the TSBD building we all know about on Houston and Elm, and another warehouse at 1917 Houston. Again, it was removed from the motorcade route.

What conspiracy would have allowed their plans to risk utter destruction by Truly's arbitrary choice of where to assign Oswald? How could they have known where Truly would assign Oswald?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:08 PM

29. (25) Oswald applied for another job at the beginning of November.

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

A job that would have taken him away from his plum perch atop the motorcade. Both Marina and Ruth Payne reported this, although they differ on when Oswald went to apply.

Some conspiracy.

It's also my understanding that as a temporary employee, Oswald was actually supposed to have ended his employment at the TSBD just before the assassination. But they found him some more work to do. I'll check on that, but I don't see that in this chapter of Bugliosi's book.

ETA: From Truly's testimony to the Warren Commission:

Mr. Truly. No, sir; I don't recall. Actually, the end of our fall rush - if it hadn't existed a week or 2 weeks longer, or if we had not been using some of our regular boys putting down this plywood, we would not have had any need for Lee Oswald at that time, which is a tragic thing for me to think about.


A shorter fall rush or no floor work and Oswald would have been let go of his temporary job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 03:27 AM

30. (26) The oft-noted tree in Oswald's sight line argues against conspiracy.

If Oswald worked alone, choosing a perch where a tree interfered with critical seconds in the assassination window makes sense. What other choice would Oswald have? There would be no other (much less better) opportunity for him.

But if the assassination was the work of the CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, or who have you, why would they choose a location with such an obstruction? In the many places Kennedy had visited and would be visiting on this trip, this would the location that guaranteed the most success?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 03:44 AM

31. (27) Oswald's extreme isolation in the weeks before the assassination argue against conspiracy.

Any conspiracy using Oswald as the hit man would have needed to have communicated with Oswald or have some reliable and secretive way of doing so. But Oswald's life does not seem to have such accessibility to anyone.

The one phone at the boarding house was a pay phone and communal. No one could recall Oswald ever receiving phone calls. The housekeeper said that Oswald would stay in his room 95% of the time. And he almost never went out, except to wash his clothes or twice attending a meeting (a speech of General Walker's and a meeting of the local ACLU). Oswald's boarding house was renting to 17 different people including him, so privacy was at a minimum.

Oswald never received or made phone calls at Ruth Payne's house, either. And no one ever saw Oswald using the phone at work, something he would have to have had permission to use anyway.

So unless he was flawless in using the phone at work without anyone seeing him, the only times that Oswald was really free to call his handlers in the conspiracy would have been after work on a pay phone before getting to the boarding house. And they would never have a reliable way of contacting him.

Does this seem likely to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 01:26 AM

32. (28) A conspiracy would have made sure Oswald was unavailable for any interrogation.

Even as a patsy. Especially as the hit man.

Yet Oswald was left to his own devices in his escape, trying to catch a bus, abandoning it for a taxi cab, with $13.87 in his pocket.

And then when Oswald was captured, how could any conspiracy allow him to be interrogated for twelve hours over a three-day period? Especially when Jack Ruby had a shot Friday evening, the same day as the assassination. He was armed, and Oswald was walked within three feet of him. But does Ruby shoot him? No, allowing Oswald to be interrogated for two more days. How could Ruby know he would ever get another chance to silence Oswald?

So maybe this same conspiracy hadn't hired Ruby yet to take the shot? Can anyone honestly believe that? No, of course not. Any conspiracy so incredibly competent to erase all evidence of its existence would have hired the guy to silence Oswald well in advance. But the fact that Ruby didn't take the shot on Friday is persuasive evidence that Ruby shot Oswald for his own purposed on Sunday. Which means no one was trying to silence Oswald. Which means he acted alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 01:32 AM

33. (29) Oswald not bringing his revolver to work on Thursday is evidence of his acting alone.

Let's face it: Oswald walked into the TSBD warehouse with the rifle that killed Kennedy Friday morning. No one stopped him. Easy as pie. Why didn't he hide his revolver on the premises Thursday morning?

This was a planned event, right? This was a conspiracy for the ages, yes? Why didn't Oswald have his revolver at the TSBD? How could he be assured of being able to escape the TSBD after the assassination? Why did he have to leave after the assassination and go get it at his boarding house?

The answer is simple. Oswald didn't have the revolver at work Thursday because it was only on Thursday that he made the decision to go for the assassination. But there was no time to prepare for his escape. He had to go to Irving to get his rifle that night or never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 01:39 AM

34. (30) Oswald never offering to turn state's evidence supports no conspiracy.

Again this applies whether he was a patsy or the hit man.

Oswald had to know he was facing the death penalty. He also had to know, if he was part of a conspiracy, that his co-conspirators had left him to his own devices. As a patsy, Oswald would also have been highly motivated to provide what evidence he could to implicate the people that had worked to position him to take the fall.

Of course, if there were no co-conspirators, there would have been no one he could offer up to save his own skin.

This goes for Ruby, too. If Ruby was hired by the mob (or whoever) to silence Oswald, why did no one ever try to silence him? He was immediately captured. Bam, there goes the conspiracy, right back in the same place as before: their hired hit man being interrogated by the police. Why wouldn't they have tried to silence Ruby?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 01:46 AM

35. (31) Almost all of the "usual suspects" would have to have enlisted the others.

Bugliosi, page 1460:

Let's assume, for example, that the CIA was behind the assassination. After the assassination, how could the CIA have gotten the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, the autopsy doctors, indeed, the Warren Commission itself, to go along with the horrendous crime the agency had committed and do the great number of things the conspiracy theorists say these various groups did to cover up the CIA's complicity in Kennedy's murder? Wouldn't that be an impossible task? The only way (there is no other way) that agencies and people like the FBI, autopsy doctors, et cetera, would all agree to cover up the murder of the president of the United States for the CIA (or mob, FBI, military-industrial complex, etc.) would be if they themselves were part of the original conspiracy to murder Kennedy. And again, no rational person can possibly believe these groups and people all got together to murder the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2013, 01:51 AM

36. (32) Oswald had no extensive contact with any of the "usual suspects."

Other than explainable ones like Oswald being interviewed by the FBI after returning from Russia, there's no evidence of any lasting or abiding relationship or association with any of the "usual suspect" groups. So not only is there no credible evidence of any of these groups conspiring to kill Kennedy, there's no evidence of Oswald's associations with these groups that would lend support for his conspiring with them past the threshold of reasonable doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #36)

Thu May 16, 2013, 06:51 PM

37. such thorough and total bullshit

 

jaysus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #37)

Thu May 16, 2013, 07:29 PM

38. Which part? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #38)

Thu May 16, 2013, 08:17 PM

39. #32 in particular

 

though I am sure most of these are BS or only partial "truths"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2013, 08:29 PM

40. I think Bugliosi, as smart a man as he may be, has absolutely no clue

 

about intelligence operations and covert operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #40)

Fri May 17, 2013, 03:24 AM

41. ....and little of human and group psychology

When I was growing up in the 'hood, we were cool and there was this kid from a few doors down, Chucky, who wanted to belong. But at the same time he was erratic and undesirable. But the shit we got this kid to do, kind of shames me now. He took the fall for a couple of our setups. He was high malleable much as I suppose Oswald was. Buliosi's failings are to first proceed from the assumption that Oswald acted alone and then to continually expect rational behavior from someone unstable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #41)

Fri May 17, 2013, 03:55 AM

43. Nice assertion. Care to back it up with evidence?

Oswald didn't want to belong to any group, unlike your poor Chucky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #43)

Fri May 17, 2013, 07:46 AM

45. What????????????????

Good god, man, he joined the MARINES.

Please. Just. Stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #45)

Fri May 17, 2013, 07:50 AM

47. Oswald joined the Marines. Yes. And how did he perform in the Marines? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #40)

Fri May 17, 2013, 03:54 AM

42. Nice assertion. Care to back it up with evidence? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #42)

Fri May 17, 2013, 07:28 AM

44. the evidence is that he can't see one of the most obvious conspiracies and

 

covert operations in all of American history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #44)

Fri May 17, 2013, 07:49 AM

46. That's not evidence. That's another assertion.

Care to try again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #46)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:58 AM

48. It's easy to not see the conspiracy

 

When you ignore or throw out all evidence for a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #48)

Fri May 17, 2013, 09:28 PM

49. Glass houses. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #48)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:24 PM

51. Yep. It's even funny.

 

It feels like some people are expecting an official CIA press-release stating "we killed Kennedy"...

