JFK Assassination: What do you think ?

You said Ruby was at the Western Union Office, across the road from the Dallas Station.

His cabling of money to strippers does not explain his unwanted presence in the Offices of Dallas Police whilst Oswald was being questioned, at Parkland memorial hospital, or in the basement when Oswald was being moved.

you'll have to do much better than that. In my opinion, the individual that can explain Jack Ruby's role in the assassination will break this case wide open. Once you've done that, all this argueing will come to an end. But it's a fine topic to discuss, even if the United States law enforcement in Dallas comes off as corrupt, or the FBI and CIA don't look so good. But as ever, "You cannot question the machinations of government officials. We are all little children, and Big Nanny keeps her dirty laundry firmly away from prying kiddie's eyes, lest they be displayed for all to see just how dated and old her summer bloomers really are.

 

Ahhh.....it seems my protagonists have given up. Of course, thats what we expect....it's what happened to proper investigation into this case. Classified as 'too hard, too controversial", swept up, packaged as 'done' and then forgotten...

But we won't let that happen here, now...will we!

 

Gordon asks why we view the JFK assassination differently than the previous 3 successful Presidential killings.

Most obviously, there's little mystery about the others. Even in Lincoln's case there's no doubt about how or by whom he was killed; and the overall conspiracy is well understood, despite questions about the roles or culpability of a few people like Mary Surratt or Dr. Mudd. No mystery at all about Garfield, McKinley, or the attempts on Ford and Reagan.

I have to agree with Volga Boatman that Ruby is perhaps the greatest unresolved question. The man basically threw his life away to kill Oswald, and I doubt he did it out of concern for Kennedy or Mrs. K.

 

Questioning most by listing a single case doesn't work very well.

Of course those that were "hit" before they were ocntacted or indeed before the assasination didn't make the list. Maybe it's all connected to Valentine's Day.

Really? Care to document that the percentage of "unnatural" deaths is greater than one would expect for people in thier profession?

Or not.

The problem that I see is the only source VB has mentioned has been at best called to question and at worst discredited. In particular no source has been mentioned that counters the facts presented by others that call to question Garrison book.

As for "football" vs "Soccer" both are correct. Foot ball is played with a ovoloid shaped ball and soccer with a round one ....

 

Nah, that's rugby!

 

I knew this thread sounded familiar....

The Parallax View (10/10) Movie CLIP - One Way Out (1974) HD - YouTube

 

The deposit of GSR on the cheek of a shooter when he/she uses a long gun is an “iffy” thing at best. Depending on the action of the rifle/shotgun, the GSR on the cheek can be very small, and always less than from a handgun. The “paraffin” testing of the time was highly suspect, and has been completely replaced by other methods today, as it regularly displayed both false positives and negatives, and hasn’t been used in nearly half a century. I think that better methods came to the fore in the seventies.

Much to the consternation of those who think it never goes away, GRS isn’t all that “durable” either, washing your hands, wiping them on your clothes or even putting your hands in your pockets three or four times can remove or dilute the traces to where the evidence cannot be used in court. In the case of LHO, his badly re-chambered .38 S&W leaked like a sieve and coated his hands and clothes in GSR.

Long Guns
After firing some shotguns and rifles, gunshot residues can be detected on the hands and cheek of the firer but the amount of the residues is usually less than that of common handguns. When both hands are used to fire the long guns, because the non-firing hand is much closer to the muzzle than the firing hand, then more gunshot residues, due to flash back, may be deposited on the non-firing hand than the firing hand. The shorter the barrel, the closer the non-firing hand is to the muzzle. Hence, more gunshot residues may be deposited on the non-firing hand in the case of shotguns and rifles (49). (underline mine)

Goto:

Forensic  Science

 

Volga,

You need to address the actual facts presented. One being the Zapruder film proving beyond a doubt (you know, physics) that the shot came from the rear.

The Kennedy assassination was no different than the shootings of McKinley or Garfield or Reagan. A lone nut with a gun got close enough to the president to take a a shot. Period.

How did Ruby get into the basement of the Dallas Police Department? He was across the street at the Western Union office and saw the activity, then simply crossed the street and walked in. There was nobody to prevent him and the place was filled with curious people who had no real business there. There is no answer to why he did it; anything he said afterwards was self-justification. He was not a stable man and the shooting was no different than a thousand other shootings where unstable men shoot their wife's lover, their mean boss or the neighbor who stole their lawn mower. Ruby was a Kennedy admirer and simply snapped and killed his murderer.

 

Jack Ruby was a constant presence at the police station, he was well known by the force, and always hanging around when something big was going on. He gave policemen discounts at his strip clubs, and always tried to stay on their good sides. After he was arrested and being taken by elevator up to be booked, one of his policeman friends asked "why JacK?", and Ruby didn't say a thing about Mrs. Kennedy. What he said was he "wanted to be a hero, and kill the guy who killed the President"

In fact as the news spread that Oswald had been shot, applause and cheering broke out among the crowd outside the station. Ruby really didn't think that he would be convicted of a murder charge in Dallas since he had erased the "stain" on the city and was hence a "hero". He wasn't a stable man by any stretch of the imagination.

His mood swings and violent outbursts were legendary, and if he had planned any of this he wouldn't have taken his favorite dog; "Sheba" with him. He walked across the street from the Western Union office, leaving her in the car. Not something he would have done to the dog he loved more than most people.

 

I get that. It's probably also why it isn't really an all-consuming subject to most non-Americans.

 

It's not an all consuming subject to most Americans either, at least in my experiance.

 

Conspiracy theorists are everywhere. Bush attacked Iran for the oil. Bush attacked Iran so the company Cheney was formerly associated with could get rich. Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. The 9/11 attack was orchestrated by Bush, the CIA, the Jews, the bankers, the Belgians...

Look up the term Cognitive Dissonance for an explanation of how the human brain will create an alternate reality when faced with something they can't rationalize. In the JFK case, many people simply can't accept that a loner with a gun could alter history - that our world is filled with chaos and random events. They want to see it as part of a plot by shadowy people ruling our lives.

This is why mankind created religion. Religion gives people a sense of order for things beyond their control. Remove religion and you come up shadowy cabals of powerful figures pulling the strings.

The truth is that the world is random. When you step in front of a bus, you stepped in front of a bus. Neither God, the CIA or the Bilderbergers shoved you in front of that bus.

 

I don't even think about it at all until someone tries to make it into something it wasn't and isn't by using bad data, poor research, and books written to take their money and make the CTs richer. Then my goat gets taken.

 

I've seen MMGW fanatics use that term to describe anyone who fails to worship them as saviours of the world too.