The Forgotten Victims to a Genuine Conspiracy

Wow... WOW !
I read it all, took me two days.
I m astonished by the number of people related to all this who died shortly after.
What ou brought here is in my opinion, proofs of a conspiracy.
Well at least for people gifted with logical reasoning.

I m sad i cant give you more than one star and one flag.

Your thread is why i m still on ATS.

Thanks dude.

reply to post by Fedge

I m astonished by the number of people related to all this who died shortly after.
What ou brought here is in my opinion, proofs of a conspiracy.

And what truly astonishes me is not the amount of people who died themselves, even though that in itself is just amazing, but instead It's the timing of many of the deaths which is just almost unbelievable.

Many of them, as I highlighted in my opening post, died just prior to appearing in the HSCA investigation run by Jim Garrison, which heavily suffered due to the now lack of witnesses, or just after giving key information - such as Lee Bowers for example. What's perhaps even more amazing is It's just incredibly blatant too. Incredible.

I won't discuss it much as It's all in the opening posts but there really is no doubt that all of these deaths, or many of them, are indeed connected in some way or another.

reply to post by jinni73

I wonder if Kennedy is dead?

There's really no doubt he died on November 22nd, 1963... This wasn't a death that occurred behind closed doors after all, It happened in an open area in front of hundreds of witnesses. Determining who killed him and what the true circumstances are that led to his death is where the conspiracy comes about.

Related thread - although perhaps not exactly a "forgotten" victim - The Peculiar Death Of Bobby..

The thing about Jack Ruby was that Oswald was shot in the stomach. This is widely known and easily proven.

Why is that significant? Because he did not intend to kill Oswald, just hurt him. Then he would be viewed as a hero and do a few short years in prison. I think it is a fluke for someone to die from a bullet to the stomach especially from a small caliber handgun. Even Ruby's brother said he never intended to kill Oswald. That was one unlucky shot for Ruby though and i think he soon realized that. I think that pretty much eliminates him from any conspiracies.

reply to post by Malcher

Because he did not intend to kill Oswald

Then why did he try to shoot Oswald multiple times? This we can clearly see from the footage of the day:



He shoots him once, and then clearly moves forward and tries to strike him again but he's subdued before he's given the chance to.

I only see one shot and not him taking aim for another.

Here is another good image:

www.acorn.net...

That is not the way to kill someone and he would know that a shot aimed there is highly likely non-fatal. I didnt realize that either mainly because i just didnt think about it until his own brother mentions it, but it makes a lot of sense.

At best he had to figure on a 50-50 chance he would survive, I think survivability under those circumstances is actually higher though. Like i said, just seemed like a fluke that he ended up dying.

That is just the beginning because honestly it does not make sense to kill Oswald to cover up any crime because then it looks more like a conspiracy whereas in reality Ruby was not exactly mentally fit.

For that matter i would believe they were "Manchurian Candidates" before i believe people high up enough would trust this to these two guys. Because really they never have involved minor "bit players" in these things before. I am referring to the Mafia involvement. Would you trust these people? What are they chances they would rat them out? I would say 100% considering they (Oswald and later Ruby) were in prison anyway.

Originally posted by Rising Against
Related thread - although perhaps not exactly a "forgotten" victim - The Peculiar Death Of Bobby..

Did you watch the Derren Brown programme on Channel 4 where he hypnotised a guy into shooting Stephen Fry as he stood on a stage in a theatre ?
If it was real ( which it looks), i think the proof of MK Ultra is there.

Thank you op for an excelent thread. Lots of very interesting things, that I never knew about. Not that I ever believed the OS any way. Once again many thanks.

reply to post by Malcher

I only see one shot and not him taking aim for another.

Well then I suggest you take the time to watch the video I added to my previous post.

It's not like he shot Oswald and then immediately backed down here. He shot him and then went in for a second time but was physically restrained before he had an opportunity to strike him. It can be seen quite clearly.

