JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[turingtest]

Well, one can make a less foaming conspiracy theories.

I'm speaking, of course, of the actor who played Porkins in Star Wars, the late William Hootkins. Born in Dallas, Hootkins actually was questioned in connection with the Kennedy assassination. He went to school with the woman accused of harboring Marina Oswald and also studied Russian.

That's enough for most conspiracy authors to spin a web of intrigue and innuendo.

Well, as long as we're spinning conspiracy webs...George de Mohrenschildt, Oswald's only real friend among the Dallas Russian set, was, according to Wikipedia, also a friend of

...the Bouvier family, including young Jackie, future wife of John F. Kennedy. Jackie grew up calling de Mohrenschildt "Uncle George" and would sit on his knee. He became a close friend of Jackie's aunt Edith Bouvier Beale.

It seems obvious to me that Jackie, having found out about Marilyn (and others), decided to do away with John (no fury like a woman scorned and all that), and asked her Uncle George to find her an assassin. Uncle George, having befriended Oswald, goaded him into taking his shot at Walker as a sort of test spin, but decided he was the best to be found even after missing. It's obvious, too, from watching the Z film, that Jackie, rather than supporting JFK after he was wounded by the first shot, as most people assume, was actually positioning him for the final death-blow.

It's all really very clear if you, um, "think" about it. Cui bono, right? I mean, Jackie got rid of a philandering husband, and she did end up marrying that Greek millionaire guy (prolly a little hanky-panky going on there too). There are details to be worked out, of course, but this theory has at least the virtue of keeping Oswald, the dimwit patsy, in the picture. Plus it has sex, so it would make a good movie, which is the real goal of any good CT. I see Alec Baldwin as Uncle George; Giovanni Ribisi (maybe Steve Buscemi, or possibly, casting against type, The Rock) as Oswald; that guy** who always plays the smarmy lawyer on Law & Order: SVU as JFK (since this is a love story about a tragically-wronged wife taking her rightful revenge, we need someone the audience will find despicable here, and all he does is get shot anyway- I don't know about anyone else, but I would pay to see Lionel Granger's head explode); and starring Mariska Hargitay as Jackie (just because I have a thing for her, plus it makes a comfort zone for viewers to think on some level that they're really just watching an old episode of L&O: SVU- we'll find supporting roles for Chris Meloni and Ice-T; maybe Dann Florek can be LBJ- he doesn't have to say anything, just glower some- and BD Wong can be Onassis, which is stretching it, I guess, but what are you gonna do?).*


*This is pushing the limits of what "parenthetical" means, aka "getting carried away."


ETA- **Ooh, ooh, one last thought in an out-of-order footnote- "that guy" is an actor named David Thornton, who has been married to Cyndi Lauper since 1991. So we have the bonus of an obvious (and free) theme song for the movie- "Girls Just Wanna have Fun."
(The things you can learn on this forum, huh?)

 

[Hans]

Well, one can make a less foaming conspiracy theories.

I'm speaking, of course, of the actor who played Porkins in Star Wars, the late William Hootkins. Born in Dallas, Hootkins actually was questioned in connection with the Kennedy assassination. He went to school with the woman accused of harboring Marina Oswald and also studied Russian.

That's enough for most conspiracy authors to spin a web of intrigue and innuendo.

Ah, I didn't know that I ran the key terms JFK, Porkins and Dallas and it went to a weird conspiracy website.

 

[Tanalia]

There is of course the documented conspiracy of Lister, Rimmer, et al. to assist Kennedy in an elaborate suicide, in order for Kennedy to avoid impending legal problems.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes, there is that.
But the other twinkie authors should be prosecuted for the murder of the helpless trees used to publish their completely unsuited for the task, toilet paper!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Speaking of the Dal-Tex Building, not only do Dallas law enforcement records reveal that Eugene Brading was in the building and was then detained for suspicious behavior after the shooting, but that another man, who was wearing a black leather jacket and black gloves, was led out of the building by two policemen and that he was in the building "without a good excuse." Incredibly, the man was released and no further information was recorded about him (Scheim, Contract on America, p. 45).

Interestingly, a few years ago an on-site laser trajectory analysis conducted by experts in wound ballistics and crime-scene investigation, mainly Larry Paul and Vincent DiMaio, determined that at least one of the shots that struck Kennedy traced back to the second floor of the Dal-Tex Building. Paul is a big-time WC defender, but he conceded that the laser test showed that the Dal-Tex Building was a plausible origin for gunfire in the shooting.

 

[I Ratant]

Yeah. Completely plausible... NOT! IF the men in the following Secret Service car are NOT in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMuVVU6ZDFM
.
2nd and 3rd floor shot trajectories... With NO matching paths in any of the victims.
On the Altgens photo.
.
Details... merely details..
The Willis photo shows those pesky Secret Service men interfering with the shot from the Dal-Tex.
.
It's interesting to note that the Willis testimony to the Warren Commission states the shots came from over his head, from the TSBD.
His daughter Rosemary can be seen running behind the crowd from Houston to Elm... and stopping abruptly and looking around to her right rear as the shots are fired.
When later interviewed for a JFK "documentary", he says they came from the Grassy Knoll.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Aw, what more evidence do you want? There was a guy in Dallas, and he was "acting suspiciously." And he had a criminal record. Clearly every single nefarious person living in or near Dallas converged on Dealey Plaza to be drafted into the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. And that was absolutely the only shady thing happening that day in a major U.S. city -- hence any suspicion must be clearly attributable to the assassination.

I cover this at some length above in several posts, most recently to the attempt to assign conditional probabilities all up and down the causal tree. Amazing how much mileage people get out of raw innuendo.

So it was all just a big, whopping coincidence. Let's see:

* Brading goes to New Orleans a few weeks before the assassination and "just happens" to use an office next to the office of Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello's attorney, and by "sheer coincidence" David Ferrie frequently visited that same office. Gosh, figure the odds, hey?
* Brading, two days before the assassination, travels to Dallas with--whaddaya know!--four Mafia guys.
* Brading and his Mafia buddies check into the same hotel where, the very next day, Jack Ruby meets Lawrence Myers. Wow, cosmic "chance" again!
* Brading and his Mafia pals visit the Hunt office the same day that Jack Ruby does. Humm, figure the odds that Brading and Ruby would "just happen" to visit the same hotel and then go to the same office building and visit the same office within 24 hours.
* Brading is not only in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, but he goes into the Dal-Tex Building, the same building from which a number of witnesses believed shots were fired--and when asked what he was doing in Dealey Plaza and why he entered the Dal-Tex Building, Brading gives answers that a rookie detective could spot as implausible and suspect, not to mention contradictory.

You must be kidding to dismiss all of this evidence as mere chance. But to believe in the lone-gunman theory, you have no choice but to do so.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just a minor correction. Factor describes three simultaneous shots only, not three per shooter. I am sure you can spot the new problems this adfs tp the confession.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So it was all just a big, whopping coincidence. Let's see:

* Brading goes to New Orleans a few weeks before the assassination and "just happens" to use an office next to the office of Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello's attorney, and by "sheer coincidence" David Ferrie frequently visited that same office. Gosh, figure the odds, hey?
* Brading, two days before the assassination, travels to Dallas with--whaddaya know!--four Mafia guys.
* Brading and his Mafia buddies check into the same hotel where, the very next day, Jack Ruby meets Lawrence Myers. Wow, cosmic "chance" again!
* Brading and his Mafia pals visit the Hunt office the same day that Jack Ruby does. Humm, figure the odds that Brading and Ruby would "just happen" to visit the same hotel and then go to the same office building and visit the same office within 24 hours.
* Brading is not only in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, but he goes into the Dal-Tex Building, the same building from which a number of witnesses believed shots were fired--and when asked what he was doing in Dealey Plaza and why he entered the Dal-Tex Building, Brading gives answers that a rookie detective could spot as implausible and suspect, not to mention contradictory.

You must be kidding to dismiss all of this evidence as mere chance. But to believe in the lone-gunman theory, you have no choice but to do so.

I think you meant "claims" not "evidence".

Assuming all are accurate: Why is there no physical evidence for shots from the building?
Is it possible there were other criminal activities unrelated to JFK?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So it was all just a big, whopping coincidence. Let's see:

* Brading goes to New Orleans a few weeks before the assassination and "just happens" to use an office next to the office of Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello's attorney, and by "sheer coincidence" David Ferrie frequently visited that same office. Gosh, figure the odds, hey?
* Brading, two days before the assassination, travels to Dallas with--whaddaya know!--four Mafia guys.
* Brading and his Mafia buddies check into the same hotel where, the very next day, Jack Ruby meets Lawrence Myers. Wow, cosmic "chance" again!
* Brading and his Mafia pals visit the Hunt office the same day that Jack Ruby does. Humm, figure the odds that Brading and Ruby would "just happen" to visit the same hotel and then go to the same office building and visit the same office within 24 hours.
* Brading is not only in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, but he goes into the Dal-Tex Building, the same building from which a number of witnesses believed shots were fired--and when asked what he was doing in Dealey Plaza and why he entered the Dal-Tex Building, Brading gives answers that a rookie detective could spot as implausible and suspect, not to mention contradictory.

You must be kidding to dismiss all of this evidence as mere chance. But to believe in the lone-gunman theory, you have no choice but to do so.

So you believe that Brading shot JFK?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yeah. Completely plausible... NOT! IF the men in the following Secret Service car are NOT in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMuVVU6ZDFM
.
2nd and 3rd floor shot trajectories... With NO matching paths in any of the victims.
On the Altgens photo.
.
Details... merely details..
The Willis photo shows those pesky Secret Service men interfering with the shot from the Dal-Tex.

This is simply erroneous. You cherry-pick a handful of specific frames and conclude that there was no line of sight to JFK from the Dal-Tex Building.
To make matters worse, many on your side suggest that the alleged sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK when the limo was beneath the oak tree, i.e., when the oak tree was between the gunman and the limo.

It's interesting to note that the Willis testimony to the Warren Commission states the shots came from over his head, from the TSBD.
His daughter Rosemary can be seen running behind the crowd from Houston to Elm... and stopping abruptly and looking around to her right rear as the shots are fired.
When later interviewed for a JFK "documentary", he says they came from the Grassy Knoll.

Sigh. . . . When given the chance to explain, Willis stated that he heard shots from both directions.

And, uh, if the fact that Rosemary Willis turned to look back at the TSBD indicates that shots came from that direction, what do you say about the fact that a number of people turned to look toward the grassy knoll? If one person turning to look back means shots from the TSBD, then several people turning to look toward the grassy knoll should logically mean shots from the grassy knoll. It's not either/or. Shots came from the front and from the rear.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Shots came from the front and from the rear.

Why stop there? Why not also from above and below?

 

[mikegriffith1]

I think you meant "claims" not "evidence".

No, I meant "evidence."

Assuming all are accurate:

They are. (Well, actually, Brading traveled to Dallas with three Mafia guys, not four. I was including Brading in the count.)

Why is there no physical evidence for shots from the building?

Because the patsy was not framed in that building. There's also the fact that Dallas authorities failed to do even minimal investigation of the two men who were arrested in/coming out of the Dal-Tex Building.

This said, if memory serves, there is some photographic evidence of a shot from the Dal-Tex Building (a bystander seeming to react to a startling event, such as a gun shot), though I might be thinking of the County Records Building.

Is it possible there were other criminal activities unrelated to JFK?

And these other criminal actions just happened to involve proximity to Carlos Marcello's lawyer's office in New Orleans, which was frequented by David Ferrie, and just happened to involve Brading checking into the same hotel where Ruby met Lawrence the next day, and just happened to involve Brading and Ruby both going to the same office of a right-wing extremist who hated JFK?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I meant "evidence."

Then you're incorrect. Do you believe Brading shot JFK? Can you be honest enough to answer?

 

[JayUtah]

Then you're incorrect. Do you believe Brading shot JFK? Can you be honest enough to answer?

I too would like an answer to this question, which you have been asked several times, bobtaftfan. You seem to be making a case that Brading shot JFK. Is this in fact what you believe?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I meant "evidence."

Your post contained only claims, no evidence to support them.

They are. (Well, actually, Brading traveled to Dallas with three Mafia guys, not four. I was including Brading in the count.)

And what evidence do you have for this?

Because the patsy was not framed in that building. There's also the fact that Dallas authorities failed to do even minimal investigation of the two men who were arrested in/coming out of the Dal-Tex Building.

So how does "patsy was not framed in that building" remove all evidence? How does it explain the wounds in the autopsy being inconsistent with your claim?
How does it explain the filmed footage of the event being inconsistent with your claim?
How does it explain the bullets being fired that day only being consistent with LHOs rifle?

This said, if memory serves, there is some photographic evidence of a shot from the Dal-Tex Building (a bystander seeming to react to a startling event, such as a gun shot), though I might be thinking of the County Records Building.

Which would not be physical evidence of the shot coming from that building. Only of somebody you think looks like they react that way. Even if they did think that, this is nothing more than evidence of what they thought they heard. In the echo chamber of the plaza it is nearly meaningless.

And these other criminal actions just happened to involve proximity to Carlos Marcello's lawyer's office in New Orleans, which was frequented by David Ferrie, and just happened to involve Brading checking into the same hotel where Ruby met Lawrence the next day, and just happened to involve Brading and Ruby both going to the same office of a right-wing extremist who hated JFK?

You are aware of the Six Degrees of Separation theory yes?
Lets look at the perquisites for your conspiracy there. That offices were in proximity to each other? Wow. People rented offices in office buildings. Hardly unexpected. More than one party upset with JFK? The Shock! Ruby, whose livelihood required him to come into some contact with the mafia may have gone to mafia haunts?

Your theory is built around criminals moving in the same circles. So yes. That would be entirely expected, and probability tends towards there being some small connection between them if you dig far enough. Your mistake seems to be in assuming that any such criminal activity would have to be with what happened to be going on outside the building.

This is exactly the same kind of mistake Jim Garrison made. He assumed that the nefarious activities he uncovered had to be a conspiracy to kill JFK because of some vague connections. He had uncovered the gay subculture, not killers.

IF you supply evidence for all the claims you make then you will have made a good case there was a criminal activity, but not that it in any way involved killing the president.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Some further issues with Factor/Wallace:

First is the context by which the story came to be written and published. One of the two authors who publicised this story was in confinement with an infectious disease when he met a brain damaged child like soul, Factor. (That is how Ramsey describes him in the book Sup was using). They apparently talked about the killing and the bare bones of the story was recorded, but it was not until the nineties, a couple of decades later, they tracked down the aging Factor to investigate his story.

The first assumption we have to make is that they were doing so honestly, but that does not mean we have to accept they were doing so accurately. You see there are some issues in the Ramsey description of the story, and not having a copy of the original source to compare to, I have to state the following issues need addressing:
1) That the name Wallace may have come from existing sources. If at some level the confession were concocted it could be done so from existing sources. The list of LBJ murders Sup also discussed for example. Ramsey even states that once the name was found the rest of the information was already in books, newspapers, etc. If somebody was convincing themselves or others of a story, they would already find the name.
2) The way the confirmation was obtained is open to bias. Photos were shown to an old, brain damaged and "child like" man decades after events and he was asked if that was the man they were looking for. Simple psychology states that after much less time almost anybody is at risk of a misidentification under this situation. It is recognised that under these situations a witness may subtly alter their memories with out realising (and perfectly understandably) to match the new information. It is why identities are made using a number of mug shots or more than one person. It shows that the identity is being chosen over others, not bending to unintended influence.
Factor was vulnerable and the guys had obviously already concluded from existing sources that Wallace was not Wallace Somebody but Mac Wallace. Their preconceptions were confirmed.
These are the same known sources that others used to decide that Wallace was worth comparing to the "Mystery Print" and the same biases are at play. The blinding was not good enough and a print was asked to be compared to another print, and intended or not there was a bias that these belonged together and similarities were sought. Things that might be considered a match were confirmed as a match. (Hey, it is a subjective art remember! Apparently.)

Far from being unrelated and unconnected, there is a very good chance that two of the three foundations for the case against Wallace are built on that first document naming a list of murders. Unintentionally of course, probably unknowingly in the case of the Factor story, but given the number of provable inaccuracies it seems likely from the telling I have available that there was an element of confirmation bias involved. Enough to state clearly that though this is a better formed conspiracy than many theories that at least tries to work within known evidence, it is not a better fit than the accepted narrative. Indeed "best thought out conspiracy theory", though not intended to be, could be read as faint praise.

I can see why somebody may be convinced, but it wont pass scrutiny with out a better source of evidence.

 

[turingtest]

Your post contained only claims, no evidence to support them.


And what evidence do you have for this?



So how does "patsy was not framed in that building" remove all evidence? How does it explain the wounds in the autopsy being inconsistent with your claim?
How does it explain the filmed footage of the event being inconsistent with your claim?
How does it explain the bullets being fired that day only being consistent with LHOs rifle?


Which would not be physical evidence of the shot coming from that building. Only of somebody you think looks like they react that way. Even if they did think that, this is nothing more than evidence of what they thought they heard. In the echo chamber of the plaza it is nearly meaningless.



You are aware of the Six Degrees of Separation theory yes?
Lets look at the perquisites for your conspiracy there. That offices were in proximity to each other? Wow. People rented offices in office buildings. Hardly unexpected. More than one party upset with JFK? The Shock! Ruby, whose livelihood required him to come into some contact with the mafia may have gone to mafia haunts?

Your theory is built around criminals moving in the same circles. So yes. That would be entirely expected, and probability tends towards there being some small connection between them if you dig far enough. Your mistake seems to be in assuming that any such criminal activity would have to be with what happened to be going on outside the building.

This is exactly the same kind of mistake Jim Garrison made. He assumed that the nefarious activities he uncovered had to be a conspiracy to kill JFK because of some vague connections. He had uncovered the gay subculture, not killers.

IF you supply evidence for all the claims you make then you will have made a good case there was a criminal activity, but not that it in any way involved killing the president.

Taftfan's argument sounds like argumentum ad Mafium to me; he suspects that Braden, Ruby, Marcello, Ferrie, et al were involved because of their Mafia connections, and because (in Braden's and Ruby's case) of propinquity. (I don't know why he suspects the Mafia, but there may be a circle involved here)

By way of analogy, it's as if the only reason anybody suspected Oswald is because he was there and had Communist connections- and not because of the independent mountain of physical evidence, plus eyewitness testimony, that implicates him. It seems pretty obvious to me what's missing from taftfan's side of the equation.

 

[JayUtah]

By way of analogy, it's as if the only reason anybody suspected Oswald is because he was there and had Communist connections- and not because of the independent mountain of physical evidence, plus eyewitness testimony, that implicates him.

And I think that has mostly to do with the palatability of the "crazy guy shot the President" theory. We like to think the most powerful man in the world can't be brought down by a lone nut with a rifle. So instead we think there has to be something bigger and more sinister, and we confirmation-bias our way into... whatever.

It seems pretty obvious to me what's missing from taftfan's side of the equation.

You mean even a mole-hill of physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and forensic evidence that some other person killed Kennedy?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You mean even a mole-hill of physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and forensic evidence that some other person killed Kennedy?

Or anything to back up the claims he declared were evidence of...er... there being coincidences.