Apologies for all the writing here. Like I said, first and foremost I'd like to write a book of some type. Something that holds me interest enough that I can follow through on it. You can follow along if you want. It's about the Kennedy Assassination, so I don't totally expect anyone to be happily reading along. It's just me thing. And I've given it a great deal of thought and I have a "novel" idea about what was going on behind the scenes.
Well, there was a guy that just so happened to visit the Dallas Morning News that Morning.
Yes. So, he went there to congratulate them on a wonderful ad they had plastered on the front page of their paper.
Wouldn't this make more sense if he was angry at the newspaper for allowing such an ad to be placed on its front pages. "...and on the front page too!" Like he's all mad, but he says something like if it was on the fifth page or the last page or whatever - that this ad was somehow forgivable, but to have it on the FRONT PAGE!!!
That's just plan craziness, I know. But see, I don't think the CIA worries about the finer points that you are making. What they worry about is whether or not the advertisement is enough to make a man so incensed that he goes to the Newspaper to complain in person.
But he's agreeing with the Newspaper's ad.
Again, I don't think that logic is really something that is given much pause by the people at Langley. The media can mention it, but they could simply say something like "how strange the mind works when deep passions are stirred up."
Well, in this scenario The Media would be taking on itself here. Something I don't think they particularly DON'T enjoy. I mean, they would like this angle. Some person, someone with some cognitive disabilities, perhaps, is angry and incensed and doesn't know how to express his feelings.
Why does he have to have cognitive disabilities?
Well, that's what he has... yes, I have someone in mind. Now, the Dallas Morning News is just down the block from Dealey Plaza coincidently enough. It's like a five-minute walk from there to the plaza. A person that is at the Dallas Morning News to complain about the ill treatment of Kennedy is likely to still have something of a temper about his encounter at the Dallas Morning News. And he gets turned totally around and kills the person that he actually loves.
I don't know about that one.
I know you don't know about it; I'm just saying that it is plausible. And the media would have "a field day" crucifying one of their own for allowing such a ridiculous advertisement to go through.
Remember: this is just a story. It didn't actually happen. It was a story that they would use and could distract from the Assassination.
Well, now that's a stretch, I think. Well, if I am thinking correctly on this. Be less vague please.
Yes. Fine. But all of this talk would be seen as a healthy alternative to focusing on the Assassination. And in keeping with the media relationship with the government they could move a lot of Senators and such to pass legislation that limited Newspapers from printing such provocative stories. They'd even come down on them for printing a story about LBJ being tossed aside in 64. This too would be considered in bad taste. People would debate that and perhaps the debate was heated as it might suggest and people would generally think that the advertisement went too far, but that ultimately the scoop was within the boundaries of acceptability.
You've got this all figured out, huh? But you don't even have a person. Or do you.
Yes. I've already said that. I do have a person in mind. But wait on this just a tiny bit more. So, he's gone in to the newspaper of the Dallas Morning News, but the reason he's gone in there is not because his outrage over the advertisement, nor the grand disappointment that Kennedy was letting LBJ go in 1964. By the way, perhaps, it was that reason. Maybe he claims that he held deep admiration for LBJ and it was such a crass thing to do to such an outstanding person meant his indignation was targeted at Kennedy himself. Maybe the humiliation over such a thing and the fact that LBJ now had to go through the whole ritual of this motorcade was too much of an embarrassment for him to bare.
Yes. Very different. And the last one is possibly a harder sell since it was just the paper that was writing up a story that was breaking. I'd almost forgotten that one. But why settle for just one. These are all contributing factors. He has all these emotions and it seems he is incapable of surviving with all these feelings. He needs to act on them and, in his mind, he only has one thing that will express his feelings properly. Violence. He needs to commit some act of violence. Did you know that in 1963 there were more murders then then there are today.
I find that hard to believe. This was the era of Camalot. Or was Texas such an outlier.
Well, sort of. But really the whole nation was undergoing some bizarre plague of violence, which continued up till maybe the early 90s. If I remember correctly, the number of homicides in Dallas that year was just slightly above or below 900.
900 HUNDRED! You are certainly kidding me.
No. Do you want to know how many murders there are in 2020 - in ALL of Texas? -
God. I wouldn't have a clue.
Well, I think the number is something like 440.
I don't believe that. That it's that much lower.
Don't believe all you want, but that's kind of the loose and reasonable way to look at the numbers. Do you want me to look further into these numbers.
No. That's okay. That's just spun my world around and upside down... Hold on, let me check... Well, it's not that crazy. No. Today there are more murders in Dallas than in 1963. Let's see, in 2003 there were a ton of murders. Sort of its high-level mark. 1960 actually had MORE murders than in 1963, so you could argue there was something like a Camelot effect.
Oh. Dallas was sort of the exception. In the early 60s Dallas' murder rates were lowering. But, yeah, if you told me this in 2004 or so, then you'd be right. Although, it's not 900. Dude, where do you get your statistics!
But I've made my point, though, right? I mean, we think of 1960 as an innocent time. But in Dallas it was pretty high. Higher, in fact then the - what sounds to be - the early 2000s.
Yes. They've really spiked these past couple of years.
Not that any of this is on point since it has to do with the Assassination of a President, not the murder of some average Joe on the street.
Yes, but my point is that murders happened a lot more than we think and it was moreso in Texas. Dallas being the worst in turns of murders. So, this would suggest that people had a much lower threshold when it came to acting out violently.
Yes, such as an article in a newspaper.
Yes. Now, I'm not saying that people would have to be convinced of this and that it would probably take Americans a great deal longer to accept this premise of having two lone nuts, however, there are some upsides to this.
Well, for instance, it explains why the heck Ruby shot Oswald. If I remember correctly, the last reason given on why Ruby shot Oswald is that he wanted Jacklyn to not have to endure the experience of going to trial and having to testify. What the HELL kind of reason is that! And yet we accept that. Okay, we really don't accept it, but in the Two Lone Nuts, Ruby can be portrayed as a real psycho and prone to his violent temper he had. And there is a lot of proof that Ruby had a violent temper. At least, there are some nuggets that suggest things. Again, downplayed, but there for ---
Wait a second. Who said anything about Ruby?
Oh. Yeah. It was Ruby that I was referring to.
You're telling me that Ruby is the Crazed Lunatic?!
Yes. He was the guy that just so happened to be at the Dallas Morning News that morning.
The official story today on that aspect of the assassination is he was there making his own advertisement. He wasn't there yelling and screaming and carrying on about the advertisement that was in the paper that morning. He was making his own advertisement. He claims that he had a new "master of ceremonies" and that he needed to change his usual advertisement to mention this. Apparently, he usually just phoned in the advertisement since it didn't change all that much. But with a change in the master of ceremonies he needed to go in and redo his ad.
Okay, well, there's your explanation. A little coincidental, but there you go. Ruby had a reason to be there.
I think that's fair, but has anyone investigated such a thing? My guess is not really.
You think he wasn't going to have a change in the master of ceremonies.
I sort of doubt he had one. I don't know. It would be easy enough to conjure up an excuse to change you advert. But my guess is that this would be one of the things the FBI would have looked into if the Plotters were going with the Crazy Lunatics story. My guess, is that the whole "master of ceremonies" could easily be unmasked, so to speak. This would be wholly debunked. However, if they weren't going this particular direction, it would be a lot harder to debunk - of course - and there might be a lot of maybe he was making this up and maybe he wasn't making this up.
What about his time at the Morning News? Is there anything about him exploding on someone or even that some person saw him in a highly agitated state.
Well, that's where the mixed emotions are useful. He was an immature fellow - you can get that just by reading his testimony - and when he got there he headed straight for the advertising department and was going to make a scene, but when he got there he was sort of embarrassed by it all and decided to not mention it.
You really should read his testimony. It's a big eyeopener. It was for me, at least. I had no idea that he was mentally disabled. He was obviously very high functioning, but he would have been considered "special" by his family and friends... and the mafia. It's actually a really funny testimony. And Ruby has this way of talking that is really funny but it's mostly the fact that he keeps on saying that his story needs to be told and that its terrible that he can't get himself heard and all the while Warren is letting him talk on and on about what happened that lead up to the Assassination and all that happened post assassination. And every time he checks back Warren says "you're doing great" and "most people aren't able to recall events with such detail." Blah blah blah.
Well, he says he was at the Dallas Morning News to update his advertisement.
No. Not really. Except perhaps the use of the word "abutment".
Abatement? What the heck would be incriminating about that?
titsay
gummygunk
origamiaround
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear