Defensive? Muah? I honestly don't care where you get your info as the official story is written by people I obviously don't trust.
What If JFK Wasn’t a Conspiracy
- Thread starter DraftNerd
- Start date
Defensive? Muah? I honestly don't care where you get your info as the official story is written by people I obviously don't trust.
So, once again Oswald the suspected assassin just lucked into getting a job at the perfect place to kill the President a month before it was even decided where or if it would happen.
Just felt like posting this again.
Just felt like posting this again.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
So, once again Oswald the suspected assassin just lucked into getting a job at the perfect place to kill the President a month before it was even decided where or if it would happen.
the amount of “luck” is amazing. Call it luck. Call it fate. Call it whatever you want… it’s all the same.
Not only did the motorcade “luckily” pass by the building, but it was lucky that the rain held off and the bubble top wasn’t used, that the SS weren’t on the back of the limo like they were supposed to, that Oswald wasn’t discovered in the snipers nest by a co-worker, that Oswald made the shots themselves, etc. I could go on but there’s lots of luck here… not just the motorcade.
But as implausible as all that luck sounds to you what I find even more implausible is that a group of unknown individuals (unknown even to this day 60+ years later) were able to get the location of the luncheon moved, alter the motorcade route, have shooters assembled and moved into place without detection, that they got off multiple shots without ever being seen, that their shots left no forensic evidence, that they were able to escape without detection (all of them), that they got Oswald prints on the snipers nest (you don’t think Oswald fired a shot), that they got Oswalds gun to the site, that the only two bullets that were preserved are bullets that ballistically are tied to Oswalds gun (this includes the mangled bullet that hit Kennedy’s head), that the fragments left behind match up with those same bullets, etc. Yeah… personally, I find all that to be more “lucky”.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
im not just giving you “the official version”. I’m saying who the people are and what they said. Often times what I’m posting can be traced back to SWORN testimony. In order for if not to be true they are either involved in the conspiracy or they lying under oath about what they did.
“The official version” as you like to call it isn’t a best selling book. It’s the result of sworn testimony, forensic analysis, etc. Its not a spy novel.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
You’re right. I dont understand. Whos “they” if not some shadowy figure(s) in the govt.
Last edited:
Why would I spend another second talking about this when you just shrug off everything I say as nonsense and expect me to take what you say as gospel truth. This is how successful assassinations work, if it works they get away with it and when you have people involved all the way up to and including the Vice President it's easy to present the story in whatever way you want.
Believing some down on his luck loner who happened to get a job at the absolute perfect place a month before they knew where or even if this would happen then used a $12 piece of shit World War II Italian rifle and did this all by himself is somehow more believable than believing the CIA who does this shit for a living put something together with other high ranking officials with help from the mob is simply infantile.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
why talk about it? Shrugging it off? I’m not “shrugging it off”. I’m simply looking for proof, verification, plausibility, etc for ANY of what you or anyone is saying about what happened. If you find my remarks about what you are saying to be some kind of “challenging” of you there isn’t much I can say. They aren’t. This discussion is not nearly as personal as you are taking it. In fact, it’s not personal at all.
Well, I guess I’ll just continue being “infantile” because I’m not about to believe that the VP of the country was involved in a conspiracy to kill the then sitting president without SOME proof. Not just innuendo. Not just speculation. But actual PROOF. It’s funny though that these CIA agents who “do this for a living” were able to kill Kennedy and not leave a trace but they couldn’t get Castro despite their best efforts.
Last edited:
I'm not at all taking it personal, this is just simply a waste of time.
They hid the truth man, fuck this is assassination 101 stuff.
If only Castro had driven around Havana in a topless limo at 10 MPH with his armed protection ordered to stay back.
Man, I keep having other engagements when this conversation takes off….
So, the VP was in on it in your opinion?
As for the discussion….fully agree with @dbldwn711 here. You’re not providing sourcing. It’s not fair as sourcing is being provided on other theories.
You’re working on the presumption that Oswald was gearing after Kennedy all along. That’s not accurate. Oswald was so deranged and so disenfranchised with the leadership of both competing ideologies that he was gearing after any such target of opportunity.
The fact that the biggest target of one of those ideologies drove by his new employer was not of plan, it was of luck. There was shit loads of luck around what Oswald did. Otherwise we don’t know his name right now.
And much like @broncosmitty proved laying out all the past presidential assassinations a lot of luck comes into play on any deranged individual getting (and succeeding at) taking a shot at a President.
It’s assassination 101 type stuff.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
yes. Well said!
IMO the attempt on walker is a HUGE monkey wrench in believing a LARGE conspiracy. If “they” were gonna get Kennedy no matter what then why allow Oswald to take a shot at Walker and risk getting caught?
IMO IF there was a conspiracy it was very small. It was Oswald and maybe 1 or two other people who wanted to do a political assassination… not necessarily Kennedy. That’s why “they” (if they really exist) went after walker. “They” must have been thrilled when a chance to get Kennedy fell into their lap.
Personally, I don’t believe there was anyone working with Oswald although I’m CERTAINLY open to that. Just show me some proof OR explain how the proven facts fit into how that COULD have happened. A big reason why I think Oswald acted alone is after he returned home from the walker attempt he TOLD Marianna what he had done. He never told her anyone was with him. This is the perfect time for him to say “me and so and so took a shot a Walker”. He didn’t he said HE took a shot a Walker.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 17,151
- Reaction score
- 29,079
- Bookie:
- $ 200.00
Okay fellas, got a question.
If you were a juror, knowing what you know, seeing what you’ve seen, reading what you’ve read, would be able to convict Oswald of murder? Attempted murder?Conspiracy to commit murder?
Just talking JFK. General Walker is completely hearsay and we’re leaving Tippit out of this question.
Id be able to say guilty on attempted murder and conspiracy. But not murder.
If you were a juror, knowing what you know, seeing what you’ve seen, reading what you’ve read, would be able to convict Oswald of murder? Attempted murder?Conspiracy to commit murder?
Just talking JFK. General Walker is completely hearsay and we’re leaving Tippit out of this question.
Id be able to say guilty on attempted murder and conspiracy. But not murder.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
THAT is a GREAT question!!! I mean it really is!!
I’d really have to think about it for a minute. It’s certainly not open/shut for me. You’ve got lots of variables in that instance. For one, you’re right about the walker and Tippet shootings. A jury would NEVER hear about that at a trial regarding shooting the president. They may not hear about a lot of other stuff as well like his communism talk in NO (too prejudicial) or his Marxist views (same reason).
As I’m typing this I’m actually remembering that there WAS a “fake trial” done for TV a LONG time ago. Vincent Bugliosi (the Charles Manson prosecutor) was the prosecutor there and Gerry Spence (the famous atty) was oswalds lawyer. I can still remember Spence walking around with this blow up of oswalds face bc he obviously couldn’t sit at the defense table. Pence also kept calling him “Lee” to try and humanize him for the jury. I’ll try and find something online about that trial and post it although it was done for TV a LONG time ago.
I would vote to convict him of murder bc even if you are involved in a conspiracy to commit murder you are still guilty of murder. It doesn’t matter if you delivered the fatal shot or not. As long as one of your co-conspirators did so you are guilty. My decision would be based upon the fact the following:
His rifle was there
3 shell casings were found
The two witness’s below heard three shots and three shell casings hit the floor
The two bullets recovered (including the mangled bullet) were ballistically tied to his weapon
The fragments were tied to similar bullets
His palm and fingerprints were found in the snipers nest
He was seen carrying a package that day to work by the guy who gave him a ride
That packaging material was also found at the scene
Oswald said there were curtain rods in the package yet although the packaging material was found no curtain rods were found (why put curtain rods in a package)
Fibers from his shirt were on the weapon
Gun oil was found on the packaging material.
Not one co-worker could verify his location at the time of the shooting
He left the building after the shooting and wasn’t present when they did a “roll call” after the shooting.
For me that’s enough proof for me to find him guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. That’s the standard. It’s NOT proof beyond ALL doubt. He had means, opportunity and there’s enough physical evidence to convict. Add in the fact that he has no alibi and IMO I vote guilty.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Ok… found that trial I was talking about!
heres a YouTube link…
apparently there’s a 5 hour full video of the trial available somewhere. It originally aired on showtime In 1986
FWIW that jury found Oswald guilty.
Heres a pretty good article that gives a nice brief synopsis of the trial
heres a YouTube link…
apparently there’s a 5 hour full video of the trial available somewhere. It originally aired on showtime In 1986
FWIW that jury found Oswald guilty.
Heres a pretty good article that gives a nice brief synopsis of the trial
Solid question…SOLID. Thanks for this.
You know….so many other variables come into play for me. I won’t go sideways on it. I’ll stick to your premise.
In this scenario, where all you mention is not admissible to me I would be super hard pressed. I just imagine that the defense would be extending their own theory on what happened….and I can’t imagine would weigh more logically and to the evidence like the prosecution theory would.
On that basis I would weigh heavily that he was placed on that floor, his prints were right there in the hide. I would believe the prosecution that all shots came from the back. I would be all over all three charges.
I could also see that the first ballots could go down without unanimity on any charge. I could see my fellow jurors would be debating with ourselves a long time. If I held my guns hard best case could be a hung jury.
As damning as it could seem to some the courtroom could be just the place that conspiracy theories could work. Insert enough doubt and you’ve got a split jury for sure. I have no doubt on that.
If he’s truly the shooter that’s a travesty of justice. If he’s truly a patsy it’s the system working.
Interesting though experiment. I’m pretty sure if there was a trial it could play just like this. He could have easily walked with the right counsel. That would not be the same as the no answers that Ruby gave us. But, it could be just as negatively impactful to the country to have an acquittal.
Intriguing. I’m interested to learn more about this. The parameters that were at play. I can’t imagine 12 people that were not aware of any of this could be found (that would be just as true, or more, in 1964-65 too).
I’m sure Bugliosi was certain this mock conviction was all his greatness too. Ha.
I might deep dive on all of this tonight.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
fwiw I was full on it was a conspiracy when I watched this. It was clumsy to say the least. Spence did what he could given what he had to work with. By no means do I think this trial would be anything like the trial @broncosmitty was contemplating. This one was much tamer bc it was done over 20 years after the fact and so many witnesses were unavailable. Also, there is no way that a trial such as the one @broncosmitty is suggesting would be finished in 5 hours. Haha. It would surely be more OJ-like.
You’re point about no unanimity on the first ballot is a great one too. I completely agree. Not sure id vote guilty on the first ballot.
Trials have so many variables. A skilled lawyer can make a nervous witness appear to be lying or unsure. I don’t think you can say definitively a jury would convict or acquit that’s why it’s a great question.
EDIT: I think the trial was done in London. Not sure how many of those jurors would have known about all the extraneous stuff
Last edited:
Just read the AP article and it says jurors were from the voter rolls in Dallas.
As I’m reading the article my mind is running on this some. Under the best of circumstances this is a pageant and a show. They might have followed procedure but there is missing pieces, like the gravity of an actual humans life on the line.
One thing I think carries over is that the defense just saying “I can’t tell you the truth, because they won’t” isn’t a solid case. Then again, maybe I’m naive. That message might sway at least one of twelve enough to at least hang the jury.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,595
- Reaction score
- 20,364
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
good catch on the jurors.
Nice point as to just needing 1 juror. Jodi arias is not on death row bc i juror in each penalty phase (there were two) refused to recommend death.
As I was saying, jury trials are far from an exact science. Lots of variables at play.