Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Martin,

1.      You stated: "If you wish to dismiss the fact that Sergio Arcacha Smith – a man who had maintained an office at 544 Camp Street where Lee Harvey Oswald placed himself when he stamped that address on his FPCC leaflets – was identified as one of the men who was talking of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas as just another amazing coincidence then obviously that is up to you."

Yet I never did that, in fact I supported the opposite, I stated the Cheramie asserted connection however was not the evidence I relied upon for support of Smith's feasible involvement. So was this a mistake or an intentionally ignoring of my actual view?

2.  You stated "If you're going to discredit Cheramie, you're going to have to do a better job than this."

Yet I never attempted to discredit her, I stated the story as it changed and was no longer based on primary evidence. I also include in my view, which is not a conclusive statement and denunciation of anyone but that I have doubts. 

3. You state "I have already presented your misrepresentations for all to see. That you refuse to even address them let alone admit your errors reveals your intellectual dishonesty.

I have also caught you in yet another misrepresentation. Namely, your erroneous claim that I relied on speculation. I asked you to point out what speculation I relied upon. Clearly realizing you were wrong (again), you side stepped the question. No real surprise there. What's unbelievable is that you have the gall to repeat your claim without making any attempt to back it up. So again I ask, WHAT SPECULATION?

And I have yet another error on your part to point out.

4. You write: "That is the seeming difference between us, I do not demand others conform to my ideas but offer my view." That is not the difference between us. The difference between us is that I do not misrepresent what I find in reports and then try to weasel my way out if it when it is pointed out to me.

Thus, you have no proof of intellectual dishonesty but that I contend your view and your claim of being 100% correct, which we both know is not true. I did not make an erroneous claim, I stated you speculated that I was attempting to discredit Cheramie and mischaracterize evidence, not everything Martin is a conspiracy. You then say I was attempting to "weasel my wat out of" again with no evidence but you beliefs about me. 

5. You state: Waffle, waffle, waffle.

If I haven't demonstrated that you misrepresented the HSCA report, Carmine, then you'll have no trouble disputing each one of the points in my original post head on. After which you can point to a specific example of speculation in my original post. Come on. Shit or get off the pot.

Building upon your prior speculations you now demand I answer you in the manner you wish, how very unreasonable of you. Is repeating a word three times a mantra like example of your asserted superior methods?

6. I think those of us who live in the real world will think differently and I have no desire to change a closed mind. However, I will point out that in your attempt to discredit Rose Cheramie you have mangled and misrepresented the information found in the report upon which you rely. 

Your "real world" comment was a paltry attempt to discredit the ideas and evidence I referred to. Again not reasonable inquiry. You rely on speculation where actual investigation relies on evidence to contend something. You then claim I misrepresent the problems with her story, such as changes to it. In my view the closed mind is the one who thinks they are always right. 

7. "I'm not going to bother responding to all of your bullshit right now. I'm sticking right here because it reveals your blatant dishonesty."

Another example of the reasonable, adult, expected methods you have displayed.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

1.      You stated: "If you wish to dismiss the fact that Sergio Arcacha Smith – a man who had maintained an office at 544 Camp Street where Lee Harvey Oswald placed himself when he stamped that address on his FPCC leaflets – was identified as one of the men who was talking of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas as just another amazing coincidence then obviously that is up to you."

Yet I never did that, in fact I supported the opposite, I stated the Cheramie asserted connection however was not the evidence I relied upon for support of Smith's feasible involvement. So was this a mistake or an intentionally ignoring of my actual view?

You really do have reading comprehension problems don't you, Carmine? I never said that you dismissed Smith altogether. I said that you dismissed the significance of the fact that the one guy who had an office at 544 Camp Street was identified by the owner of the Silver Slipper Lounge as being with Cheramie. Which you did.

2.  You stated "If you're going to discredit Cheramie, you're going to have to do a better job than this."

Yet I never attempted to discredit her, I stated the story as it changed and was no longer based on primary evidence. I also include in my view, which is not a conclusive statement and denunciation of anyone but that I have doubts. 

Yes you did. The fact that you claim that you weren't trying to discredit her is proof of nothing. Especially given that you are a liar. And here's an example of your lying that I let pass yesterday:

I wrote: So let's move on to your next error. You wrote that Cheramie "eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot."

To which you responded: Where did I state that? Are you conjuring statements again?

I then wrote: Your words: "Cheramie...eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot."

When and where did she claim that, Carmine?

To which you unbelievably responded: I already stated I made two mistakes, that I was not specific enough, this means I should have attributed the statement to Fruge and that Cheramie did not directly state the Cuban issue, Fruge did. So despite your attempts to create further errors I would contend I have already stated I made two mistakes. 

So, having denied ever writing what you wrote, and having falsely accused me of "conjuring statements", shown your own words for a second time you suddenly change your story and claim that you had already admitted to that mistake!!!

3. You state "I have already presented your misrepresentations for all to see. That you refuse to even address them let alone admit your errors reveals your intellectual dishonesty.

I have also caught you in yet another misrepresentation. Namely, your erroneous claim that I relied on speculation. I asked you to point out what speculation I relied upon. Clearly realizing you were wrong (again), you side stepped the question. No real surprise there. What's unbelievable is that you have the gall to repeat your claim without making any attempt to back it up. So again I ask, WHAT SPECULATION?

And I have yet another error on your part to point out.

4. You write: "That is the seeming difference between us, I do not demand others conform to my ideas but offer my view." That is not the difference between us. The difference between us is that I do not misrepresent what I find in reports and then try to weasel my way out if it when it is pointed out to me.

Thus, you have no proof of intellectual dishonesty but that I contend your view and your claim of being 100% correct, which we both know is not true. I did not make an erroneous claim, I stated you speculated that I was attempting to discredit Cheramie and mischaracterize evidence, not everything Martin is a conspiracy. You then say I was attempting to "weasel my wat out of" again with no evidence but you beliefs about me. 

And since you are a proven liar, your denial of your obvious attempt to discredit the Cheramie story by mangling and misrepresenting the HSCA report is meaningless. You made numerous erroneous claims and I pointed them out and you refused to acknowledge them. That is the proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

5. You state: Waffle, waffle, waffle.

If I haven't demonstrated that you misrepresented the HSCA report, Carmine, then you'll have no trouble disputing each one of the points in my original post head on. After which you can point to a specific example of speculation in my original post. Come on. Shit or get off the pot.

Building upon your prior speculations you now demand I answer you in the manner you wish, how very unreasonable of you. Is repeating a word three times a mantra like example of your asserted superior methods?

I have made no speculations. None. At all.

An example of my superior methods (which I'm glad to see you acknowledge) is that I cite and quote reports accurately. Something you are not so good at.

6. I think those of us who live in the real world will think differently and I have no desire to change a closed mind. However, I will point out that in your attempt to discredit Rose Cheramie you have mangled and misrepresented the information found in the report upon which you rely. 

Your "real world" comment was a paltry attempt to discredit the ideas and evidence I referred to.

No, my real world comment was directed at your willingness to dismiss the pretty remarkable coincidence Smith, the man who had an office in the same building Oswald was operating out of, just happened to be identified as one of the men with Cheramie. 

Again not reasonable inquiry. You rely on speculation where actual investigation relies on evidence to contend something.

Nope. There's no speculation in anything I wrote. You certainly haven't provided any.

You then claim I misrepresent the problems with her story, such as changes to it.

No, I SHOWED that you misrepresented "the problems with her story" with specific examples.


In my view the closed mind is the one who thinks they are always right. 

Which is a pretty good description of your behaviour.

7. "I'm not going to bother responding to all of your bullshit right now. I'm sticking right here because it reveals your blatant dishonesty."

Another example of the reasonable, adult, expected methods you have displayed.


Why did you snip off what followed that remark, Carmine? Oh yeah, because it revealed your dishonesty.

So when are we going to get to my "errors" and "mistakes"?

Martin you can ignore that you attempted to mischaracterize some of my comments and accused me of false claims according to your views. You can believe insults and biased claims are reasonable. The issue was not Smith, it was your speculations and revision of my views and "my setting Smith aside" when I stated nothing to support that. I have admitted my mistakes, you seemingly cannot. That is your failing not mine. However, it is good to see that you can post at least a few times without resorting to the childish tactics you prior attempted label me with. Was that a mistake? Oh I forgot you believe that you do not make mistakes even when they are presented to you.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin you can ignore that you attempted to mischaracterize some of my comments and accused me of false claims according to your views. You can believe insults and biased claims are reasonable. 
I have admitted my mistakes, you seemingly cannot. That is your failing not mine.

Jog on, Carmine. Your sloppy, amateurish "research" and your propensity for telling lies have been exposed.

Come back when you have some idea what you're talking about and you can say it honestly.

Martin,

          There is the insulting you I remember. Your new claims of amateurish, considering your style of discussion, is quite entertaining. You may wish to focus on people your deficient views can actually effect. I fear you are just a temporary distraction for me.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

          There is the insulting you I remember. Your new claims of amateurish, considering your style of discussion, is quite entertaining. You may wish to focus on people your deficient views can actually effect. I fear you are just a temporary distraction for me.

 Whereas you've provided no distraction for me. Just five minutes of amusement.

and by the way the doctor who administered the sedative to Cheramie was actually from the Coroner's office... a strange and interesting tidbit for sure.

Then, as now, the US has no real system of universal healthcare. Cheramie clearly needed medical attention and apparently the medical examiner was the closest thing to a public health doctor that Lt. Frugue had available.

I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years".

Larry Crafard alert (though of course the "for years" part is nonsensical whether it was Craford or Oswald).

beowulf wrote:I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years".

Larry Crafard alert (though of course the "for years" part is nonsensical whether it was Craford or Oswald).

Crafard was only around for a short time prior to the assassination and I doubt very much Cheramie had any interaction with Ruby during that time period (though of course, it's not impossible). 

To me, it comes back to her referring to Ruby as Rubinstein. That speaks of someone who had only come across the name by reading R-W publications post-assassination - because all those rags wanted to emphasize that he was a Jew. There is no way she knew him and was introduced to him as "Jack Rubenstein" unless it was pre-1947.

greg parker wrote:

To me, it comes back to her referring to Ruby as Rubinstein. That speaks of someone who had only come across the name by reading R-W publications post-assassination - because all those rags wanted to emphasize that he was a Jew. There is no way she knew him and was introduced to him as "Jack Rubenstein" unless it was pre-1947.

Interesting point.

I would suggest though that *IF* (have I highlighted that enough?) Fruge was telling the truth, and he did confirm that she worked for Ruby, then it seems quite plausible that she could have learned of his birth name at that time. I would think at least some of his friends/employees/acquaintances would have known it? I can't recall reading any testimony on this issue.

Greg,

       A perceptive note, this may indeed be another problem with the Cheramie account. According to the Commission Report on December 30, 1947 Jack Rubinstein changed his changed his name to Ruby. While he indeed used the Ruby name and many knew him under it, "several persons in Dallas knew him as Rubinstein." i. 

    In my view this could support Martin's or your idea. She could have been among those who knew of Ruby in Dallas. Yet it could also provide another way for Cheramie to have known his other name via those who had met or knew of Ruby. In my view the latter is more feasible currently unless more evidence supports Cheramie having repeated associations with Ruby to learn more private information.    

i. President's Commission Report, Appendix 16, A Biography of Jack Ruby, pp.793-794

Carmine,

his two reasons for changing his name were firstly to make it more suitable for "show business" - and secondly to make it less "Jewish" sounding. Those in Dallas who knew him as "Rubenstein" were very likely not among his friends. OTOH, ever right-wing publication trying to tie Ruby into a communist plot POST-assassination referred to him by his birth name - and I have to wonder if that is where she got it from...

