The Forgotten Victims to a Genuine Conspiracy

reply to post by Malcher


you know you actually have me physically face palming, i mean seriously? did u actually read any of the posts provided by the poster of this thread? any of the stuff he provided to back up his claims and to blatantly tish tosh the things you brought forward tot he table, all of which u have refused to answer to, all your response is - is to repeat yourself in the same trollish tone.

I am not saying i subscribe to any theory brought forth on this matter however it seems to me that imo you cannot answer any of this- you said no proof of a mafia/gov conspiracy to work together ermmm ha yer there is plenty documentation out there that says ur wrong - some of which the poster has provided and you glaze over it because its not quite what you believe. yea we are all entitled to our beiefs of how things went down etc but please before sliding into the posts troll i suggest yopu do your homework and provide things to back up what you claim to be truths instead of stomping over somone (figeritivly speaking) for counterattacking your claims with a 3 post response outlining why he thinks the way he does.

on a side note and back on topic i shall reply fully once i have read all the info in the thread risingagainst as i dont want to repeat what has perhaps already been said. Very informative posts though so far

reply to post by Malcher


lol, and once again you completely refuse to believe some basic facts. That's truly incredible and in all honesty, bordering on trolling now.

You still refuse to believe the Mafia and the CIA worked together, particularly to assassinate Castro in the early 60's for example, this a basic fact - one we know of thanks to the famous "Family Jewels" document release. Deal with it already... It's fact.

You say this in reply to the article I linked to: "Not even the article states they worked together."

So you clearly didn't even bother to read it as the first paragraph says this: "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 title of said article even says this: CIA conspired with mafia to kill Castro

Conspired:

v. con·spired, con·spir·ing, con·spires

v.intr.

1. To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

2. To join or act together; combine:
v.tr.

To plan or plot secretly.

(Source)

Another point of yours debunked. You're also losing all credibility with refusing to believe this basic fact here. One I've had to practically spell out for you now.

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.

Ugh. Once again I've discussed this multiple times in my past posts in reply to you and to be completely honest, I'm sick of repeating myself here. I have to ask though, why are you refusing to read what I'm previously writing? If you want to disagree with me, fine. But at least have a valid reason for doing so, not just because you don't want to.

And no I'm not merely showing that Ruby shot Oswald, you know as well as I do I shoed a great deal more than that, what you just said is yet another lie and one designed to sway opinion. This is becoming a nasty habit but I guess when one can't back up their claims with facts.. they lie.

Have you shown Ruby was going for another shot?

Yes. Once again, read my last posts. I showed how he went in for another shot but failed to get it off as he was tackled by witnesses.

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

If you watched the video of the assassination take place you can quite clearly see Jack Ruby being tackled by multiple witnesses. He never had a chance to get off a second shot.

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?

Feel free to believe that, but I believe you're wrong and I've clearly shown why in my last posts quite extensively.

Originally posted by ronishia
reply to post by Malcher

 

you know you actually have me physically face palming, i mean seriously? did u actually read any of the posts provided by the poster of this thread? any of the stuff he provided to back up his claims and to blatantly tish tosh the things you brought forward tot he table, all of which u have refused to answer to, all your response is - is to repeat yourself in the same trollish tone.

I am not saying i subscribe to any theory brought forth on this matter however it seems to me that imo you cannot answer any of this- you said no proof of a mafia/gov conspiracy to work together ermmm ha yer there is plenty documentation out there that says ur wrong - some of which the poster has provided and you glaze over it because its not quite what you believe. yea we are all entitled to our beiefs of how things went down etc but please before sliding into the posts troll i suggest yopu do your homework and provide things to back up what you claim to be truths instead of stomping over somone (figeritivly speaking) for counterattacking your claims with a 3 post response outlining why he thinks the way he does.

on a side note and back on topic i shall reply fully once i have read all the info in the thread risingagainst as i dont want to repeat what has perhaps already been said. Very informative posts though so far

edit on 20/11/11 by ronishia because: (no reason given)

Are you really physically face palming? Or are you telling stories

Did i read the posts? Yes i read the posts. Do you think it is the first time I have heard about or read this stuff? I am not really interested in if the CIA and Mafia worked together 50 years ago or not. It is posible but hard to say one way or another.

Did you want to actually add anything?

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by Malcher

 

Did you want to actually add anything?

i believe i answered that in my last post

RiseAgainst, it is up to you to answer the things i put forth. Just insisting you are right does not cut it. I asked you many questions you are not answering. Wherever i put one of these (?) after a sentence means i am expecting a response. You just pretend the hard questions are not there. Reminds me of "this is my story and i am sticking with it". But that is not how to debate.

You have to answer the why's of this situation because when you do that it just falls apart.

Now why would Jack Ruby kill someone in front of national television only to claim a day or so later it was a big conspiracy? You do understand these questions?

reply to post by ronishia


Yeah we have to wait until tomorrow. You are still here though enough time to respond tells me you have nothing to add on this subject though.

