View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Oswald, Ruby and money
JohnH
I had one of those rare but difficult nights where I woke up and could not go back to sleep. After trying reading for a while I gave up and just sort of let my mind wander.

Somehow I latched onto one of my pet ideas regarding the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. This idea is that the actions of Jack Ruby were so out of character for him that following whatever leads that came out of a focus on him would be the clearest path to what could be known. After a further 45 minutes or so I decided to get up and do a little internet searching.

I read the Wikipedia entry on Ruby and 2 pro conspiracy articles and one anti conspiracy article. I also skimmed some other stuff and I will admit that one of the pro conspiracy articles was so long winded that I did not read it completely. The thing that struck me the most was the lack of any kind of money trail. The closest that any comes is the quoting of a mafia hit man to the effect that the murder of Oswald looked like something done by a person who was in deep shit with the mob. There was nothing otherwise to suggest that Ruby had a significant financial reason to kill Oswald. I would suggest that the idea that Ruby was heavily in debt to loan sharks is the most likely reason he could be made to take the action he did. I found no discussion of any indication of significant debt in any of the pro conspiracy things I read. Oddly in the anti conspiracy article there is no discussion of his lack of debt either. Is the lack of a provable or even an apparent financial motive definitive, no. Does it make me more comfortable that the official version of events is probable, yes. This is based on what is known about Ruby makes it very difficult for me to believe he participated in a conspiracy for political or moral reasons. I cannot see him participating in a conspiracy for anything other than financial gain of some form.

I would point out that I know of no significant information, only vague speculation, that Oswald was getting money from any out side sources. Oswald could not hold jobs but managed somehow to keep thing together financially. That is as detailed an analysis that I have found.

The focus of all Kennedy assassination conspiracy discussions has been on known or speculated associations of Oswald and Ruby. Odd holes in their histories and very specific events that look questionable are given great weight. There is even the testimony of certain individuals that is given great weight. As far as I can tell, no one to date has tried making a case on some sort of money trail. I have no doubt that the pro conspiracy people have made a great effort to find that, the lack thereof seems telling to me. Until someone does show a money trail with some level of credence I will accept the Warren Commission Report. I do accept that there will always be a level of doubt about the number of shooters (witness the so called “magic bullet”).
Edited by JohnH on 05/22/2010 18:00
 
Theory_Execution
Well we know exactly who done it. He died willingly though.
 
derF
I am in agreement with you JohnH. The conspiracy nuts are as adamant as any religious fanatic is about their cause but the evidence is just not there to support any of it. I recommend a book written several decades ago by Gerald Posner called Case Closed. It may be the definitive reconstruction of the Kennedy assassination. It has the ring of truth about it.
 
Skeeve
I'm still curious why it was done as much as I am who did it.

Why isn't Vietnam ever mentioned in connection to the assassination?

There was a major change in the Vietnamese government just weeks prior to his death. There were many national and international groups that were affected by this.

I'm not saying this is the reason, I've just always been curious why this is never mentioned when the Kennedy assassination is discussed.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
seeker
The Government opened itself to this kind of speculation when they made the Warren Commission report classified. Whether they were trying to cover something up or not it looked like they were.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
JohnH:

I suggest a nice single malt scotch or two on those sleepless nights and your conspiracy problems will disappear.
 
catman
Skeeve: At the time of the JFK assasination, VietNam was very small potatoes as far as most Americans were concerned. We had only a small number of advisors there.
 
Skeeve
Revisionist history is like that. Or perhaps suppressed history is more appropo.

In 1956 the Geneva Conference divided Vietnam into two temporary countries after the French left . General elections were planned for a united Vietnam under one government as per the Conference.

Ho Chi Minh was the dominate leader of the North and President Diem in the South. Minh had 100% of the northern vote and a good percent of the south. Diem refused to honor the agreement that would have reunited Vietnam, he did this with strong US support. This made South Vietnam the second ranking recipient of military aid after Korea.

Diem was basically thought of as a puppet regime controlled by Washington. By supporting him, the US were continuing their containment doctrine against communism. This is the reason for our part in the Vietnam War. If you believe anything else, you've been misled. Had the elections been held, world history would be quite a bit different today.

In 1963, Diem went after the Buddhists in an effort to make Catholicism the dominate religion in the country. It was because of his heavy handed police and military tactics against the Buddhists that led Kennedy to approve a plot by S. Vietnamese generals to stage a coup and overthrow Diem. In the process Diem and his brother were killed.

A few weeks after this happened, Kennedy was killed in Dallas.

As I stated in the OP, I don't know if any of this is connected, I only wonder why it isn't mentioned when the topic of Kennedy comes up. There were many different factions vying for control in South East Asia in the 50's, 60's and 70's, I'm sure some were even linked to other organizations that have been associated with the Kennedy assassination.
Yet none of this is part of anyone's research. Why?
Edited by Skeeve on 05/25/2010 17:22
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
catman
Skeeve: I knew most of that history already, so I'm not sure why you mentioned "revisionist history" in connection with my comment. It's true that the USA was over a year away from sending a lot of troops into Nam. That isn't to say that we weren't interested in what was going on. Diem was certainly no prize, being more dictator than president.

Perhaps it's not a far stretch to consider that the goings-on there may have had some connection with JFK's assasination, but it seems doubtful to me. It is worth investigating, though.
Edited by catman on 05/26/2010 00:16
 
Skeeve
catman wrote:
Skeeve: At the time of the JFK assasination, VietNam was very small potatoes as far as most Americans were concerned. We had only a small number of advisors there.


I was showing that Vietnam wasn't small potatoes regardless of the number of advisors/troops we had there.

Our involvement prior to Johnson getting Congressional approval for combat troops has always been glossed over.

The majority of Vietnamese people were ready to move on after the French occupation. Had the US not played puppetmaster in the South, we would not have had a war. It was Kennedy who allowed it to happen.

I'm just saying.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
derF
Skeeve wrote:
catman wrote:
Skeeve: At the time of the JFK assasination, VietNam was very small potatoes as far as most Americans were concerned. We had only a small number of advisors there.


I was showing that Vietnam wasn't small potatoes regardless of the number of advisors/troops we had there.

Our involvement prior to Johnson getting Congressional approval for combat troops has always been glossed over.

The majority of Vietnamese people were ready to move on after the French occupation. Had the US not played puppetmaster in the South, we would not have had a war. It was Kennedy who allowed it to happen.

I'm just saying.


You are quite correct, Skeeve. A shame we couldn't have learned from the French the futility of trying to impose one's will on unwilling people. But, as history continues to show, we have not yet learned our lesson.
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
seeker
Skeeve is right, our involvement in Vietnam under Kennedy was not well publicized but it was significant. I've never really thought about Vietnam and a possible connection to the assassination but it isn't as far out as other theories I've heard.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
catman
I agree that the USA did play 'puppetmaster' (all over the world). If that is what is meant by involvement, I agree. I was referring to military involvement as started in 1965, and the gradual awareness by the American people that we were becoming involved directly in a disastrous war. The French experience in Indo-China, especially at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, didn't count for much to us since we had retrieved most of their own country for them only ten years before that. 'Pride goeth before a fall'.

You'll have difficulty finding anyone who was more against involvement in VietNam than myself. But in 1963, the attention of most Americans was largely directed toward Europe and the USSR, especially the Berlin Wall which had only been in existence since 1961. We were busy trying to make the world safe for plutocracy.

 
JohnH
I must say so far Kowboy has had the only rational response to my OP. I never intended to make this a discussion, of who, or why, or what was the reason I merely pointed out that I had come to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy because I had satisfied myself that the one wild card in the equation Ruby, apparently acted on his own without outside influence. I came to this conclusion because there was no credible evidence he had an economic gain in his actions. I felt this fact was particularly telling because not even the most dedicated conspiracy theorist even mentioned it except in passing and with out credible proof.

I had composed a long response to Skeeve's initial bringing up of the possibility of the ouster of the Diem regime as possibly playing a role. I will not post that but instead offer what I think are the salient points.

The simple asking of the question why or the reason for a political killing opens up the thought that there must be a conspiracy. That makes one opened to all sort of logical fallacies or charlatans willing to say anything for a fee.

Very few of the US political killings can be traced to a political conspiracy. I spent some time looking into these. Booth had people helping him who were also hanged. McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist and one could assume that other anarchists participated. One could argue that Ray's escape from the US must have been aided by like minded individuals but in looking at this I found only speculation. Most were like Sirhan, lone actors who had a vague political position against the government an opportunity and took it. There were also the few who were simply crazy.

I have to say the Vietnam connection is weak. The proximity of the events and the fact that any US actors probably wanted Diem out anyway makes any connection to his overthrow extremely unlikely.

I will reiterate my main points.

Asking why opens one to making determinations that are based on conjecture and not known facts.

With no apparent financial gain Ruby must have acted on personal impulse. Without credible evidence he had a financial stake in his actions one can safely conclude there was no conspiracy.

I would add one final note. In the intervening 50+ years there have been no new revelations, no death bed confessions, no new data. With all the many people searching for this data it seems unlikely it exists. I do know that small bits come out from time to time but they tend to be like the small bits that already exist.
Edited by JohnH on 05/28/2010 21:41
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money U.S. Politics 5 03/10/2010 14:55
fucking saviour on a stick has cost me money. The Rant Room 4 04/10/2009 00:52