That is not the way to kill someone and he would know that a shot aimed there is highly likely non-fatal. I didnt realize that either mainly because i just didnt think about it until his own brother mentions it, but it makes a lot of sense.

At best he had to figure on a 50-50 chance he would survive, I think survivability under those circumstances is actually higher though. Like i said, just seemed like a fluke that he ended up dying.

1.) A shot to the stomach certainly can be fatal, and it's much more dangerous than you're trying to portray. 2.) We don't know how much Ruby thought about this, for all we know he had one plan in mind.. shoot Oswald and make sure that at least one shot hit (thus why he hit the easiest target available to him - the stomach.)

This wasn't a spontaneous event you know. Ruby was practically stalking Oswald while he was in police custody, and he's been spotted on film doing so. Here's a screenshot of him in a room full of reporters just prior to the famous midnight press conference of Oswald:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df9138e6a435.jpg[/atsimg]

Here it is a little clearer:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c9668dbcf8d0.jpg[/atsimg]

The actual press conference I'm talking about can be seen here although this is the televised version so no reporters can be seen:



He was also spotted in the hallways, once again blending in with reporters, around the location of Oswald when he was alive. So again, this was not a spontaneous event.. He knew what he was doing and IMO there's no doubt that he wanted to shoot Oswald. Killing him is another thing of course but again, It has to be said that he clearly tries to strike Oswald for a second time after previously striking him in the stomach. That says to me he didn't want Oswald alive, but he wanted, at the very least, one shot to land.

That is just the beginning because honestly it does not make sense to kill Oswald to cover up any crime because then it looks more like a conspiracy whereas in reality Ruby was not exactly mentally fit.

When one becomes more dangerous, due to the knowledge he may posess, such as knowledge relating to Intelligence work or under cover work for example, when he is alive, the only alternative would be to "shut them up" permanently.. It doesn't matter in the slightest how it may look and I don't see how anyone could think it would, because if someone is better dead to everyone else involved, for whatever reason, then that's how they'll end up.

Because really they never have involved minor "bit players" in these things before. I am referring to the Mafia involvement.

Why not? We already know for a fact that the Mafia and the CIA were working together on operations at the time, particularly in Cuba with assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. And we can tie multile different mafia figures at multiple different times to the JFK case also such as Sam Giancana for example, Johnnie Roselli, Santo Trafficante, Carlos Marcello and it goes on and on and on..

What are they chances they would rat them out?

Do you mean something like this?

Google Video Link

Ruby died not long after this btw.

Or do you mean like Carlos Marcello seemingly did?

Jack Van Laningham - Carlos Marcello Confessed to his involvement in the JFK assassination

How about Giancana also?

In 1975 Frank Church and his Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities discovered that Judith Campbell had been involved with both Giancana and John F. Kennedy. It emerged that during the 1960 presidential election Campbell took messages from Giancana to Kennedy. Campbell later claimed these messages concerned the plans to murder Fidel Castro. Kennedy also began an affair with Campbell and used her as a courier to carry sealed envelopes to Giancana. He told her they contained "intelligence material" concerning the plot to kill Castro.

Giancana was now ordered to appear before Church's committee. However, before he could appear, on 19th June, 1975, Sam Giancana was murdered in his own home. He had a massive wound in the back of the head. He had also been shot six times in a circle around the mouth.

Carried on in the next post.

According to Peter Dale Scott, in 1976, James Jesus Angleton "told an investigator that he knew which mob figures, from the New York and Chicago mafia families, had killed Sam Giancana. He also blamed the Church Committee for causing the death of Giancana and Rosselli, by demanding testimony concerning topics on which the mafia code of silence could not be broken."

On 14th January, 1992, the New York Post claimed that Hoffa, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello had all been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Frank Ragano was quoted as saying that at the beginning of 1963 Hoffa had told him to take a message to Trafficante and Marcello concerning a plan to kill Kennedy. When the meeting took place at the Royal Orleans Hotel, Ragano told the men: "You won't believe what Hoffa wants me to tell you. Jimmy wants you to kill the president." He reported that both men gave the impression that they intended to carry out this order.

In 1992 Giancana's nephew published Double Cross: The Story of the Man Who Controlled America. The book attempted to establish that Giancana had rigged the 1960 Presidential election vote in Cook County on John Kennedy's behalf, which effectively gave Kennedy the election. It is argued that Kennedy reneged on the deal and therefore Giancana had him killed.

In his autobiography, Mob Lawyer (1994) (co-written with journalist Selwyn Raab) Frank Ragano added that in July, 1963, he was once again sent to New Orleans by Hoffa to meet Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello concerning plans to kill President John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy was killed Hoffa apparently said to Ragano: "I told you could do it. I'll never forget what Carlos and Santos did for me." He added: "This means Bobby is out as Attorney General". Marcello later told Ragano: "When you see Jimmy (Hoffa), you tell him he owes me and he owes me big."

(Source)

reply to post by lambros56

Did you watch the Derren Brown programme on Channel 4 where he hypnotised a guy into shooting Stephen Fry as he stood on a stage in a theatre ?
If it was real ( which it looks), i think the proof of MK Ultra is there.

Actually I did. I'm a fan of Derren so when a show of his is on TV, particularly a new show like this one, I rarely miss it. They're far too interesting, lol. Admittedly though I was a bit skeptical of what he was able to do with the Mk Ultra episode, and how he literally was able to make a normal member of the public shoot a celebrity dead, and then not even remember doing it. it just looked almost too easy.

Who knows though and I definitely don't doubt that something like Mk ultra is possible and was being actively used whether it was in the past or today.. or both. So yeah, I was a bit skeptical of what he was able to achieve so quickly but It was definitely an interesting episode to watch. And if he was genuine in what he did (in other words nothing was staged), then it certainly can provide some evidence in favor of Mk Ultra's use, particularly in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy which he highlighted.

Btw, If you're interested in the Bobby Kennedy assassination, I did a thread about it which I posted a few months ago now, you might find it interesting: The Peculiar Death Of Bobby..

You are using sources from books written about individuals who are all dead. The writers can claim anything they want plus the fact that you have to write about something for it to sell. I take these sources as "ok…whatever". So lets get that out of the way.

"Well then I suggest you take the time to watch the video I added to my previous post.

It's not like he shot Oswald and then immediately backed down here. He shot him and then went in for a second time but was physically restrained before he had an opportunity to strike him. It can be seen quite clearly."

I have seen that video before you posted many times. I don't see him going in for a second shot and most people don't seem to see that either.

"1.) A shot to the stomach certainly can be fatal, and it's much more dangerous than you're trying to portray. 2.) We don't know how much Ruby thought about this, for all we know he had one plan in mind.. shoot Oswald and make sure that at least one shot hit (thus why he hit the easiest target available to him - the stomach.)

This wasn't a spontaneous event you know. Ruby was practically stalking Oswald while he was in police custody, and he's been spotted on film doing so. Here's a screenshot of him in a room full of reporters just prior to the famous midnight press conference of Oswald:"

Stepping on a nail can be fatal what I am saying is someone with the intent to kill someone would not shoot them in the stomach because the chances of surviving it are too great. He is a few inches from his heart which would have easily been viewed as a kill shot.

Now another thing is what benefit to these people would Oswald being dead have since he was already in police custody and of course they interviewed him extensively at that point. What he wanted to say was already said.

Another thing you don't consider is why would Ruby first kill they and then blame other people?

What i see in the Ruby interviews after the fact is someone pissed off that he is going to prison for life. IF he intended to kill Oswald why would he be pissed about it? Why would he make up elaborate stories and accuse others? Makes Zero sense. The only way it does make sense is that he realized he killed the guy and is now facing either the death penalty or life in prison whereas use wounding him would get him an light sentence and he would have done easy time and come out of prison like a hero. Something like that can be very beneficial to a person like Jack Ruby. I honestly don't thing Ruby was playing with a full deck though.

"Why not? We already know for a fact that the Mafia and the CIA were working together on operations at the time, particularly in Cuba with assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. And we can tie multile different mafia figures at multiple different times to the JFK case also such as Sam Giancana for example, Johnnie Roselli, Santo Trafficante, Carlos Marcello and it goes on and on and on.."

No actually we dont know that for a fact. The fact is the government and the Mafia dont do anything together and the Mafia avoids getting involved with things like this like the plague. Of course we have to look at these things from the perspective of that time period but in reality the Mafia and the government were like oil and water.

Anyway, what i meant was the Mafia would not use Oswald or Ruby for killing someone hardly known let alone something like this and do you honestly believe people like Giancana etc. approached Oswald and Oswald just agreed to it? For what purpose would either do that? It is easy to come up with these scenarios but the chances of that occurring are basically zero.

"Do you mean something like this?"

That video is not credible. Why would Ruby have been included at all and why have him go kill Oswald in front of everyone since they would be 100% he would be caught and then rat everyone out? Not even in the realm of possibilities.

Another question is why not just eliminate Jack Ruby instead of supposedly having him shoot Oswald? Because what happened, according to this conspiracy, is they traded Oswald for Ruby to be in custody yet both were still blaming other people....makes no sense.

Edit: Excuse the typographical errors. My keyboard keys are sticking.

reply to post by Rising Against


Excellent post, not seen this tread before. Thanks

reply to post by Malcher

You are using sources from books written about individuals who are all dead. The writers can claim anything they want

That's lie number 1.

I used 2 sources in that post, one of which is by JFK assassination researcher John Simkin. His website can be found here. And yes, he is very much alive today.

The other source was from the discovery channel which was hosting a video of Jack Van Laningham, the previous cellmate of one mafia boss involved in the JFK case, Carlos Marcello. Jack, Whether he is still alive, I'm not sure but either way you're wrong here as no one is writing anything about him... his interview was done on video thus we know exactly what came out of his own mouth.

I have seen that video before you posted many times. I don't see him going in for a second shot and most people don't seem to see that either.

Amazing. You're simply refusing to believe what's right in front of you then.

To prove it, here are some screen shots and remember, these are screenshots of the official footage which was shown on TV in front of millions of people.

Here Jack Ruby can first be seen coming into view.



Here we can see him strike Oswald.



Oswald, after just being shot, falls to the ground.



Jack then begins a forward movement into Oswald who is now on the floor dying from his wounds, Jack having his pistol drawn at all times.







Oswalds handler tries to restrain Ruby who moves into Oswald in what is another attempt to get off a shot.







If you still can't see Jack going in for another shot on Oswald as he lays on the ground, Jack having his gun out the whole time, then with all due respect but you're either purposefully ignoring what's right in front of you, or blind.

I'll consider this point debunked for now, thanks.

I don't see him going in for a second shot and most people don't seem to see that either.

"Most" don't see it either? Great, so we're just making up facts now?

I'll consider that lie number 2.

Now another thing is what benefit to these people would Oswald being dead have since he was already in police custody and of course they interviewed him extensively at that point. What he wanted to say was already said.

Well that's the whole point really... we can't ever know for sure.

The best theory, IMO, is that by killing Oswald he was then never given the opportunity to defend himself, or explain any of his past behavior, such as 544 camp street for example, what he was doing in Russia exactly, any connections to the likes of David Ferrie, the fair play for Cuba committee, the mafia, any prior connections to Jack Ruby himself, the possibility of any Intelligence work and so on. Plus he was never able to be given a chance to make any sort of challenge against what he apparently did, not forgetting he was never given the opportunity to challenge the warren commissions findings, which are seriously lacking in many key areas.

Another thing you don't consider is why would Ruby first kill they and then blame other people?

I do consider it, every researcher of this case is forced to.

What you fail to consider is in the months before Jack Ruby died he extensively asked to be moved from a prison in Dallas to a prison in Washington as he felt unsafe in Dallas, and once moved he would go on record and reveal all he really knew about the case.