I even remember a thread by a guy saying that the ultimate proof that there was no conspiracy involved in 9-11 was the fact that "no one came out and said 'I was part of it'".

Yeah, sure, because we all expect criminals to willingly confess their crimes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #51)

Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:16 AM

58. "we all expect criminals to willingly confess their crimes..."

And yet Oswald's claim that he was a patsy is accepted as the gospel truth by some JFK conspiracy advocates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:50 PM

72. We expect somebody to talk, though

At some point, they can't keep from telling, that happens often too. Or they tell a cellmate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:22 PM

50. Those are a bunch of illogical, fallacious reasoning. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #50)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:34 PM

53. Thank you for your opinion. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:33 PM

52. Who wrote this material? ... Is it copyrighted?

 

Frankly, I'll keep an open mind regarding the subject matter, but I do object to this gross violation of the Fair Use Doctrine, and the DU TOS regarding the use of copyrighted material ...

You are limited to posting no more than FOUR (4) (IV) (IIII) paragraphs of copyrighted material - You have posted about 50 or more ...

You have a problem here ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #52)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:35 PM

54. It's why I rewrote the vast majority of it.

I believe you may be exaggerating the number of direct quotes I've made.

There are four in this entire thread from the book. So, a little bit less than 50.

In the previous thread, I made 6 direct quotes from the book. However, I don't think any of the quotes are full paragraphs. Maybe one is. I don't recall and I could check.

But your number of 50 is bullshit, Trajan. Thanks for playing, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 09:38 AM

55. Kicked for the anniversary

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #55)

Mon Nov 18, 2013, 11:59 PM

56. The anniversary of what?

...how many posts in the same thread are written by the same person? Well, let's give a hat tip to THAT one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #56)

Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:14 AM

57. (hey, you may not be aware of this, but this Friday

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:48 AM - Edit history (2)

is the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:29 PM

59. Oh, really?

I thought it was the anniversary of the Guinness record of how many times one can posts to one's OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #59)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:52 PM

60. The reason I did that was to give each reason its own subthread

as I explained in the OP. You did look at the OP, didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:26 PM

61. Rather than put it into one post… yes, I see...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:36 PM

62. It is all in one thread.

This way, I'm encouraging discussion of each separate point. And I'm not flooding the forum with around 100 threads.

Don't hurt yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:57 PM

63. It's unfortunate that you can't distinguish a post from a thread...

Oops..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #63)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:03 AM

64. "Well, thanks for the kick" is what I'm supposed to say at this point

of the Meta bullshit game?

Well, thanks for the kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:58 AM

65. "Witnesses saw him in the commission of both crimes."

Who, exactly, were the witnesses who saw him in the school book depository, on the 6th floor, in the "snipers nest", with the rifle to his shoulder firing out the window at the President??

This is the first time I've ever heard of a witness actually seeing him in the act of doing this. Could you please provide names and links to their statements/depositions/testimonies?

Thanks in advance...

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 03:53 AM

66. Howard Brennan saw Lee Oswald shooting at President Kennedy.

Here's my thread summarizing Bugliosi's evidence of Oswald as only shooter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552

Here's Brennan's testimony to the Warren Commission:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as the parade came by, I watched it from a distance of Elm and Main Street, as it came on to Houston and turned the corner at Houston and Elm, going down the incline towards the railroad underpass. And after the President had passed my position, I really couldn't say how many feet or how far, a short distance I would say, I heard this crack that I positively thought was a backfire.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was backfire?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of a motorcycle.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you observe or hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store. And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot.
Mr. BELIN. This man you saw previous? Which man are you talking about now?
Mr. BRENNAN. The man in the sixth story window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side.


