Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"  (Read 68512 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #160 on: July 04, 2018, 02:23:23 AM »
Advertisement




24. In the same vein, although Oswald applied for his job at the Book Depository Building with Roy Truly on October 15, the Depository had two buildings, the one at Houston and Elm that everyone knows about, and another building called the ?Warehouse,? located at 1917 Houston, a building that was larger than the one at Houston and Elm but with two fewer stories.*The Warehouse was not on the parade route, being about four blocks north of the Book Depository Building. (Indeed, at that time in 1963, Houston Street became unpaved one block north of Elm.) Truly just as well could have assigned Oswald to work in the building at 1917 Houston as at the building at Houston and Elm. ?I might have sent Oswald to work in a warehouse two blocks away,? Truly said. ?Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald.? Truly said he ?hired? the other ?boy? for the Warehouse.64 Neither Oswald nor the supposed conspirators behind him could have possibly known or foreseen which building Truly would have assigned Oswald to. And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination. What type of massive conspiracy by the CIA, mob, et cetera, to murder Kennedy would be completely dependent on what building Truly assigned the assassin to? I mean, would any group of conspirators choose a location for killing Kennedy that depended on an arbitrary decision such as this one that was wholly beyond its control? Of course, we could make Roy Truly part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, something that would be perfectly all right with the conspiracy theorists.       

It should be noted further that, as we saw in this book, there is absolutely no evidence that any group such as the CIA or mob had anything to do with Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building, the building that literally enabled Oswald to successfully kill Kennedy.
RHVB




JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #160 on: July 04, 2018, 02:23:23 AM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #161 on: July 04, 2018, 03:13:39 AM »



24. In the same vein, although Oswald applied for his job at the Book Depository Building with Roy Truly on October 15, the Depository had two buildings, the one at Houston and Elm that everyone knows about, and another building called the ?Warehouse,? located at 1917 Houston, a building that was larger than the one at Houston and Elm but with two fewer stories.*The Warehouse was not on the parade route, being about four blocks north of the Book Depository Building. (Indeed, at that time in 1963, Houston Street became unpaved one block north of Elm.) Truly just as well could have assigned Oswald to work in the building at 1917 Houston as at the building at Houston and Elm. ?I might have sent Oswald to work in a warehouse two blocks away,? Truly said. ?Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald.? Truly said he ?hired? the other ?boy? for the Warehouse.64 Neither Oswald nor the supposed conspirators behind him could have possibly known or foreseen which building Truly would have assigned Oswald to. And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination. What type of massive conspiracy by the CIA, mob, et cetera, to murder Kennedy would be completely dependent on what building Truly assigned the assassin to? I mean, would any group of conspirators choose a location for killing Kennedy that depended on an arbitrary decision such as this one that was wholly beyond its control? Of course, we could make Roy Truly part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, something that would be perfectly all right with the conspiracy theorists.       

It should be noted further that, as we saw in this book, there is absolutely no evidence that any group such as the CIA or mob had anything to do with Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building, the building that literally enabled Oswald to successfully kill Kennedy.
RHVB




JohnM

And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination.

And yet another selfserving biased opinion based on the pre-determined assumption that Oswald was indeed the killer....

Besides, how in the world would Bugs know there wouldn't have been an assassination if Oswald had worked in the other building?

As the basic argument is BS, everything else Bugs writes is equally f.o.s.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #162 on: July 04, 2018, 06:26:50 AM »
And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination.

And yet another selfserving biased opinion based on the pre-determined assumption that Oswald was indeed the killer....

Besides, how in the world would Bugs know there wouldn't have been an assassination if Oswald had worked in the other building?

As the basic argument is BS, everything else Bugs writes is equally f.o.s.

Your part of the argument needs evidence of a more probable prime suspect.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 06:37:24 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #162 on: July 04, 2018, 06:26:50 AM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #163 on: July 04, 2018, 08:30:23 AM »
Your part of the argument needs evidence of a more probable prime suspect.

