Two words: Jack Ruby
And Epstein really hung himself too. Really, guys. Really.
And Epstein really hung himself too. Really, guys. Really.
What If JFK Wasn’t a Conspiracy
- Thread starter DraftNerd
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Two words: Jack Ruby
And Epstein really hung himself too. Really, guys. Really.
The cop who found oswalds rifle on the 6th floor has his own thoughts about why Ruby killed Oswald. Here’s an excerpt from an article that talks about it…
Boone also thinks Jack Ruby, who shot Oswald two days later, acted not out of a sense of misguided patriotism, but with the idea that by killing Oswald he would help his struggling burlesque business.
“Jack was a cash and copy customer,” said Boone, who dealt with Ruby when Boone worked in advertising for the Dallas Times Herald. “You never took his ad without getting paid. I don’t think Jack had any strong political beliefs. I really believe he thought he would never get convicted for shooting Oswald. You know, that Old West ‘he shot the man who shot the man.’
“I think he thought it would bring him a lot of customers.”
JFK: Deputy who found Oswald rifle continues to tell his story
Remembering Gene Boone's place in history as the law enforcement officer who found Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
www.google.com
AND
The thing about that is were it just rogue agents then the scope of the conspiracy is just too large to accomplish. Just take a few of the actions taken that supposedly prove the conspiracy and what each would involve:
1. The magic bullet was planted - the rouge CIA would have to have preplanned that with a rogue SS agent.
2. The limo was rebuilt to destroy evidence of the number and direction of shots- the rogue agents also had
preplanned that with a high ranking SS member. Also they had influence over Ford and its workers.
3. The doctors altered/destroyed their notes and committed perjury - rogue agents controlled the hospital staff.
A non sanctioned hit by rogue CIA agents could not have accomplished just this much less the death squads released on witnesses later, the formation and control of the WC, and the autopsy controlled. I doubt that even a Deputy Director could pull that of were he rogue and am damn sure a field officer could not have.
AND
AND
When I looked at it I knew instantly that it was a fake. How? It is not written in the proper format using the proper CIA style. One tip off is the marking "CO-2-34,030." That is actually from a Secret Service report. How would I know? Because I had obtained and used on my Web site some of the pages from that SS report, so the notation jumped out as a fabrication. What someone did was take a page from the SS report, maybe even downloaded it from my Web page, removed the original text and wrote their own. Also the wording is not how the CIA would word a document of that type at that time. They would not refer to Hoover by name or agencies by common names. Instead you would see code words like ODACID. You need to look at hundreds of thousands of genuine CIA documents as I have to develop a mental database of what genuine CIA documents look like. I have no doubt that the hoaxer really thought that something like that was said. I don't think the intent was like the other hoaxes to discredit all JFK assassination research. I think someone just assumed that he knew enough to create a realistic fake to incriminate the CIA.
Also on that link one post above what I copied is the letter from the National Archives Archivist that says this letter does not exist.
So how many death squads do you think the CIA had running in our country to deal with witnesses?
1. Jackie and Joe Kennedy wanted it and they had the political stroke to make it happen. BTW, how did the CIA infiltrate and run SS?
2. That always struck me as sinister but I suggest you look at the state of forensics and how crime scenes were handled in the early 1960s and keep in mind the technology and tools available at the time. There was no CSI back in that day. .
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 12,065
- Reaction score
- 14,543
- Bookie:
- $ 16,609.00
I've been reading. The weird entrance and exit on Kennedy is one thing, but I've seen plenty of police detective work that will simply explain away things that don't make sense by changing the facts similar to something like this. I was wondering if it was a no doubt true change if that makes sense.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 17,165
- Reaction score
- 29,093
- Bookie:
- $ 200.00
She’d have said Dallas, if she meant Dallas.I found this reference to “they” in an article which I’ve attached below:
Right-wing opponents abhorred the fact that Kennedy was Catholic, disliked his proposal for Medicare and hated his support for integration. Approximately 5,000 copies of a flyer that stated Kennedy was "WANTED FOR TREASON" were distributed around Dallas before his visit. Given this, much of the nation initially assumed that a far-right component must have been responsible for his assassination.
Jackie likely shared this belief, as she'd seen for herself how disliked her husband was by some. On the day of his assassination, an anti-JFK ad in the Dallas Morning News asked why he was being "soft on Communism?" After taking in the ad, Kennedy had said to Jackie, "We’re really in 'nut country' now."
These political enemies may have been the intended recipients for Jackie's message of "I want them to see what they've done." When she later learned that Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested for her husband's assassination, she reportedly said, "He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It's — it had to be some silly little Communist."
Why Jacqueline Kennedy Didn't Take Off Her Pink Suit After JFK Was Assassinated
The first lady continued to wear the outfit covered in her husband's blood to convey a message and as a way of coping with her own trauma.www.google.com
According to this article at least, she thought right wing extremists in Dallas killed her husband over his stance on such things as civil rights and other social programs.
This is a perfect example of something the WC should have answered completely, or if they couldn’t the Select Committee should have later with better technology.
Regardless, there has always been huge mistrust of any “official” story. This is why you have to try to see what you can with your eyes. Enhancements to the Zapruder have helped this a lot.
I see Kennedy hunching after what I believe is a first shot miss. Due to his back issues he was wrapped tight in a back brace, so he couldn’t lean forward much. But, if he hunches his head into his shoulders, lifts shoulders up, like one might do when trying to hunch down some, it could align entrance and exit of those wounds.
But, that’s just the thing with so much of this…hard to tell for sure, and interpretations can vary. It’s a troublesome point.
More pointedly, I always felt she was referring to those that were dissenting of the President, generally.you cracked the case!!!
I’m pretty sure she was referring to Dallas.
When shot Connelly said something similar “they are going to kill us all”.
I think you have to have context on what was going on at the time to understand who would have been considered “they”. There had been great dissent against the man, a lot of it was centered in places like Dallas. In such a moment the victims of the attack are going to feel like they were attacked by just who they were fearing.
Such statements can’t be given much credence in such a general sense.
The read I always had was that the SS wanted out of Dallas. They had Johnson hunkered down in a records room at the hospital guarded by agents.
There was absolutely a conflict with the Dallas coroner, who came in and said the murder happened in Texas, the autopsy needed to be handled in Texas. It was the law. And he was right.
But, the read I always got was that the SS was not certain this was the end of any culprits out there. They sure came across to me like soldiers in hostile territory. Once there was no saving the man their only desire was to get him to the plane, and get all of them the hell out of Dodge.
Again, I think it was plain that Dallas was circled on the calendar as a concerning trip. It was feeling like a hot bed at the time with the Walker attempt and the recent attack on Stevenson. It does make it all the more peculiar that they let the bubble top go and agreed to have agents back.
All of that comes together in a sore SS that just lost huge at their job and wasn’t going to lose anymore here, today. They pushed their way out and took him.
Thanks for this share. I’ve been really interested in what you believe happened. I checked out from here early last night, so I won’t try to push too far back here with discussion having gone forward (I always find that aggravating).
Just wanted to say thanks for sharing up what you believe. I’m like @dbldwn711 in that I want to discuss others thoughts and belief as it could inform my own.
The SS definitely violated the law but IMHO that is not proof of a conspiracy to kill JFK. Like you say, hostile city, POTUS shot, Jackie won't leave her husband, the new POTUS has to leave for DC for safety and he is holding the plane telling the SS to get Jackie back. The SS surely was not about to split its forces and try to protect the body and Jackie with less force than they had when JFK was shot.
Now when any action/evidence is offered as proof of a conspiracy, the first question I ask is who would have to be involved to pull this off. If this is proof then LBJ had to be involved with the preplanning along with elements of the DOD, CIA, FBI, JCOS, SS, ONI, mafia ... I cannot buy it. To do everything needed, there would be too many people involved and too many things that could go wrong and leave them out to dry.
You’ve just summarized well why I started to push back on many of the conspiracies i once had. Well said.
As the SS you just can’t split what coverage you do have. Plus, let’s face it, getting Jackie to leave her husbands body at that point was not going to happen easily. Unless you want to be on camera physically moving the blood spattered FLOTUS, now widow around.
I watched a pretty meh movie last week called Parkland. It focused more on the hospital and SS and getting out of Dallas. It stayed somewhere well to the evidence we know (it didn’t try to interject wild theories). As meh as the movie was it has a scene where the agents guarding Johnson debated what to do next. One agent was firmly set that JFK was gone. Their job now was to protect Johnson and get him out.
They are already trained to treat all situations out of Washington as hostile. They had plenty of reason with the events of the day. They weren’t going to let some Texas law stop them. They just forced their way out. And, in fairness to Texas, they didn’t try to make a showdown about it.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
So I actually came across something I had never heard before and I’m intrigued by it. At first blush I’m thinking it sounds far fetched but what do I know.
What I found was a theory that Oswald missed his first shot INTENTIONALLY. It’s a concept called “zero” or “sight in” your firearm. I’m not a shooter but maybe some of you that are can offer perspective. I’ve read that shooters don’t just pick up a rifle and shoot. They first zero or sight in the scope. The idea is you you shoot at a target, compare when the bullet lands to when your scope was aimed, and adjust until they are the same.
This concept sounds crazy given what Oswald was shooting at but it does “fit” some other evidence. Specifically the following:
1) if the first shot missed it would have been taken when the limo was under heavy foliage from the tree. Others have asked why would Oswald take that shot thru the trees. What if he didn’t shoot thru the trees but rather took that time to “zero” his weapon. Then as Kennedy emerged from under the cover of the tree the sight was adjusted and “zeroed in”.
2) the witnesses on the 5th floor that say they heard 3 shots from above also say they heard the first one, then there was a slight pause followed by the second and third shot closer together. Was this pause Oswald adjusting the sight in the weapon?