I think the fair use restriction doesn't apply here and I can reproduce more of the testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how many people were in the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. No; I don't. A possibility seven more or less one.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Did you see anyone in the lineup you recognized?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what did you say?
Mr. BRENNAN. I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that Oswald--or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. Were the other people in the lineup, do you remember--were they all white, or were there some Negroes in there, or what?
Mr. BRENNAN. I do not remember.
Mr. BELIN. As I understand your testimony, then, you said that you told him that this particular person looked the most like the man you saw on the sixth floor of the building there.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In the meantime, had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald on television or in the newspapers?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, on television.
Mr. BELIN. About when was that, do you believe?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe I reached home quarter to three or something of that, 15 minutes either way, and I saw his picture twice on television before I went down to the police station for the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any officer or investigating person anything different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later--I don't recall exactly--and I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I--
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me he said, "You said you couldn't make a positive identification."
He said, "Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn't you?"
And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family and yourself?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe.
Mr. BELIN. Well, if you wouldn't have identified him, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. Beg pardon?
Mr. BELIN. If you would not have identified that man positively, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. That had a great contributing factor--greater contributing factor than my personal reasons was that I already knew they had the man for murder, and I knew he would not be released.
Mr. BELIN. The murder of whom?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of Officer Tippit.
Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?
Mr. BRENNAN. After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody, there was no longer that immediate danger.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man.
Mr. BELIN. Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the same man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a couple of times, first stepping up and then going back?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #66)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:01 PM

67. Thanks, but that testimony has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer, and it's full of

contradictions and inconsistencies. Yeah, I know he first said he saw LHO, and gave a general description but, based on his testimony, he was at least 175 feet away**, if not more, then (based on my experience of office buildings having 10' ceilings) he would have had to be looking upwards at least 56' high, based on LHO's height. Did he have binocular lenses in his glasses? Here's a map of where he said he was sitting: "Brennan was sitting atop a low concrete wall located at the intersection of Elm Street and Houston Street on the western edge of downtown Dallas"



At first, he told the police he couldn't identify LHO in a line-up, but after going home and watching the news, seeing LHO's face plastered all over the news, he could suddenly pick him out of a line-up?? How dumb do they think most people are??

Later in, he went on record as saying he initially lied about not being able to pick LHO out because he "feared that he and his family might be in some danger if the assassination turned out to be the result of some wider plot". Does that mean he thought there was some kind of conspiracy??

Then we also have this, from the House Select Committe on Assassinations:

Howard Brennan was one of the four witnesses in Dealey Plaza who noticed a gunman. In a statement on the day of the assassination, Brennan claimed that the gunman was “a white man in his early 30’s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing”. In his Warren Commission testimony, Brennan gave the man’s height as five feet ten inches.

Lee Harvey Oswald was white, slender, and 24 years old. According to his autopsy report (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, p.521 [Commission Exhibit 3002]), he was five feet nine inches (175 cm) tall, and weighed about 150 pounds (10 stones, 10 pounds; 68 kg).

Arnold Rowland and Ronald Fischer both described the man they saw as “slender”, and Fischer added that “he looked to be 22 or 24 years old”. All three descriptions could reasonably have applied to Oswald, but could also have applied to any number of young white men.

Howard Brennan was not, however, an especially reliable witness:

•He claimed that the man was standing up when aiming the rifle, but the sash window made this impossible; it was open only up to about waist height.
•He claimed that “I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion”, but later explicitly denied that he had seen the man fire the gun.
•He claimed on the afternoon of the assassination that “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again”, but he was unable to pick out Oswald at an identification parade a few hours later, despite having seen Oswald’s photograph on television in the meantime.
Although the Warren Commission enthusiastically promoted Brennan as the star witness in its case against Oswald, the House Select Committee on Assassinations was more sceptical, and declined to use Brennan.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html


**"Brennan was sitting atop a low concrete wall located at the intersection of Elm Street and Houston Street on the western edge of downtown Dallas" I'm figuring he was sitting somewhere near the corner of Dealey Plaza, between where JFK was hit and the SBD.