He repeatedly left hints, particularly at Lyndon Johnson's involvement in the case, but he never got the chance to fully explain anything as he died of cancer in January of 1967.

Here's the video where he left hints once again btw, I posted it before but I get the feeling you didn't watch it:

Google Video Link

In regards to killing Oswald in the first place, well, some researchers believe he was ordered to do it by others involved in the case. Especially as Jack Ruby was well in with the police force already at the time, and if he didn't silence Oswald, he himself would be killed. He then did it, and regretted it thus wishing to reveal what he knew.

That video is not credible at all.

lol, what on earth? How can this video not be "credible"?



That's utterly hilarious. Sorry to break it to you, but this video is certainly "credible".. unless all of those people, including Oswald, are actors.

Sorry my friend but I think you just lost all credibility with what you're trying to claim here.

It's also a well known fact that Ruby was there... as I shown in my last post with the screen shots of him.

Ruby was also in the police hallways on the 22nd, the same hallways Oswald can be viewed in here being taken through a horde of reporters:







This is a fact of the case. And It's also potentially proof Ruby did not attack Oswald on the 24th in a sudden, spur of the moment type event... he was practically stalking him..



I just did a google search and here is an image of him (above) on the 22nd inside the police station hallways along with hundreds of reporters, this being a few metres away from where Oswald would be. I'd hazard a guess and say he was there for one reason and one reason only... to shoot Oswald given the opportunity.. which was was given 2 days later on the 24th.

and do you honestly believe people like Giancana etc. approached Oswald and Oswald just agreed to it?

I never said Giancana approached Oswald and I never hinted at such a thing.

You hinted that if the mafia was involved they would talk about their involvement and in turn I showed how they did so. Here's a direct copy and paste from my last post where I mentioned Giancana, notice I never once did what you claimed above:

How about Giancana also?

In 1975 Frank Church and his Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities discovered that Judith Campbell had been involved with both Giancana and John F. Kennedy. It emerged that during the 1960 presidential election Campbell took messages from Giancana to Kennedy. Campbell later claimed these messages concerned the plans to murder Fidel Castro. Kennedy also began an affair with Campbell and used her as a courier to carry sealed envelopes to Giancana. He told her they contained "intelligence material" concerning the plot to kill Castro.

Giancana was now ordered to appear before Church's committee. However, before he could appear, on 19th June, 1975, Sam Giancana was murdered in his own home. He had a massive wound in the back of the head. He had also been shot six times in a circle around the mouth.

According to Peter Dale Scott, in 1976, James Jesus Angleton "told an investigator that he knew which mob figures, from the New York and Chicago mafia families, had killed Sam Giancana. He also blamed the Church Committee for causing the death of Giancana and Rosselli, by demanding testimony concerning topics on which the mafia code of silence could not be broken."

On 14th January, 1992, the New York Post claimed that Hoffa, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello had all been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Frank Ragano was quoted as saying that at the beginning of 1963 Hoffa had told him to take a message to Trafficante and Marcello concerning a plan to kill Kennedy. When the meeting took place at the Royal Orleans Hotel, Ragano told the men: "You won't believe what Hoffa wants me to tell you. Jimmy wants you to kill the president." He reported that both men gave the impression that they intended to carry out this order.

According to Peter Dale Scott, in 1976, James Jesus Angleton "told an investigator that he knew which mob figures, from the New York and Chicago mafia families, had killed Sam Giancana. He also blamed the Church Committee for causing the death of Giancana and Rosselli, by demanding testimony concerning topics on which the mafia code of silence could not be broken."

On 14th January, 1992, the New York Post claimed that Hoffa, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello had all been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Frank Ragano was quoted as saying that at the beginning of 1963 Hoffa had told him to take a message to Trafficante and Marcello concerning a plan to kill Kennedy. When the meeting took place at the Royal Orleans Hotel, Ragano told the men: "You won't believe what Hoffa wants me to tell you. Jimmy wants you to kill the president." He reported that both men gave the impression that they intended to carry out this order.

That's all I wrote about him.

Another question is why not just eliminate Jack Ruby instead of supposedly having him shoot Oswald?

Huh? That makes no sense at all.

Oswald most the person suspected of murdering the president and was, as he said he was, a patsy. So why remove Ruby when Oswald is the patsy - thus the person needing removed?

No actually we dont know that for a fact. The fact is the government and the Mafia dont do anything together

Wrong once again. Guess you've never heard of the name Johnny Roselli or William Harvey for example..

Anyway, like I said, we know for a fact they worked together and we know it because official documents proving their activity together have already been released in the famous "Family Jewels" files. Here's a rather informative source for you explaining it in detail.

CIA conspired with mafia to kill Castro

The CIA conspired with a Chicago gangster described as "the chieftain of the Cosa Nostra and the successor to Al Capone" in a bungled 1960 attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba's communist revolution, according to classified documents published by the agency yesterday.

The disclosure is contained in a 702-page CIA dossier known as the "Family Jewels" compiled at the behest of then agency director James Schlesinger in 1973. According to a memo written at the time, the purpose of the dossier was to identify all current and past CIA activities that "conflict with the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947" - and were, in other words, illegal.

The dossier covers operations including domestic surveillance, kidnapping, infiltration of anti-war movements, and the bugging of leading journalists.

But its detailed information on assassination attempts against foreign leaders is likely to attract most attention.

The plot to kill Mr Castro, whom the US government at the time considered a threat to national security and a stooge of the Soviet Union, begins quietly and sinisterly in August 1960.

The documents released yesterday describe how a CIA officer, Richard Bissell, approached the CIA's Office of Security to establish whether it had "assets that may assist in a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action. The mission target was Fidel Castro".

The dossier continues: "Because of its extreme sensitivity, only a small group was made privy to the project. The DCI (Director of Central Intelligence Allen Welsh Dulles) was briefed and gave his approval."

Following the meeting with the Office of Security, Bissell employed a go-between, Robert Maheu, and asked him to make contact with "gangster elements". Maheu subsequently reported an approach to Johnny Roselli in Las Vegas. Roselli is described as "a high-ranking member of the 'syndicate' (who) controlled all the ice-making machines on the (Las Vegas) Strip and (who) undoubtedly had connections leading into the Cuban gambling interests".

The CIA is careful to cover its tracks. According to the dossier, Maheu told Roselli that he (Maheu) has been retained by international businesses suffering "heavy financial losses in Cuba as a result of Castro's action. They were convinced that Castro's removal was the answer to their problem and were willing to pay the price of $150,000 (£75,000) for its successful accomplishment".

Roselli was also told that the US government was not, and must not become aware of the operation.

Roselli in turn led the CIA to a friend, known as Sam Gold. In September 1960, Maheu was introduced to Gold and his associate, known as Joe. In a development that appears to underscore the amateurishness of the whole operation, Maheu subsequently accidentally spotted photographs of "Sam and Joe" in Parade magazine.

Gold was in fact Momo Salvatore Giancana, "the chieftain of Cosa Nostra (the mafia) and the successor to Al Capone". Joe was actually Santos Trafficante, Cosa Nostra boss of Cuban operations.

You can also, I believe, read through the 702 page documents here: The National Security Archive: The CIA's "Family Jewels"

Like I said, we know for a fact that the Mafia worked with the CIA primarily in Cuba in the 1960's.

There, debunked once again.

Sorry but you're not really convincing me of anything at all with your writing here. I'd also appreciate it if you stopped making up facts to back up your claims, you did it quite a few times in your last post. Thanks..

I have no desire to convince you of anything. What have i made up or been dishonest about? We all see things differently does not mean we are lying. Have i accused you of this?

Does what I posted about the Ruby incident make sense to you? Because i get the feeling it does. Instead of accusing me of making up facts you should adress the things i brought up.

Jack Ruby never intended to kill Oswald because if he did why would he try and get out of it shortly after learning he died? Big difference between injuring him and a murder rap. BIG difference.

Now if the Mafia was using Ruby for a hitman, no stomach shot and cant see why they would do it in forn of t.v cameras. Can you explain these things? Because you have not yet.

reply to post by Malcher

Instead of accusing me of making up facts you should adress the things i brought up.

1.) You did make up facts though, and I clearly highlighted them in my last post.

2.) The above text is very hypocritical of you in all fairness. I just posted 3 full posts full of information all of which address what you previously brought up and in reply you've completely failed to address any of it, instead you chose to quite conveniently ignore it all and claim I'm the one ignoring you. And I posted extensively before those 3 posts which again you failed to fully address.

With all due respect but It's rather rich of you to say "you should adress the things i brought up" when you quite clearly refuse to do it yourself.

What have i made up or been dishonest about?

Read my last posts. I highlighted them already.

Now if the Mafia was using Ruby for a hitman, no stomach shot and cant see why they would do it in forn of t.v cameras.

Ok, this is the third time Ive posted this now. Come on, this is getting silly.

Ruby was seen stalking Oswald in the days before he shot him and I posted 2 screen shots of this already. He was practically stalking him. Now the very fact that he shot him on the 24th, and the very fact that he was stalking him in the days before this, means that the only logical explanation was he was looking for an opportunity to do it and he was finally given the perfect opportunity on the 24th, which was unfortunately in front of the TV cameras.

The fact remains though that he was intending to shoot him as soon as he was given the chance. And as I shown in my last post he was looking for at least a second shot.

In regards to the stomach shot. I addressed my thoughts on this in my previous posts already.

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Malcher

 

Instead of accusing me of making up facts you should adress the things i brought up.

1.) You did make up facts though, and I clearly highlighted them in my last post.

2.) The above text is very hypocritical of you in all fairness. I just posted 3 full posts full of information all of which address what you previously brought up and in reply you've completely failed to address any of it, instead you chose to quite conveniently ignore it all and claim I'm the one ignoring you. And I posted extensively before those 3 posts which again you failed to fully address.

With all due respect but It's rather rich of you to say "you should adress the things i brought up" when you quite clearly refuse to do it yourself.

What have i made up or been dishonest about?

Read my last posts. I highlighted them already.

Now if the Mafia was using Ruby for a hitman, no stomach shot and cant see why they would do it in forn of t.v cameras.

Ok, this is the third time Ive posted this now. Come on, this is getting silly.

Ruby was seen stalking Oswald in the days before he shot him and I posted 2 screen shots of this already. He was practically stalking him. Now the very fact that he shot him on the 24th, and the very fact that he was stalking him in the days before this, means that the only logical explanation was he was looking for an opportunity to do it and he was finally given the perfect opportunity on the 24th, which was unfortunately in front of the TV cameras.

The fact remains though that he was intending to shoot him as soon as he was given the chance. And as I shown in my last post he was looking for at least a second shot.

In regards to the stomach shot. I addressed my thoughts on this in my previous posts already.

edit on 20-11-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)

All your link shows is the CIA and Mafia were aware of each others existence. Not even the article states they worked together. Conspired? Not very likely. One thing the Mafia would say to the CIA is "tell the feds to lay off us" and we all know the very opposite happened.

What does "stalking" (supposedly) have to do with him working for someone else or doing their bidding? All you are showing is that Jack Ruby shot LHO. But we all knew this already.

Have you shown Ruby was going for another shot? Because i never heard that mentioned before and all he had to do was pull the trigger more than one time anyway so in all likelihood he could get off two consecutive shots, but apparently that was not his intent because that never happened. Is that not making facts up?
Goes without saying that when you shoot someone they can die but from one torso shot most people survive that.

Once again, why would Ruby shoot and kill Oswald and then look for a way out of it? The only reason is because it went badly for him in that the person he shot died. He didnt want to spend his life in prison so what else can he say? "i didnt do it" well he is on camera doing it. If someone put him up to it why not just go to the police?