Thats what i've done look at all my posts and the threads i've started

No, all you've done is throw insults and curses at people for no reason.

__________________
"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 have read a few of your posts in the last 30 minutes or so that were nothing but insulting and rude. Those are the kind of posts that don't belong here.

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

In fact, I am left wondering if

a) you are a troll,
b) you have a condition, or
c) you honestly don't understand that calling people names is insulting.

I would hope that there may be other options and that onec you get this out of your system you might become a valuable member of the board, but all I have to go on is your posting history, and it does not look promising.

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

Look like he's the dime that derailed the train... er, thread.

As to the CIA killing Kennedy, why assume they'd be any more successful at that than they were at killing Castro?

__________________
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!"

I don’t remember the exact timing of the events, although I did study them years ago. Radio stations that had news departments had police radio receivers in their newsrooms, and the stations were putting out every major breaking story that day as soon as they heard the transmissions over the police scanners. People all over town were listening to these commercial radio broadcasts, and the newsmen were passing along new police information as soon as they heard it over their police radios.

That’s good.

Kennedy is dead, Oswald is dead, Ruby is dead, LBJ is dead, Nixon is dead, Khrushchev is dead, J. Edgar Hoover is dead. John McCone (director of the CIA in 1963) is dead, etc., etc.

Castro is still in power after 45 years.

They weren’t quite “instantaneous”. I was in the media in New Orleans at that time. We sprang into action as soon as we heard Oswald had been arrested in Dallas. It was quite a shock to us. The News Director of WDSU called NBC in New York, and the News Director of WWL called CBS in New York. Meanwhile, someone at each station called the local telephone company and ordered the setup of a high-band cable connection to New York so we could feed our Oswald films up to the networks. That was a complicated process in those days. That usually took a little time for the phone company to make the connection, at least 15 to 20 minutes.

In the meantime, various staffers at the two networks in New York were feeding the incoming information about Oswald (from us in New Orleans) to their live news anchors, and that information began to be broadcast nationally and picked up by AP and UPI, probably less than 15 or so minutes after Oswald’s arrest was announced. That’s what got the Oswald bio information out to the world so fast. It wasn’t the feds that did it, it was the New Orleans media, which had films and audio interviews with Oswald about his promotion of Castro earlier that year, specifically on Aug. 12, Aug. 16, Aug. 17, and Aug. 21. He had contacted us, seeking publicity for his pro-Castro activities.

Those were the few hobos picked up in some of the train boxcars in the train yard way behind the Texas School Book Depository, several hours after the assassination. CIA hit men wouldn’t lounge around for hours in boxcars waiting to be picked up hours later. In 1978 the House Committee disproved the CIA/hobo theory.

I'm just going to cut this short. Turbonium, what would it take to convince you that this whole thing wasn't a huge conspiracy? You seem to take what you can to support your side (I.E., all that Jim Garrison claimed) without actually taking the time to review the credibility of the source, and then do some tricky dodge and evasive maneuvers to avoid having to accept the real facts.

So, I repeat: What facts would convince you, and CAN you be convinced?

Ah--I thought turbonium meant that someone was arrested in the area where Tippit was shot. If he's referring to the hobos then a possible connection to Tippit's murder would be even more tenuous.

__________________
--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

Well, first of all - regarding credibility - I hardly consider the Warren Commission credible in the least. There are so many problems with the "Oswald as lone assassin" theory that I hardly know where to begin. The SBT is utterly ludicrous, and the autopsy was a complete farce. Any rational assessment of all the points should be more than enough to convince one of these problems. Every major poll continues to show that the vast majority of the American public do not believe the Warren Report conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin. Contrary to the major polls, the poll results from this thread are so skewed in favor of the "official" story, it is not only an aberration, it also puzzles me as to why so many here still believe the WC nonsense.

Because its conclusions don't fit your preconceived notion that there was a conspiracy.

The only "problem" is that it doesn't fit your preconceptions.

How is it "utterly ludicrous?" Please enlighten us. Please also state your qualifications as an expert in ballistics, or give a reference to an expert in ballistics who agrees with you.

This is debatable at best--even if true, however, it is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Frankly, turbonium, your assessments up to this point have been anything but rational. You claimed it was ridiculous that the ticket taker at the Texas Theater would call the police just because someone sneaked in without paying, and we demonstrated that in fact she called because she was informed that he had been seen hiding from a police car, and that he fit the description of the suspect. You then claimed it was impossible that the report of Tippit's murder could have been on the radio within 15 minutes--we showed you that it was easily possible.

You continue to insist that Oswald wasn't involved in the assassination, yet you have utterly failed to explain why so many witnesses identified him as the murderer of Officer Tippit, why shell casings matching his revolver were found at the scene, why he was carrying a gun, and why he so violently resisted arrest.

You have repeatedly claimed that it is highly "suspicious" that Ruby only shot Oswald once, yet you have failed to explain how this is evidence of a conspiracy.

You repeat conjectures from conspiracy theorists as if they were established facts, while at the same time attempting to hand-wave away documented evidence that tends to discredit your theory.

Argumentum ad populum. One of the major reasons for this is The History Channel's showing of The Men Who Killed Kennedy every year on November 22, and other mass-media offerings that tend to perpetuate conspiracy theories. Also see Jay's web site for information about why conspiracy theories are so popular.

Why are you puzzled? Every piece of "evidence" you've presented has either been conclusively refuted, or else you've failed to explain how it fits into your theory. If it's so obvious that there was a conspiracy, you should have no difficulty in convincing us. Instead, you continually hand-wave, ignore questions you can't answer, belittle evidence against your position, and loudly proclaim a conspiracy. In light of all this, why should we take your claims seriously?

[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

How is it "utterly ludicrous?" Please enlighten us. Please also state your qualifications as an expert in ballstics, or give a reference to an expert in ballistics who agrees with you.

Ludicrous in more than one aspect...

First: the autopsy pathologists were absolutely positive the back wound did not have an exit point. They probed the wound repeatedly, then removed the chest organs and probed the wound again, and still found no exit point. Two medical technicians present during the autopsy, James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor, have both stated that there was no exit point found for the back wound.

Second: the findings of Dr. David W. Mantik, Ph.D. which showed that the lateral cranial autopsy X-rays had been fabricated by the use of a patch to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head. Dr. Mantik has board certification in radiation oncology and is an expert on the interpretation of X-rays.

Third: the physiological impossibility of the bullet traversing through JFK's body as asserted by the WC. Medical experts, including forensic pathologists, have conclusively stated that the bullet could not have entered the back and exited the throat without cervical vertebrae and lung damage which was not found to exist during post-mortem examination.

There are many other problems with the SBT, including the fact that the WC tests done by FBI firearms and ballistics experts were consistently unable to reproduce the result of a near-pristine bullet after it went through bone (wrist, ribs) similar to that of what hit Connally. Or that the bullet went through two people and caused seven wounds, but didn't have a speck of blood on it, and was only mildly flattened at the base. Or that the alleged trajectory of the bullet was impossible because all the SBT simulations grossly alter the true body positions of JFK and Connally at the time, which are clearly established through various photos and Zapruder's film.

One of the major reasons for this is The History Channel's showing of The Men Who Killed Kennedy every year on November 22, and other mass-media offerings that tend to perpetuate conspiracy theories.

And you have proof for this claim? I seem to recall ABC, with an average primetime viewer base of over 10 million (compared to ~ 1 million for the History Channel) had a well-publicized pro-WC special a day or two before the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination. ABC conducted a poll just previous to the show - look at the results here...http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/U...ll_031116.html

Doesn't say if they conducted a poll afterwards to see if the results changed. If they did, they would have published the results....or maybe only if the results did change.

And you seem to be forgetting the countless programs over the past 40+ years which have always described Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK as if it were an indisputable, historical fact. The "official" news from CBS, ABC, and NBC has always reported Oswald being the lone killer as the irrefutable truth. These "mainstream" programs and reports literally dwarf the number of pro-conspiracy programs that have aired. And they have never managed to change the opinion of the majority of people.

Since when is fact determined via a popularity contest? Especially amongst those without the specific knowledge to determine the truth of the matter.

I will note you answer neither the question of what it woulkd take to convince you that there was no conspriacy, nor did you answer to your ballistics qualifications or experience to be able to call the SBT rubbish.

__________________
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

Since it appears that no amount of reasoning nor facts could convince Turbonium, I exit stage left and become an audience member.

No they haven’t.

The bullet entered the upper back, just to the right of his spinal column, and came out his throat. Go look at yourself in the mirror. Your throat matches up with you upper back. Lungs in people aren’t up in the area of their upper back and throat.

The majority of people have forgotten about the case. They are reminded of it every 10 years whenever the anniversary programs are aired. 99% of the people don’t think about this case at all 99% of the time.

You know, I've seen the shot replicated. Exactly (well, just about; it didn't quite manage to penetrate the fake Connally thigh). It caused the wounds almost exactly as described, and the bullet came out looking pretty much exactly like the so-called "magic" bullet. Really. Unsolved History, on the Discovery Channel, managed it fairly easily. It took one try.

I also saw them shoot a bullet of that kind through something like a yard of wood and have it come out looking pretty much exactly like the "magic" bullet.

You claim that they "grossly alter" the body positions, but in fact, they only make them more accurate than the attempts of the CTs to show them. Apparently, you're forgetting the jump seat and the fact that, in the Zapruder film, they aren't lined up the way Garrison claims.

__________________
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!"

It is my opinion. It stands to reason that programs presenting conspiracist views will sway some people, and engender doubts about the "official story" in the minds of others.

I'm not "forgetting." There are two issues--one, most of these programs make no attempt to debunk the conspiracy theories, and some, while not endorsing them, do mention such theories. Two, as a practical matter, debunking conspiracy theories is much more labor-intensive and time-consuming than spreading them. For example, anyone could throw out the charge "FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, because we were reading Japan's codes, and the task force broke radio silence on its way to Hawaii," in a single sentence. A thorough debunking of these statements would require, at a minimum, several paragraphs. This, combined with the natural human receptiveness to conspiracy theories, leads to the relatively small number of pro-conspiracy programs' having a disproportionate impact on public opinion.

Now, turbonium, I note that, as usual, you have failed to respond to several of the issues I have raised--choosing to respond only to the one that you thought you might score a few rhetorical points on, likely because you suspected (correctly) that I didn't have a sociological study of the effects of viewing conspiracist materials on public opinion handy. I now specifically request that you answer, or affirmatively admit that you cannot answer, the following questions:

1) You have consistently maintained that Oswald was not involved in your postulated conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that he did not murder Officer Tippit. Please explain, if you can, the large number of witnesses who either identified Oswald as Tippit's murderer, or who identified him as the man they saw fleeing the scene and holding a gun. Please explain also why he was arrested with a gun that matched shell casings recovered near the murder scene, and why he so violently resisted arrest, if he was innocent.

2) You have also maintained that Oswald's transfer to the jail was staged in order to allow Ruby to kill Oswald, yet you find it highly suspicious that Ruby only shot Oswald once. Please explain how Ruby's "suspicious" behavior fits into any conspiracy theory.

3) You have claimed that "they" had Oswald killed to silence him. Please explain what "they" were so afraid that Oswald would reveal, if, as you maintain, he was not part of the conspiracy.

4) Finally, if you would, please explain how your belittling (rather than refuting) the evidence against your position, your continual unsupported proclamations of a conspiracy, your uncritical repetition of long-debunked conspiracist positions, and your utter failure to describe any sort of a theory (coherent or otherwise) of what you think actually happened, amount to anything more than handwaving.

__________________
--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

If you ignore the SBT then you have to explain how come the bullet that hit Connally's back did so sideways, creating an elongated oval chaped wound, rather then a standard small round wound as it would have had it hit directly. You have to explain how a bullet fired from a gun wiould start tumbling for no reason. That it passed through JFK first would indeed explain this, but again the CT's just ignore any evidence they don't like.

__________________
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

You mean the autopsy that "was a complete farce?"

You mean the autopsy that "was a complete farce?"

Mantik "showed" no such thing--he gave as his opinion that a patch could have been used to create the x-ray--any reason given for anyone's having done so is pure conjecture. I have been able to find little direct information "for" or "against" Mantik's position online--I observe, however, that he evidently subscribes to many discredited theories about the Kennedy assassination, and is clearly in league with several leading conspiracists, including Fetzer and White. Therefore, his "evidence" cannot be accepted without substantial coroboration. One final observation--I question how many x-rays of remains of individuals who have sustained major gunshot wounds the the head Mantik had studied before making his pronouncements.

You mean the autopsy that "was a complete farce?"

Unfortunately, the diagrams of the wound location in the WC report are in error--the doctors who performed the autopsy drew them without reference to the autopsy photos. Additionally, lung damage was noted, and vertabrae damage was not conclusively ruled out. See here.


Because the initial tests were performed by firing directly into the bone. Later tests, performed by firing first through another body to slow the bullet, produced similar-looking bullets.

Because it passed through Kennedy striking mostly or entirely soft tissue, and had slowed down considerably before it struck Connally's rib.

[edit: Also, the lack of blood, tissue, or clothing fragments on the bullet was likely due to its rapid passage]

The Zapruder film and various photographs were used to construct the computer models. Validating the models would not be difficult--merely taking a view of the limousine from Zapruder's known location and watching to see if the appearance matched [edit: the appearance of the limousine, Kennedy, and Connally in the model matched the appearance in the film] would suffice.

[edit: quoting, typo and url--sorry for all the edits--I was about to doze off when I was writing this]

__________________
--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

turbonium, in the event there is any doubt, these are direct, relevent and pertinent questions that are directed to you as a proponant of this theory. As such, and as per the rules governing this forum, you are required to answer these question within a resonable time period. Failure to do so may result in sanction from the moderator team.

Note that answers such as "I don't know" or "I don't have an answer now but will provide one by {x date}" are perfectly acceptable.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Just jumping in about this one point. It's not unusual for a bullet to leave the barrel on a less than perfect spiral. Larger rounds tend to wobble more than smaller ones. 50 BMG rounds will wobble for several hundred yards before getting completely stable. Some of the factors that can affect this are the shape of the bullet and the 'crown' of the barrel. The crown is the shape of the end of the barrel. It should be exactly 90 degrees to the bore. if there is an angle or curve in any way, the burning gasses can slip out one side sooner than the other causing the bullet to wobble a lot. Oddly enough, this wobble doesn't really affect the accuracy as much as it seems like it should, but is does affect range, as the bullet slows more quickly.

Poorly made bullets may not be exactly flat on the bottom and cause the same thing to happen. One bullet company my dad was using back in the late 70's had a severe problem with this. Nearly every round that went through the paper at 100 yards went though sideways enough that you could tell which end of the hole was made by the front of the bullet. All shots were still within a 2 inch circle at 100 yards. Well, at least part of them was. Bullets going through sideways are said to "keyhole".

This isn't in support of either side, just an explanation of how a bullet may make an elongated hole without actually hitting anything beforehand.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

I could point out here that the 'Pristine, Magic Bullet' wasn't all that Pristine:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif

1) You have consistently maintained that Oswald was not involved in your postulated conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that he did not murder Officer Tippit. Please explain, if you can, the large number of witnesses who either identified Oswald as Tippit's murderer, or who identified him as the man they saw fleeing the scene and holding a gun. Please explain also why he was arrested with a gun that matched shell casings recovered near the murder scene, and why he so violently resisted arrest, if he was innocent.

First, the witnesses...

The only person said to actually witness the shooting was Helen Markham, who contradicted herself considerably, and also made false statements during her testimony to the WC. The WC said “Her description and that of other eyewitnesses led to the police broadcast at 1:22 p.m. describing [Tippit’s] slayer as ‘about 30, 5’8”, black hair, slender." But Markham initially said that the gunman was “short, a little on the heavy side,” with “somewhat bushy” hair - proven through a tape recording of the conversation she had with attorney Mark Lane previous to her WC testimony. That also further weakens the official story of how Oswald's description over the police radio, as provided by witnesses to the Tippit shooting, helped the police to quickly track down and arrest Oswald.

None of the Commission's other witnesses actually saw the shooting. Many either said "possibly" it was Oswald, or described a very different shooter than what Oswald looked like.

Second, the shell casings - there were two types of ammunition found at the crime scene - but the first reports described casings from an automatic, not a revolver. The first report came from Dallas policeman H. W. Summers, the second report from Sgt. Gerald Hill, one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. After examining a shell found nearby, Hill said the casing indicated the suspect had used an automatic pistol. And a third policeman, Officer J. M. Poe, marked two of the empty shells found at the crime scene with his initials. Poe told the Secret Service he was positive he had marked the shells, and confirmed this during his testimony to the WC.

Third, that he "violently resisted arrest" - the testimony is very unclear and contradictory regarding his arrest at the theater. Oswald only reacted after police started searching him for a weapon - because he believed he would be in trouble for carrying a gun into a theater. But he didn't react prior to that, when he was said to have quietly remained seated. Why would he wait and allow the police to approach him, and even begin frisking, before reacting? If he was guilty he would have been afraid they were coming to arrest him for the murder(s) he committed. Why wouldn't he try to avoid the police from even getting near him, let alone make himself accessible to a frisking?

2) You have also maintained that Oswald's transfer to the jail was staged in order to allow Ruby to kill Oswald, yet you find it highly suspicious that Ruby only shot Oswald once. Please explain how Ruby's "suspicious" behavior fits into any conspiracy theory.

It has always seemed odd to me that Ruby would only fire one shot, and also made sure it was directly into Oswald's belly. I have my own theory about why a lifelong gangster, with years of experience in "snuffing" people, would not at least attempt to shoot him in the head, or at least in the heart. Ruby claimed later that he was "manipulated" into shooting Oswald. Taking that as the truth, for argument's sake, he could have been talked into it if he was told to fire just one, non-fatal shot at Oswald (like the abdomen). That would mean he would not be charged with murder, and receive a lesser sentence. Combined with the fact he was buddies with most of the cops at the station, who could have also helped convince Ruby that he would receive support from them at any subsequent trial. Also add in the fact that he may be looked upon as either a hero or at least not a "villain" for shooting "JFK's assassin", may work in his favor as well.

This is, once again, purely conjecture on my part. Ruby was, despite his emotional erraticism, not acting on a "spur of the moment" fit of anger. He knew full well that he was going to immediately be arrested by shooting someone right in a police station! He would also know that committing first degree murder would sign his death warrant. I simply don't feel he was deliberately sacrificing his own life for some sort of "justice" for JFK's murder.

3) You have claimed that "they" had Oswald killed to silence him. Please explain what "they" were so afraid that Oswald would reveal, if, as you maintain, he was not part of the conspiracy.

I believe that there were too many risks in letting Oswald live to tell his side of the story in a courtroom. The WC maintained Oswald never worked for the CIA.....

"The Directors of the CIA and of the FBI testified before the Commission that Oswald was never employed by either agency or used by either agency in any capacity. Investigation by the Commission has revealed no evidence that Oswald was ever employed by either the FBI or CIA in any capacity."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk...-12.html#usgov

But there is documented evidence that Oswald did in fact work for the CIA. Below are portions of a memo which clearly proves this (emphasis added is mine)...

TO: Mr. James J. Rowley
Chief, U.S. Secret Service
FROM: Mr. John McCone
Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments.During preliminary training, in 1957, subject was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to the "confidential" level...Subject received additional indoctrination at our own Camp Peary site from September 8 to October 17, 1958, and participated in a few relatively minor assignments until arrangements were made for his entry into the Soviet Union in September 1959. While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area of Minsk...

..Speculation within this agency -- and this is only speculation at this point -- is that Oswald subject became unstable following surgery April 1, 1961, in the Minsk Hospital. He may have been chemically or electronically "controlled"... a sleeper agent. Subject spent eleven days hospitalized for a "minor ailment" which should have required no more than three days hospitalization at the most. Six days after his release, he met Marina Prusakova. This agency is particularly interested in her intelligence background and I have requested a report on same from our Soviet Embassy contact.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5...ld-CIA01b8.gif

There were other factors that may have played a part in why Oswald needed to be silenced, but this fact alone provides a significant motive for it. Moreover, it also falsifies the WC assertion that Oswald was simply a lone-nut, Communist sympathizer.

4) Finally, if you would, please explain how your belittling (rather than refuting) the evidence against your position, your continual unsupported proclamations of a conspiracy, your uncritical repetition of long-debunked conspiracist positions, and your utter failure to describe any sort of a theory (coherent or otherwise) of what you think actually happened, amount to anything more than handwaving.

Please provide actual details as to exactly what "evidence" has been proposed that I am supposedly "belittling" rather than refuting. Same request for what you assert has been my "uncritical repetition of long-debunked conspiracist positions" - what exactly are you referring to? As to an "utter failure" to provide a comprehensive theory about the entire topic, I should remind you that I first posted in this thread only regarding the issue of Ruby shooting Oswald. Since then, various other points have been raised and discussed. I don't see the point in trying to post an all-encompassing theory in one fell swoop on a topic so immense in depth and breadth of scale. There are also limitations placed on the size of posts, and that serves to prevent one from attempting to turn a few paragraphs into a massive and unwieldy tome.

I will just say that I'm sure you are mistaken on most if not all of that. Here you've made numerous unsubstatiated claims which would take days to research all the answers. My favorite was that Ruby had years of experience snuffing people. He was an insignificant mobster wanna be, not some international hitman. Gees, did you just make that up? He fired point blank. He didn't need to aim for his head. Besides mob hits are not all in the head. Those are the old kneel down so I can kill you hits. Otherwise they'll hose down a car or something. That's more than I intended to say about that.

My question to you turbolium is this: Oswald is supposed to be at work, remember? What was he doing running around Dallas with a gun if he's supposed to be at work? Oh yeah, deep cover CIA guy, right. Well if Oswald was a CIA assasin he sure sucked at it. He didn't even have a car to drive away in.

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

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

Really, it's all you need in this case. Turbonium seems to mainly be relying on the "evidence" given in Oliver Stone's JFK; which, of course, is so full of holes and mishaps that any History major would scoff at it.

It's a complete and total farce, and does much to paint the figures involved in the JFK assassination (directly and indirectly) as poorly as possible. It even has a "homosexual scene" designed purely and simply to make Clay Shaw look as bad and pathetic as possible, all based on a single picture of Clay Shaw using a costume that made him look vaguely like a woman in Mardi Gras.

Like I said, it's like Turbonium's whole argument: A complete farce.

Turbonium: Would you sit back and evaluate your argument on the subject? You claim that the autopsy "was a complete farce", and then turn around and use the "findings" in the autopsy to support your position. Don't you realize that this is rather sloppy thinking and makes a rather sloppy argument?

I'm not trying to be insulting, nor am I trying to make any Ad Hominems here; but you really do need to evaluate your position and your claims here.

Oh, as for the bit of conjecture on how Ruby "would have gone for the head"...

First of all, even if he was the most trained hitman in the world (and I highly doubt he was much of a trained hitman), you and I don't know what was going through his head at the moment; and it did not seem to me to be a cold and calculating move. Further, aiming for the head actually isn't that good an idea; you'd have to hit the brainpan to cause brain damage, and anything else would just be a severe injury. The torso holds a lot more valuable organs that are easier to hit in the general vicinity (heart, lungs, etc.), and even aiming for the belly is deadly.

Second of all, dodging a gun that's pointed at your brainpan is not hard at all (that's why it's so hard to hit in the P&P RPG "GURPS") -- all you have to do is move your head a little bit, or even just simply duck. Now, whether Oswald would have had the reflexes to do that, or the cops have the reflexes to stop the gun, is questionable; but it's an uncertainty. So even if Jack Ruby was an experienced killer, he probably would have still gone for the body, and probably the lower parts; to both conceal the weapon, and make sure that victim and police officer couldn't see it or even tell what he was doing until it was too late.

This is all based on what I know about combat, gunplay, and even simple common sense. And this all assumed that Jack Ruby was an experienced killer; if he wasn't an experienced killer (and I highly doubt you have any evidence to back up your claim that he was), then it's all moot, isn't it?

Further, about only shooting him one time: One time would be safest. Makes sure he doesn't get killed by the guards.

But hell, the guy was insane. I mean, really; there's a lot of documentation that he made some really out-there claims, and was paranoid about a great number of things. You can try to come up with all the conjecture you want on his state of mind, but setting forth a conclusion on that state of mind is not going to convince anyone else but yourself; I mean, I can guess what's going through your mind right now: "Yeah, whatever. I'm going to post another bunch of stuff that makes me sound all smart and open-minded while ignoring the evidence" Now, before you cry "attack!", I'm not making any claims here; this is a rather sarcastic example of what it's like to make a guess at what's going through someone's head at some time without even knowing the person outside of a few words on a screen.

Anyways, I better cut this short here and go to bed.