I read several articles on this guy before responding, so it looks like we're at a stalemate on this one. You'll believe him because he backs up your worldview on what happened that day, as reported by the Warren Commission. I choose NOT to believe him because of the lies, inconsistencies and holes in the story. Got anything else??

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #67)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:13 PM

68. He was farsighted, Ghost.

Which means he could have seen Oswald just fine. It was Howard's description of the shooter that went out over Dallas police radio. Officer Tippit stopped Oswald based on that description and was gunned down in cold blood in front of several witnesses.

As you'll see at the link to the 53 Reasons post, I talked about the relative weakness of this point with alcibiades_mystery. If this was the only evidence against Oswald, we'd throw the case away. But all the evidence combined shows Oswald was the only person shooting in Dealey Plaza that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:30 AM

69. Ok, I've read some of the "53 Reasons" post, but I still have to say it's full of holes....

This right here really jumps up and down waving a BIG red flag:

"After Ruby killed Oswald, Brennan's fear for himself and his family relaxed and he then testified under oath that Oswald was the man he'd seen, that he could have identified him without reservation at at the lineup, and it was only for those reasons above that he did not.


So let me get this wrapped around my mind.... Brennan sees Oswald shout out, on National TV, I'm a patsy!!, then sees him shot in cold blood by a known Mafia figure... and decides NOW is a safe time, for himself and his family, to speak up about what he saw?? He has no inkling in his head that a known Mafia figure would belong to a larger syndicate or "family" out there? If that was me, I would probably still not know anything today!

"But all the evidence combined shows Oswald was the only person shooting in Dealey Plaza that day."

I never mentioned any other shooter, did I?? All I asked about was the witnesses that actually SAW Oswald in the snipers nest, with the gun in his hands, shooting at the President, so thank you Bolo.

Peace,

Ghost


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:33 PM

70. Nice looking? Only his mother could think LHO was nice looking.

 

He looked like a weasel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 04:40 AM

73. And why it had to be Oswald?(y porqué tuvo que ser Oswald?)

May not have been Oswald.
Perhaps one should "look" that was Oswald.
If this were so do not expect to find evidence of this. Or anything.
All point to Oswald. And there dies research. I think it would be more logical.
Why talk about conspiracy ?.
A perfectly planned operation does not have to be a conspiracy.
It is simply an operation.
Who is to blame? anyone with the money to finance the operation.
Reasons? More money.
____________________

Quizás no haya sido Oswald.
Quizás solo debía "parecer" que fué Oswald.
Si esto fuese así no esperen encontrar pruebas de ésto. Ni de nada.
Todo señalará a Oswald. Y allí muere la investigación. Me parece que sería lo más lógico.
Porqué hablar de conspiración?.
Una operación perfectamente planeada, no tiene porqué ser una conspiración.
Simplemente es una operación.
A quien queda por culpar? a cualquiera que tenga el dinero para financiar la operación.
Motivos? Más dinero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Tue Jan 13, 2015, 04:45 PM

74. House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1979

Does it matter to you that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there had been a probable conspiracy to kill John Kennedy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawnehamilton (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 13, 2015, 09:34 PM

75. Welcome to DU!

Again...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawnehamilton (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:18 PM

78. pssssst….

Don't bother these guys in the middle of their work day… That fact and other facts don't mean much to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 05:44 AM

76. I used to think there was a Conspiracy, until..

I visited the 6th Floor Museum, and stood next the window were Oswald fired from. I know guns and shooting, and immediately thought to myself. "Shit, this was a terrifically easy shot. Even with that POS Carcano, it was an easy shot."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #76)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:00 PM

77. Me too.

Close, and slowly moving away in a straight line so he never leaves your site? Piece of cake and even then he missed with the first shot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:27 PM

79. Don't tell me… since you became a disciple of...

John Mcadams - Laughing stock of the Internet?
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/


He's the Westboro Baptist Church of The JFK Research Community!



HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Original post)

Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:14 PM

80. I think Lee Harvey was not guilty

 

I think he was recruited for covert field work while still an arctic radar tech, same job George Carlin held in the AF around the same period. It could have been patsy/assassin Carlin instead of patsy/assassin Lee Harvey! Maybe they'd had Oswald doing stand-up, then, instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread