• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert, why is it you consitantly ignore my posts?
Is it because you know Im on to your game or that you simply realise they expose your nonsense without giving you the opportunity to fill the pages with more waffle?
 
Robert Prey said:
Already answered. The May 8 memo makes no mention of LHO and U2. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

So now you're going to ignore all questions? Or provide non-responsive answers. No evidence has been adduced by you or anyone that LHO was involved with the U2, other than being stationed at the same base.
 
With all due respect guys, Robert has you running in circles regards this CIA issue.
It doesnt matter if he was head of the CIA, he wasnt acting in the capacity of a CIA operative when he pulled the trigger, Im sure if Robert had some evidence that it was the case he would have posted it.
 
jargon buster said:
Robert, why is it you consitantly ignore my posts?
Is it because you know Im on to your game or that you simply realise they expose your nonsense without giving you the opportunity to fill the pages with more waffle?
Click to expand...

Mmmmm...Waffles....
 
Robert Prey said:
Already answered. The May 8 memo makes no mention of LHO and U2. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

He answered the questions he was asked.
Oswald had no connection to the CIA at any time.

You have yet to present any evidence otherwise.

Saying "Oswald / U2 / CIA" over and over isn't evidence.

Maybe if you clicked your ruby shoes together and wished with all your might...

Hank
 
jargon buster said:
With all due respect guys, Robert has you running in circles regards this CIA issue.
It doesnt matter if he was head of the CIA, he wasnt acting in the capacity of a CIA operative when he pulled the trigger, Im sure if Robert had some evidence that it was the case he would have posted it.
Click to expand...

Robert will allege he was acting in the capacity of a CIA operative, or better yet, that Oswald wasn't involved at all.

Which brings up this point:

Hey Robert, if Oswald was just a patsy and this was a CIA action to assassinate the President (and let's grant that for the sake of argument),

1. Why would they sacrifice one of their own? Why didn't they find a poor schmuck to frame who previously didn't work for them?

2. If Oswald is just a patsy and not involved, why does his prior employment matter at all? How does Oswald's CIA employment back in the 1950's matter at all, if he is not a part of the conspiracy?

3. You do realize - as JargonBuster points out - that Oswald's CIA status or non-status doesn't advance your conspiracy argument one whit, especially if Oswald is just a patsy. Where the patsy worked or didn't work five or six years earlier has no bearing on the case.

Hank
 
Oswald couldn't have gotten a job shining shoes in the lobby of the CIA, regardless of his silly trip to the USSR.... He was a loser, a nobody who tried to become a somebody. Not unlike many of those who claim he didn't do it...........
 
Robert Prey said:
You don't know that when Oswald allegedly ordered the rifle, that the plot to kill the President was already being planned.
Click to expand...

Neither do you.

Clearly you need to start gathering some evidence, instead of just assuming what you need to assume to close the gaps in your case.

You need to prove that the conspiracy was being planned:

For an assassination in Dallas on a trip that wasn't planned yet from a building that Oswald didn't work at yet and that Oswald was part of the plot. Otherwise his ordering the rifle has not bearing on the assassination (I'm certain numerous people in Dallas bought rifles at that time. None of those rifles would have any bearing on the plot either).

Can you prove any of this, or you just going to assume it?

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Marine Corps, Navy, Naval Intell, DIA, CIA. That's the pecking order. But the U2 project was strictly CIA and LHO was a part of it.
Click to expand...

That's NOT the "pecking order". Man up and admit you were wrong about LHO being at any time a part of the CIA. When I was in the Gulf in the USN, we monitored British planes flying by our ship. Was I part of the RAF?

ETA: It's called the Chain of Command, and it gets published. Show me LHO's published Chain of Command when he was a Radar Operator.
 
Last edited:
So wait a second, if Oswald ordered the rifle knowing he was to be the fall guy for this "hit" on the President why would he admit to being a "patsy" when this would violate the entire purpose of his job (which would be to draw attention AWAY from said conspiracy).

If he ordered the rifle knowing nothing of any gubmint conspiracy AND happened to bring it to the depository AND happened to be trying to kill the president NOT knowing there was a grassy knoll shooter how would he ever KNOW he was a patsy?

If his job was to merely contribute to the conspiracy as one of the assassins and he didn't know that the rest were planning on making him the fall guy, why would he order a rifle in such a manner that it could be linked to him? In fact, in what sort of assassination do the killers order their own cheap rifles from mail order catalogs? One would think a paid killer hired to do a job (or ordered to) would have been given state of the art weaponry that was untraceable and would be easily disassembled so as to be disposed of quickly and quietly.

You see how none of this makes sense correct?
 
Robert Prey said:
No. What was on trial at the mock trail was Lee Oswald, who was not present to give a defense. For the Bug man, like shooting fish in a barrel. But the real question was not on trial, namely, was it a conspiracy?...
Click to expand...

If Oswald had survived, what would have been different?

Oswald would have been on trial, and what would not be on trial was, "Was it a conspiracy?"

Why? Because that is not germane to Oswald's guilt or innocence at trial.

He was arraigned for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Conspiracy to commit murder was not what he was arraigned for and was not what he would be tried for.

He would have stood trial for those two murders, most likely in two separate cases.

Oswald's lawyer would try to create reasonable doubt or possibly convince Oswald to plead insanity, but Oswald would not go for an insanity defense.

But trying to create reasonable doubt by bringing up, for example, Oswald's supposed CIA connections would be thrown out by the judge as not germane to the case.

The CIA wasn't on trial. Oswald was.

You want to deal with the evidence against Oswald now as if this was a real trial?

Plenty of CTs have tried. None have succeeded in making a case.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
If Oswald had survived, what would have been different?

Oswald would have been on trial, and what would not be on trial was, "Was it a conspiracy?"

Why? Because that is not germane to Oswald's guilt or innocence at trial.

He was arraigned for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Conspiracy to commit murder was not what he was arraigned for and was not what he would be tried for.

He would have stood trial for those two murders, most likely in two separate cases.

Oswald's lawyer would try to create reasonable doubt or possibly convince Oswald to plead insanity, but Oswald would not go for an insanity defense.

But trying to create reasonable doubt by bringing up, for example, Oswald's supposed CIA connections would be thrown out by the judge as not germane to the case.

The CIA wasn't on trial. Oswald was.

You want to deal with the evidence against Oswald now as if this was a real trial?

Plenty of CTs have tried. None have succeeded in making a case.

Hank
Click to expand...

The guilt of LHO is not the central, crucial question. The question of conspiracy is. Nonetheless, I will point out once again, that there is no evidence that anyone can cite that proves LHO even fired a single shot. Nor can anyone prove he was even on the 6th floor at the time.
 
LogicFail said:
So wait a second, if Oswald ordered the rifle knowing he was to be the fall guy for this "hit" on the President why would he admit to being a "patsy" when this would violate the entire purpose of his job (which would be to draw attention AWAY from said conspiracy).

If he ordered the rifle knowing nothing of any gubmint conspiracy AND happened to bring it to the depository AND happened to be trying to kill the president NOT knowing there was a grassy knoll shooter how would he ever KNOW he was a patsy?

If his job was to merely contribute to the conspiracy as one of the assassins and he didn't know that the rest were planning on making him the fall guy, why would he order a rifle in such a manner that it could be linked to him? In fact, in what sort of assassination do the killers order their own cheap rifles from mail order catalogs? One would think a paid killer hired to do a job (or ordered to) would have been given state of the art weaponry that was untraceable and would be easily disassembled so as to be disposed of quickly and quietly.

You see how none of this makes sense correct?
Click to expand...

Correct. So what exactly is your point????
 
LSSBB said:
That's NOT the "pecking order". Man up and admit you were wrong about LHO being at any time a part of the CIA. When I was in the Gulf in the USN, we monitored British planes flying by our ship. Was I part of the RAF?

ETA: It's called the Chain of Command, and it gets published. Show me LHO's published Chain of Command when he was a Radar Operator.
Click to expand...

ONI, CIA -- it's an irrelevant distinction without a difference. Oswald had a security clearance to participate in the tracking of the top secret U2 spy plane operation run by the CIA. Therefore, for Mr. McCone to state he had no connection to CIA is a lie. LHO had connections to CIA, ONI and FBI. The March memo rings true. The May McCone memo is blatantly false. And when or where does a CIA director ever have the knowledge or the authority to speak for FBI??? Especially Hoover's FBI??? Use your head.
 
HSienzant said:
Neither do you.

Clearly you need to start gathering some evidence, instead of just assuming what you need to assume to close the gaps in your case.

You need to prove that the conspiracy was being planned:

For an assassination in Dallas on a trip that wasn't planned yet from a building that Oswald didn't work at yet and that Oswald was part of the plot. Otherwise his ordering the rifle has not bearing on the assassination (I'm certain numerous people in Dallas bought rifles at that time. None of those rifles would have any bearing on the plot either).

Can you prove any of this, or you just going to assume it?

Hank
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting that you have no clue as to when the conspiracy was initially planned.
 
Robert Prey said:
ONI, CIA -- it's an irrelevant distinction without a difference. Oswald had a security clearance to participate in the tracking of the top secret U2 spy plane operation run by the CIA. Therefore, for Mr. McCone to state he had no connection to CIA is a lie. LHO had connections to CIA, ONI and FBI. The March memo rings true. The May McCone memo is blatantly false. And when or where does a CIA director ever have the knowledge or the authority to speak for FBI??? Especially Hoover's FBI??? Use your head.
Click to expand...

His security clearance was Confidential, not Top Secret, in the paperwork I saw. Do you have evidence elsewise?
 
LogicFail said:
Oswald couldn't have gotten a job shining shoes in the lobby of the CIA, regardless of his silly trip to the USSR.... He was a loser, a nobody who tried to become a somebody. Not unlike many of those who claim he didn't do it...........
Click to expand...


Funny that this "loser" was chosen to track the top secret U2 spy plane. Use your head. Not like this:


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom