Proven to whose satisfaction? More on this issue later.

Source, please.

My opinion is based on what I know (admittedly as a layman) of criminal investigations. Your opinion postulates a conspiracy. You can't postulate what you're trying to prove.

You're saying that "they" took the huge extra risk just to have live video of Oswald? To be frank, that's absurd. Oswald is just as good of a "patsy" dead as alive (still loved Castro and Communism, still had a Russian wife). Why does he need to be seen alive first in order to provide closure? Furthermore, television was a relatively new phenomenon in those days, and print media remained the main news sources for a majority of Americans. "Live" (pre-assassination) photos would have been no problem--Oswald was under surveillance by the FBI for obvious reasons. You are simply attempting to shoe-horn the data into your theory (assuming you actually have a theory), rather than considering the very strong possiblility that your theory is incorrect.

If Oswald wasn't in on the conspiracy, why have him killed? What could he possibly have revealed? He would either have been falsely convicted and executed, or else he would have been acquitted and undoubtedly left the country one step ahead of any number of lynch mobs.

How do you explain all the witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer of Officer Tippit? [note: I just discovered I've been misspelling the officer's name.]

He may not have had the money for a ticket (this can undoubtedly be checked, but it's a minor point); however, more likely he wanted to get inside as quickly as possible to avoid being spotted. If he had just shot a police officer in front of several witnesses, it stands to reason that he might consider a movie theater a good place to hide for a while.

Also, if Oswald was not involved, why did he have a gun, and why did he resist arrest so violently (see here)? His actions in the theater are completely consistent with those of someone who has just shot a police officer.

Why do you find it suspicious that a theater manager would call the police to report someone sneaking in without paying? Furthermore, it was the ticket seller who called, after she had spoken with someone who had been following Oswald after observing him attempting to hide from a police car.

Your lame attempt at a satire of Southerners' reasoning abilities and speech patterns is totally uncalled for, and a violation of forum rules.

It seems as if you are being deliberately obtuse. Many police officers were already searching the area for someone who'd just murdered one of their own. That the murderer's description matched that of a man wanted in connection with the assassination of the President made the situation all the more urgent.

When the police received the report from the theater, they undoubtedly knew that it might have been a dead end--but they also knew it could have been the break they needed. Should they have sent just one or two officers to check it out? What would they have considered the likely outcome of that scenario to have been?

Shocking as it may seem, guilty suspects routinely claim innocence. Also, he had an additional motive to lie other than saving his skin--potentially embarrassing the US Government. Oswald's statements by themselves are of no value.

Again, you're out of line here turbonium. If you wish to be taken seriously, you shouldn't act like a troll.

You have absolutely no evidence that "they" had press packets on Oswald ready to hand out--this is simply another sensational proclamation of the existence of a conspiracy with no proof offered.

Oh, of course, how could I have forgotten? The lack of evidence proves there were actually two conspiracies: the original, plus the cover-up.

She said she was going to "break the case." That doesn't prove she had any evidence at the time. She may simply have meant that she expected to break the case at some point. Further, even if she had evidence, we don't know what it was--it may have been standard CT tripe (which is all she ever printed in her column, according to McAdams).

This proves nothing; "unprecedented access" does not help if there's really no conspiracy. And the WC was conducting a comprehensive and lengthy investigation--the fact that she was able to publish a single piece of evidence before the investigation was completed is meaningless.

It's not that big a stretch if you begin by postulating that Ruby was part of a conspiracy--again, you're postulating what you're attempting to prove. Additionally, if Ruby was crazy, he might have told her any number of sensational things that were simply not true.

Different times, for one thing--you're applying today's ideas about security. Further, they didn't necessarily know how upset he was, that he was unbalanced, or that he had a gun. Also, I seem to recall seeing a while back that he told the police he was interpreting for and/or otherwise assisting some Israeli journalists, though I don't currently have a source for this.

I imagine that you don't realize it, and you may not care in any case, but you have repeatedly libeled those police officers. If they felt like it, they (or their families) could sue you, and they would win, though I doubt they would consider you worth their trouble to do so.

Again, you're assuming that he was thinking clearly. Furthermore, he might have been hoping that Oswald would die slowly and painfully. Another issue--when Ruby was a young thug, abdominal wounds were much more likely to be fatal (before antibiotics). Finally, you have yet to explain how this supposed anomaly fits into any kind of conspiracy theory.

He may have wanted to keep it low so that it would be less noticeable until he got close, in which extra time would have been required. Another issue--possibly he wanted to put the gun right against Oswald's stomach to avoid any chance of hitting a bystander in the crowded and confined basement. Please don't just respond, "he was a hardened mobster"; even professional hitmen can have scruples about such things--especially when some of those bystanders were friends of his on the police force.

Again, please explain how this fits into any conspiracy scenario.

You can't possibly know that. Ruby's actions are also consistent with someone who wanted to get a close-up look at the face of evil (much as many Jews wanted to get a close-up look at Adolf Eichmann), and simply snapped when he got what he wanted.

[edit: typo]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Why was the Kennedy brother shot ?

He's also an expert on many other subjects, including structural engineering, airline security, covert operations, international terrorism, political science, and history.

My best friend's wife is from North Carolina, and her response to similar comments is always, "Yeah, we have schools, and book learning, and we even wear shoes.

I looked at the Oswald autopsy photo (I'm not going to link to it due to its graphic nature; anyone who wants to see can Google "Oswald autopsy photo"). I tend to agree with you--it looks like the wound is near the bottom of his ribcage, and would seem (in my inexpert opinion) to be much more likely to be fatal than a simple intestinal or stomach wound.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

From Wikipedia:

The entire article is available here.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

It was never proven he did shoot Tippett.

Proven to whose satisfaction?

To a huge number of people who have read the Warren Report, including Garrison.

Quote:
In fact, there were CIA agents arrested in the area but released with no further mention or follow-up investigation.

Source, please.

I heard Garrison mention that in an interview on the Tonight Show in 1967 - he said that there were photos taken of the arrests as well, but not released to his investigators or to the public. I'll see if something is in print about that.

If he hadn't shot a police officer and then started acting suspiciously, he likely wouldn't have been arrested until the serial number of the rifle had been traced to the company that sold it to him.
My opinion is based on what I know (admittedly as a layman) of criminal investigations. Your opinion postulates a conspiracy. You can't postulate what you're trying to prove.

But the police were after Oswald for JFK's murder, not just Tippitt's. So he still would have been arrested before tracing the s/n of the rifle.

You're saying that "they" took the huge extra risk just to have live video of Oswald? To be frank, that's absurd. Oswald is just as good of a "patsy" dead as alive (still loved Castro and Communism, still had a Russian wife). Why does he need to be seen alive first in order to provide closure? Furthermore, television was a relatively new phenomenon in those days, and print media remained the main news sources for a majority of Americans. "Live" (pre-assassination) photos would have been no problem--Oswald was under surveillance by the FBI for obvious reasons.

So, let's say the conspirators were not happy to see Oswald captured alive - it still doesn't matter. The fact is that they paraded Oswald out for the media as the "lone nut assassin" for the world to see. Beyond that, the Dallas police were also able to show the world that, despite failing to help protect JFK from being assassinated, they were very diligent in swiftly and successfully apprehending the "killer" alive. The bottom line is that they didn't want him to end up testifying because that was the "huge extra risk", and the reason for having him silenced.

If Oswald wasn't in on the conspiracy, why have him killed? What could he possibly have revealed? He would either have been falsely convicted and executed, or else he would have been acquitted and undoubtedly left the country one step ahead of any number of lynch mobs.

He could have revealed his connections to the CIA, Ruby, David Ferrie, and others. Remember, the Warren Commission had him painted as a Communist / Castro sympathizer, trying to link him to the KGB, etc., and that he had no connections to the CIA, Ferrie, etc. His testimony could have stirred up very unwanted questions, mentioned some people he was connected to (in the IA, etc), and some of his testimony could have been corroborated by others who testified, or were not called to testify, but had important information that would debunk the WC story.

Why do you find it suspicious that a theater manager would call the police to report someone sneaking in without paying?

Come on - people (usually kids) have been sneaking into theaters since the day they began building them! All theaters have standard policies which state that they have the right to remove any patron, typically for reasons such as: drinking alcohol, disturbing other patrons, and yes - even for entering without paying! They do not call the police to deal with their removal, except in rare cases, such as a patron threatening others with a weapon, such as a gun or knife, or a bomb threat. If the police were required to respond to a theater every time someone snuck in or pelted someone with popcorn, nearly every town would have a dedicated "Anti-Movie Delinquency Unit" (a city like Dallas would need a full-fledged Division).

Furthermore, it was the ticket seller who called, after she had spoken with someone who had been following Oswald after observing him attempting to hide from a police car.

You are referring to Johnny Brewer's account, which raises another issue I find quite interesting. From the Warren Report, Brewer stated he was listening to his radio when "they said a patrolman had been shot in Oak Cliff...."

Mr. BELIN - All right, would you describe what happened after you heard on the radio that an officer had been shot?

Mr. BREWER - Still in the store behind the counter, and I looked up and saw the man enter the lobby.

Brewer is referring to Oswald. He then continues his testimony, describing how he followed Oswald to the theater, and so on.

But there are some problems with this account - the timeline, which was outlined from the WR information, and is linked here http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm

Note the times for Tippit's shooting, and Brewer seeing and following Oswald...

Nov. 22, 1963, 1:15 (approx.) 10th and Patton Streets Oswald shoots Officer Tippit
Nov. 22, 1963, 1:30 (approx.) Jefferson Street Johnny Calvin Brewer, shoe store clerk, sees Oswald acting suspiciously, follows to Texas Theater

Now remember that Brewer definitely said he heard the radio mentioning Tippit's shooting (approx. 1:15) then he heard sirens and police cars driving back and forth, then he saw Oswald staring in his store and followed him (approx. 1:30).

This is simply impossible. There is no way that there will be a report on the radio about Tippit's shooting within 15 minutes, before Brewer claims he saw and followed Oswald.

Your lame attempt at a satire of Southerners' reasoning abilities and speech patterns is totally uncalled for, and a violation of forum rules.

If you read the Warren Report transcripts, there really is some dialogue quite similar to the satire. There was even a "Butch" at the theater, so I just made it into "Bubba". I just combined that with making a point about out how ridiculous it is to assert that summoning the cops to remove a gate crasher is actually common theater policy.

Wow, turbonium, not only do you manage to insult me and slander Walter Cronkite but you're also an expert on assination. Yeah we all wore bearskins and drove oxcarts until the intenet came along and brought civilization into the 20th century. I lived in Dallas at the time and my name isn't Bubba or Jimmy Joe, it's John. And I don't talk like a hick...You do know that the police had radios, even way back before the internet rescued us from the dark ages.

I have friends and family in Texas and other southern states, and they don't speak like the characters I scripted, either. They certainly aren't offended or insulted by what I wrote, nor do they take these things personally. Is Jeff Foxworthy not familiar to you? His tours are most popular in the southern states - Mississippi, Alabama, and yes, in Texas. Do you take his humor as an insult? Ever seen the sitcom "My Name Is Earl"? Do you take that personally? I'm not too sure about that - since you've made a little jab at the southern stereotypes yourself, you seem to realize it's all nothing to be upset about.

I imagine that you don't realize it, and you may not care in any case, but you have repeatedly libeled those police officers. If they felt like it, they (or their families) could sue you, and they would win, though I doubt they would consider you worth their trouble to do so.

Oh, please - spare the rhetoric. The Dallas police (or elements within) have been accused of involvement in JFK's and/or Oswald's murders since Jim Garrison in the mid-1960's. It's been well documented that they were buddies with Ruby - he was a welcome guest at the police station, and they in turn frequented Rudy's nightclub and strip bar. In case you don't know, Ruby had long been well connected to organized crime, including Sam Giancana. Trying to play "fighter for justice" on behalf of these people is patently ridiculous. This is hardly a group of boy scouts we're talking about here.

Except that, when added to Brewers account, you get the ticket seller being informed that there has been a policeman shot in the area and that a bloke acting suspicious has just snuck into the cinema. Now, in that situation, don't you think it's reasonable for the ticket seller to call the police? After all, this could be the cop killer and therefore be armed and dangerous.

The President has just been assassinated, there are news people keeping tabs on all reports coming into police, these are being put onto the air as and when they come in. And you think they could not have got a report of a police shooting onto the air within 15 minutes? A simple report, like "We have just received a report of a policeman shot in the Oak Cliff area, more on that as we get it".

But the police were after Oswald for JFK's murder, not just Tippitt's.

I believe this is wwrong, he was arrested for Tippit's murder, not JFK's. He was subsequently questioned to his involment in the president's murder as it became clear who he was, but the intital arrest was over shooting a cop.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

(Bolding of Garrison mine)

Jim Garrison? The lawyer?

You may want to check this out. He's not the best the best expert testimony you could have cited. In fact, he's among the worst.

As Lonewulf noted, Garrison is thoroughly discredited. In the section of the WC report I linked above, many witnesses identified Oswald either as the man they saw shoot Tippit, or the man they saw running away immediately after the shooting. Shell casings from Oswald's revolver were found at the scene of the shooting, and although ballistics could not be matched because the weapon had been rechambered, the bullets recovered were consistent.

Again, it's simply Garrison making one of many wild accusations. And even if it were true, you still haven't explained all the witnesses, the forensic evidence, and Oswald's violent resistance.

[edit: upon rereading, I note how you initially claimed this to be a "fact," just because some conspiracy monger said it was so. Another point--how did Garrison "know" there were photos if they weren't released?]

The police were not "after" Oswald at that point--they were simply looking for someone who fit his description. Of course, once his background was known, he would have been hauled in for extensive interrogation, but he wouldn't necessarily have been arrested. And I was presuming that the rifle would have been traced fairly quickly (depending on how much Oswald's alias slowed the police down).

It definitely does matter--you gave that as a rationale for why "they" would have made it look like Oswald murdered Tippit, so that he would be quickly arrested, and why they didn't just kill him.

Utterly irrelevant to your argument. Had Oswald chucked a grenade into Kennedy's limo on national television and then been gang-tackled by the Secret Service and immediately apprehended, the police would have done the same thing. And why not just apprehend him dead? Far fewer complications.

My point exactly--why risk it simply to have Oswald alive for a couple of days, when Oswald dead is just or nearly as good?

How could any of this be true if Oswald wasn't in on the conspiracy?

You said it yourself--it's "usually kids"--not 30-ish men.

As others have mentioned, it's not only possible, it's perfectly reasonable. Police headquarters was swarming with journalists--even allowing a generous five minutes for the report to be passed on to the press, and five minutes for someone to call the radio station and have a note handed to the announcer, that's plenty of time. Even allowing that the radio station picked it up second-hand (from a television report, for example) and adding another five minutes for whoever was watching TV at the station to write the note and deliver it, that's still only 15 minutes. Additionally, the times are only approximate, despite your attempt to treat them as exact.

I wasn't able to find any actual transcripts of witness testimony in a cursory online search, but I can tell you that the stenographer would not have introduced deliberate misspellings that attempt to mimic Southern accents. Furthermore, no one ever said it was "common." I asked why you found it "suspicious."

[edit: this is a hallmark of conspiracism--"unusual" is automatically equivalent to "suspicious"]


It's not rhetoric--it's a fact, whether you choose to believe or not. You have accused the specific officers who were escorting Oswald of conspiring in his murder. You have made this accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. The fact that other demonstrably non-credible sources (including Garrison) have made related accusations is no defense--in fact, your parroting these sources is evidence of your "reckless disregard." Let me ask you, Turbonium, how would you feel about having someone spreading baseless charges that you (or your father or grandfather) conspired to murder someone? Dennis Miller might have a defense in that his comments were obviously made in jest--you have no such defense.

You have no specific knowledge of the two officers in question--again, reckless disregard for the truth. Additionally, you evidently feel that people who frequent nightclubs don't deserve protection from false accusations of murder.

[edited for quoting error and typo]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I'm going to have to go along with those pointing out that citing Garrison does not, in point of fact, give you any credibility whatsoever. I mean, come on--the one suspect Garrison put on trial was acquitted in, what, 45 minutes? Garrison's theories are so suspect that even most Kennedy CTs didn't want to have anything to do with Oliver Stone's JFK because he believed Garrison.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yeah, when it's used to be funny. I like Foxworthy. You know why? He doesn't make it sound like he's above everyone else. I can laugh at myself. I can laugh at hicks and I can laugh at you. You used it as an attempt to make it seem as if your average Dallasite was backward and incapapble of putting two and two together and reasoning that the guy they heard about on the radio was indeed the sophisticated international hitman employed by the CIA/tobacco/oil and whoever else you listed, trying to sneak into a theater to hide like a common burglar. Or maybe you wanted to make it seem like we couldn't work a radio device. I don't know, at any rate it ain't proof of anything.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

The CIA killed kennedy its obvious

Is it though?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

VenusROVER, I would suggest to start backing your claims up. You've already claimed that the CIA assassinated John Lennon and Bob Marley.

[edit] fixed tags

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Thanks, VenusROVER. I'm sure the mods will enjoy your post as well.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

if they delete me i'll make another one

What is your problem?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

****

you **** ****

How old are you?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Dude...you're asking for a perma-ban. This is a family-friendly board, so no swears please. You may want to calm down, too.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

I am 13 years of age.

So, do you think what you are doing is funny or cool?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

What you guys never here a 13 year old swear where do u go a christian school

no ...................no wait its pretty funny

I haven't heard a mouth that that since Barrens general chat in WoW...

And VenusROVER, bad language is against the rules. I'd suggest to read the FAQ, but you seem to enjoy sending useless and meaningless insults at people who are trying to help you. If you wish to continue, you may want another board, like GLP. They enjoy your kind there.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

wow seriously man you havent heard someone sware that much holy cow man you got to get out more

It isn't really funny. Plus it is disrespectful. If you don't mind disrespecting and alienating most of the members of the board, keep it up, but, if that is the case, I am not sure why you would even become a member here.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

to talk about space I like astronomy personally

Well, let's use the board to talk about space then and leave the cussing and the insults for somewhere else. Please.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.