Furthermore,

No i do not see Ruby "going in for another shot". I said that how many times already?

What does that mean "going in for" anyway. He was right there, he could have just squeezed the trigger 2 times...hell he could have squeezed it six times.

reply to post by Malcher

RiseAgainst, it is up to you to answer the things i put forth. Just insisting you are right does not cut it.

You see that's the thing. I'm not ignoring it.. I've answered these already and I'm sick to death of repeating myself as I've done it multiple times already. And once again you lie.. I've never insisted I'm right and that's it. I've worked hard to back up everything I'm claimed, which you yourself have not done.

Reminds me of "this is my story and i am sticking with it". But that is not how to debate.

And yet this has been your debate tactic through out.

I've provided basic facts which you've even refused to believe until I had to practically spell it out for you, which is basically trolling, and when I've answered a question, you act like I've done no such thing and repeatedly ask it again and again. That is not how to debate.

Now why would Jack Ruby kill someone in front of national television only to claim a day or so later it was a big conspiracy? You do understand these questions?

He never claimed it a few days later, again you're making stuff up. He claimed it quite a while after (he died in 1967, remember?) Once again, I've already explained why in detail. For goodness sake, can you stop pretending that I've done no such thing? It's pathetic.

Here's some quotes of my past responses as I'm just not going to repeat myself yet again.

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. He never planned it this way.

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.

* (Bold text is my own)

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.)

Why are you so determined to get another answer to the stomach shot as well btw? Please realize that I, myself, am not Jack Ruby.. all I can do is give my own personal thoughts on why he shot him there and IMO he did so as it was the easiest target to hit. And then he went in for the second shot. He wanted to be sure one landed.

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

*

I'd also appreciate it if you would stop acting like I've not replied to your questions as well, It's a very cheap debate tactic. And If anyone has done this it's you. Take this reply from you to my post before it for example. If you carry on like this then quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time on you any further. I've replied more than adequately enough, such as with these 3 full replies for example, and you've ignored almost all of it yourself. Yet you repeatedly ask the same questions over and over again.

You're already lost all credibility with refusing to believe utmost basic facts yourself, this among other things, so I'm simply not going to repeat myself yet again just because you refuse to read.

So you dont know how long after he made the claim either?

The time he made it is inconsequential compared why he made the claim.

This is what i have been asking you and you cannot answer.

Ruby shoots and kills someone, my impression and the words of his own brother (Ruby's) is that he did not intend to kill him. He shot him in the stomach, a few inches from his heart. Could have very easily unloaded the 38. He got off one shot so it is just a matter of squeezing the trigger and that did not happen.

So the question remains: why do it anyway? What was his motive? In your opinion.

reply to post by Malcher

This is what i have been asking you and you cannot answer.

Another pathetic lie.

That's the first time you've asked that question and I've never once previously said I don't know when he revealed this anyway. The last time I mentioned it I estimated, so I just did some more searching to fact check and as far as I'm aware he revealed it in mid 1965, Ruby dying from Cancer in January of 1967. Here's a source which discussed his last months alive:

Following Ruby's March 1964 conviction for murder with malice, Ruby's lawyers, led by Sam Houston Clinton, appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest criminal court in Texas. Ruby's lawyers argued that he could not have received a fair trial in the city of Dallas because of the excessive publicity surrounding the case. A year after his conviction, in March 1965, Ruby conducted a brief televised news conference in which he stated: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter: "Are these people in very high positions Jack?", he responded "Yes."

Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that bull#. He said, 'I damn sure do!' [Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm.... [In this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said ... if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, you're gonna learn a lot. And that was the last letter I ever got from him."

Not long before Ruby died, according to an article in the London Sunday Times, he told psychiatrist Werner Teuter, that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed." He added: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald."

Eventually, the appellate court agreed with Ruby's lawyers for a new trial, and on October 5, 1966, ruled that his motion for a change of venue before the original trial court should have been granted. Ruby's conviction and death sentence were overturned. Arrangements were underway for a new trial to be held in February 1967, in Wichita Falls, Texas, when, on December 9, 1966, Ruby was admitted to Parkland Hospital in Dallas, suffering from pneumonia. A day later, doctors realized he had cancer in his liver, lungs, and brain.

According to an unsigned Associated Press release, Ruby made a final statement from his hospital bed on December 19 that he and he alone had been responsible for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. "There is nothing to hide... There was no one else," Ruby said.

(Source)

In regards to what else you've asked. Read my past posts. I'm not repeating myself anymore. Further repeated questions I've already answered from you time and time again (and there's a lot of them) are just going to be ignored now.

I laid out a good case, even without Ruby's own death be statement.

According to an unsigned Associated Press release, Ruby made a final statement from his hospital bed on December 19 that he and he alone had been responsible for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. "There is nothing to hide... There was no one else," Ruby said.

You know...with it or without it the conspiracy just didnt hold water. Like i said earlier, without Ruby's brother making the satement "you dont kill someone with a stomach shot" (paraphrasing) I would have just thought he intended to kill him from the onset as well.

Ruby had a bad temper (statements from people who knew him) he was angry at Oswald, he indicated this in the last video you posted. Now if he injured oswald he goes away for a few years, comes out and in his mind he would have had some real "juice". Didnt work out that way so how to get out of it? What does he do? Throws out the old hope and a prayer excuses and goes balls to the wall.

reply to post by Rising Against


A big Star and Flag, Rising Against, for a well researched and in depth post. I have read about the Giancana brothers, and their arrangements with Joseph Kennedy, Jack, and Robert Kennedy, and Marilyn Monroe. This was the incident that set me on the conspiracy path...I was in the 4th grade, and I can clearly remember what it felt like. Think of 9-11. It was a lot like that. And then the stonewalling by the Warren Commission. Great post.

reply to post by autowrench

This was the incident that set me on the conspiracy path

Interesting. I think the same applies for a lot of people really, in that the JFK assassination made people, particularly Americans of course, think twice about their government. Almost as if it was the time when they first started to lose confidence and trust in them... something that never really recovered from.

I guess 9/11 almost acts in the same way really, like It's become the modern day JFK assassination.

reply to post by Rising Against


Well i told you my observations on this matter and you called me a liar. Spoke my mind and you tried to stifle me. Yet all i did was speak the truth, spoke what was on my mind. Did you attack me in some of those posts? I tend to think you did. Why? Because i didnt agree with you. I have no loyalty to any of these people mentioned in this JFK thing...NONE whatsoever.

I have to ask then if you were in government how would you be? I dont think i insulted you or told you that you lied. So who is the dictator here? Who is predisposed to be dictatorial? Is it you or is it me?

Maybe in every one of us lives a little dictator. I dont ask of people for more than i ask of myself.

Does not familiarity breed contempt?

Because i'm seeing many similarities here.

reply to post by Malcher


You asked questions, I answered, you then decided to repeat them time and time again, and at the same time make up facts of your own to back up what you was trying to say. I then gave you basic facts which you completed rejected even when I provided proof of them. You also told me I avoided answering your questions (which was a lie) yet at the same time that's exactly what you was doing to me, which I found very hypocritical of you. With each reply you continued to make stuff up and you also continued to make me repeat myself with asking the same questions over and over again....

So excuse me for getting frustrated at such behavior from you especially when you do it with every single post.

EDIT: Calling me a dictator btw.. Well isn't that very mature, lol.

reply to post by Rising Against


In every other post you insist you answered my questions when you didnt answer them. Just a few posts up from this is proof you are not answering them.

My questions are very simple and you can pick up from here:

Motive

If you don't like the truth and prefer works of complete fiction that is up to you. If you think, using your own mind, you see what is possible and what is not possible.

So you went digging some more and came up with that last "source" and at the very end states basically: "oh, btw, Ruby admitted on his death bed that he acted entirely alone". I was aware of that admission long ago, in fact it is here as well:

Friday, Dec. 30, 1966

...or you can believe what he said when he was facing life in prison and blamed everyone except space aliens. I tend to believe what he said when he knew that his life was over anyway and then he admitted it.

Personally i believe my interpetation is, most likely, 100% accurate. The only reason i say most likely is because i cannot know with certainty what Ruby was thinking at the time. Maybe he didnt even know. Jack Ruby made up a story and you bought it except he admitted it was a story later on. I believe the death bed confession and maybe you will swallow your pride and admit what is logical and truthful, I realize there is a fine line between lying and story telling, well i guess it just boils down to a matter of intent. Dont accuse me of maaking up facts when all i did was point out the weaknesses in this story and provided facts and logic.

We can debate other aspects of this case if there is anything specific you want to focus on. This case is not very difficult, unless you want to inject fiction and peoples erroneous assumptions.

As today is the anniversary of when all of this began, I'd like to bump this thread once more.. I did after all always feel like it was an important one to write up due to the amount of witnesses, and/or those involved, highlighted in the OP.

RA, thread master...

I know not what to say...Good Job, one of the most impressive threads I have EVER seen on ATS period, I have not yet had the chance to read it, but trust me I will.

Thank you for posting such epic works as this...

***Hats off thread master...****


SS

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


Nice to see this thread bumped, this being my favourite and most important one on a personal level.

I hope you get a chance to read it up in full - and I hope those newer members who were not around when I first posted it get a chance to read also.

reply to post by Rising Against


Indeed, bumping this thread is most certainly the most noble thing I have ever done on this site.

Did I just bump it again?

I guess that makes me, a truly noble individual....

I will post more once I've finished reading, this is not a bump by the way, I don't know what " bump " even means...


SS