No it doesn't, but I understand why a LN would think so?.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 08:32:06 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #164 on: July 04, 2018, 10:20:39 AM »
Do you learn The Bug's text off by heart, John? Seems you have `a love affair with whatever rubbish he spouted.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #164 on: July 04, 2018, 10:20:39 AM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #165 on: July 04, 2018, 10:24:17 AM »
Of course it was Oswald in Bug's legal crosshairs. But you claimed Bug was seemingly making Oswald look innocent in the Bug #22 JohnM posted. On the contrary he made Oswald look like he had nothing planned out regarding Kennedy as late as the FBI/Dallas incident just 1-2 weeks before the assassination.

So it seems you do care about Bug's opinions.
Not at all. I certainly do not care about the Bugs opinions, which I consider purely a prosecutors brief with no possibility of cross examination of his claims.

Quote

Opinions based on sound reasoning by the way, as Bug made the very reasonable argument that no one with any intention of assassinating the POTUS (who was scheduled to arrive in Dallas shortly) would march into FBI/Dallas headquarters making threats against an FBI agent, opening the possibility up of getting himself arrested.

His opinion in that case would seem to suggest that he thought it wasn't Oswald who shot the President.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1527
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #166 on: July 04, 2018, 09:42:51 PM »
And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination.

And yet another selfserving biased opinion based on the pre-determined assumption that Oswald was indeed the killer....

Besides, how in the world would Bugs know there wouldn't have been an assassination if Oswald had worked in the other building?

As the basic argument is BS, everything else Bugs writes is equally f.o.s.

Bugliosi is answering THOSE conspiracy theorists/believers who argue that Oswald WAS part of some sort of conspiracy that involved elements of other groups.

For those who believe that Oswald WAS involved and WAS part of a conspiracy, Bugliosi is raising these questions as to how it could possibly have been planned and carried out.

If you don't think Oswald was involved then you can ignore his responses which, again, are directed at those who DO believe he was.


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #167 on: July 04, 2018, 10:45:12 PM »
24. In the same vein, although Oswald applied for his job at the Book Depository Building with Roy Truly on October 15, the Depository had two buildings, the one at Houston and Elm that everyone knows about, and another building called the ?Warehouse,? located at 1917 Houston, a building that was larger than the one at Houston and Elm but with two fewer stories.*The Warehouse was not on the parade route, being about four blocks north of the Book Depository Building. (Indeed, at that time in 1963, Houston Street became unpaved one block north of Elm.) Truly just as well could have assigned Oswald to work in the building at 1917 Houston as at the building at Houston and Elm. ?I might have sent Oswald to work in a warehouse two blocks away,? Truly said. ?Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald.? Truly said he ?hired? the other ?boy? for the Warehouse.64 Neither Oswald nor the supposed conspirators behind him could have possibly known or foreseen which building Truly would have assigned Oswald to. And if Truly had sent Oswald to 1917 Houston, Kennedy would not have passed under Oswald?s window and there wouldn?t have been an assassination. What type of massive conspiracy by the CIA, mob, et cetera, to murder Kennedy would be completely dependent on what building Truly assigned the assassin to? I mean, would any group of conspirators choose a location for killing Kennedy that depended on an arbitrary decision such as this one that was wholly beyond its control? Of course, we could make Roy Truly part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, something that would be perfectly all right with the conspiracy theorists.       

It should be noted further that, as we saw in this book, there is absolutely no evidence that any group such as the CIA or mob had anything to do with Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building, the building that literally enabled Oswald to successfully kill Kennedy.
RHVB




JohnM

Since this was a conspiracy, everyone associated with LHO being at the right place at the right time (as the patsy) was part of the conspiracy. This includes Ruth Paine who got him the job at the TSBD and was obviously 1 of his handlers. Whoever else was involved with LHO working at the TSBD (owned by oilman D. Harold Byrd) on Nov 22, 1963 was also a conspirator, which includes Truly. But these low level conspirators probably were never informed what they were conspiring to do, right up to the fateful day. They had their orders to handle LHO and set him up in a designated spot, which just happened to overlook the motorcade where JFK would be handed to him on a silver platter.

So why then did Oswald wait 8 seconds after the limo's turn onto Elm before taking his 1st shot? He had JFK at a full stop, 60 feet in front of him, dead to rights.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
« Reply #167 on: July 04, 2018, 10:45:12 PM »