3) Oswald knew his weapon. He had shot it a lot at ranges. Some who have examined the weapon said “the sight was off”. If that’s true then that means Oswald knew that so he had to “sight in” before taking the shot. He had already had one near miss when he shot at walker. He didn’t want another so he had to adjust the sight.
4) the trajectory of Oswald shooting thru the tree foliage at the limo at where tague was dont line up. Tague was standing down range in front of the triple underpass. The thought was first shot missed, hit a branch which caused it to go down range. However, if Oswald was aiming at some target down range in order to zero his weapon then the trajectory to Tague lines up.
5) if Oswald felt he had to sight in the weapon prior to actually aiming at Kennedy that would explain why he didn’t shoot Kennedy coming up elm. He needed a sight in shot and that couldn’t be afforded to him as the president came up main. That’s why he waited till he was down range.
I’m gonna tag @Cobrabit and @ojb81 here NOT to offer any insight per se on this theory but rather if they can offer any insight on the concept of zero or sight in a weapon.
What I found was a theory that Oswald missed his first shot INTENTIONALLY. It’s a concept called “zero” or “sight in” your firearm. I’m not a shooter but maybe some of you that are can offer perspective. I’ve read that shooters don’t just pick up a rifle and shoot. They first zero or sight in the scope. The idea is you you shoot at a target, compare when the bullet lands to when your scope was aimed, and adjust until they are the same.
This concept sounds crazy given what Oswald was shooting at but it does “fit” some other evidence. Specifically the following:
1) if the first shot missed it would have been taken when the limo was under heavy foliage from the tree. Others have asked why would Oswald take that shot thru the trees. What if he didn’t shoot thru the trees but rather took that time to “zero” his weapon. Then as Kennedy emerged from under the cover of the tree the sight was adjusted and “zeroed in”.
2) the witnesses on the 5th floor that say they heard 3 shots from above also say they heard the first one, then there was a slight pause followed by the second and third shot closer together. Was this pause Oswald adjusting the sight in the weapon?
3) Oswald knew his weapon. He had shot it a lot at ranges. Some who have examined the weapon said “the sight was off”. If that’s true then that means Oswald knew that so he had to “sight in” before taking the shot. He had already had one near miss when he shot at walker. He didn’t want another so he had to adjust the sight.
4) the trajectory of Oswald shooting thru the tree foliage at the limo at where tague was dont line up. Tague was standing down range in front of the triple underpass. The thought was first shot missed, hit a branch which caused it to go down range. However, if Oswald was aiming at some target down range in order to zero his weapon then the trajectory to Tague lines up.
5) if Oswald felt he had to sight in the weapon prior to actually aiming at Kennedy that would explain why he didn’t shoot Kennedy coming up elm. He needed a sight in shot and that couldn’t be afforded to him as the president came up main. That’s why he waited till he was down range.
I’m gonna tag @Cobrabit and @ojb81 here NOT to offer any insight per se on this theory but rather if they can offer any insight on the concept of zero or sight in a weapon.
Last edited:
I get what you’re saying. I just can’t buy that in that moment she was speaking of anything but the known threats that they knew were going to be in Dallas.
Connellys wife even said to JFK right before the shots “you can no longer say that most of Dallas doesn’t love you”.
You’ve been in here a good bit, and offered some insight as you see them (three, maybe four shots, IIRC).
What do you believe happened here? 3-4 shots from where and from whom?
I can’t speak as a very knowledged gun person….but I find the theory of sighting that gun there implausible. He had to l know he was getting one to two shots at this and been ready. He had taken a shot at Walker before and knew you take your shot(s) and get out.
The question of why you take that shot through the trees is a good one. We can’t know for sure thanks to Ruby (might not have ever gotten a straight answer anyway). I make a presumption that it’s possible he was sighting in for when the trees were cleared and he just squeezed it off. It’s plausible being a high stress situation he wanted to get right.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
this is helpful… somewhat. He wasn’t shooting thru the tree. He was shooting down range at where Kennedy WOULD be.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 11,615
- Reaction score
- 15,477
- Bookie:
- $ 5,797.00
How would he see where his shot landed? No target.
That is not how he would have done it. Once you mount a scope, you sight in in and unless the scope is removed, bumped hard or adjusted, it does not need sighting in again for the same user. He could have knocked it out of calibration that day but would not have went into that knowing he would have to waste a shot while bringing attention to his position.
As far as shooting JFK before the turn goes, there are a couple reasons not to do that:
1. He would be shooting over Connally and the front windshield so his hittable target is greatly reduced to just
the head. After the turn, he has the full torso to aim at and the car is moving slower.
2. If he misses JFK and hits the car or anyone in it, the motorcade will not make the turn. He probably will not
get a second shot and damned sure won't get three.
So if he were to want to kill JFK, shooting before the turn and/or wasting a shot makes no sense.