Martin Hay wrote:

greg parker wrote:

To me, it comes back to her referring to Ruby as Rubinstein. That speaks of someone who had only come across the name by reading R-W publications post-assassination - because all those rags wanted to emphasize that he was a Jew. There is no way she knew him and was introduced to him as "Jack Rubenstein" unless it was pre-1947.

Interesting point.

I would suggest though that *IF* (have I highlighted that enough?) Fruge was telling the truth, and he did confirm that she worked for Ruby, then it seems quite plausible that she could have learned of his birth name at that time. I would think at least some of his friends/employees/acquaintances would have known it? I can't recall reading any testimony on this issue.

Martin, she could have learned of his birth name if she had worked for him -- but do you know of any other strippers who worked for Ruby who called him Rubenstein either pre or post assassination? 

People who did that, usually did it for anti-Semitic reasons.

Greg that seems wholly feasible considering the Rosenbergs and the anti Semitic sentiment that were pervasive in some areas before and following the Red Scare.

She also referred to him as Pinky. Did anyone else call him Pinky that we know of?

greg parker wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:

greg parker wrote:

To me, it comes back to her referring to Ruby as Rubinstein. That speaks of someone who had only come across the name by reading R-W publications post-assassination - because all those rags wanted to emphasize that he was a Jew. There is no way she knew him and was introduced to him as "Jack Rubenstein" unless it was pre-1947.

Interesting point.

I would suggest though that *IF* (have I highlighted that enough?) Fruge was telling the truth, and he did confirm that she worked for Ruby, then it seems quite plausible that she could have learned of his birth name at that time. I would think at least some of his friends/employees/acquaintances would have known it? I can't recall reading any testimony on this issue.

Martin, she could have learned of his birth name if she had worked for him -- but do you know of any other strippers who worked for Ruby who called him Rubenstein either pre or post assassination? 

People who did that, usually did it for anti-Semitic reasons.

No, I don't.

But then I've never really been interested in Ruby so my knowledge in this area is vague.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:She also referred to him as Pinky. Did anyone else call him Pinky that we know of?

Just found this at the EF from Lee.

Rose Cheramie claimed that Jack Ruby's nickname was "Pinky."

This nickname is also corroborated (in an interview with Mark Lane) by Darrell Wayne Garner who was the DPD's "prime suspect" in the shooting of Tippit murder "witness" Warren Reynolds. Garner is obviously connected to former stripper Nancy Mooney who provided him with an alibi for the shooting of Reynolds.

P.S I've noticed Lee has left ROKC. His membership has gone to Guest status. That is a huge and terrible loss for this forum. I sure hope he changes his mind. I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work and passion regarding this case. His biting wit and good humour will also be sorely missed.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:She also referred to him as Pinky. Did anyone else call him Pinky that we know of?

Just found this at the EF from Lee.

Rose Cheramie claimed that Jack Ruby's nickname was "Pinky."

This nickname is also corroborated (in an interview with Mark Lane) by Darrell Wayne Garner who was the DPD's "prime suspect" in the shooting of Tippit murder "witness" Warren Reynolds. Garner is obviously connected to former stripper Nancy Mooney who provided him with an alibi for the shooting of Reynolds.

P.S I've noticed Lee has left ROKC. His membership has gone to Guest status. That is a huge and terrible loss for this forum. I sure hope he changes his mind. I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work and passion regarding this case. His biting wit and good humour will also be sorely missed.

Fully agree ,Paul. Apart from the stellar research he has shared here, it was Lee who provided the Bumfuck Bob photo.

steely dan wrote:

Fully agree ,Paul. Apart from the stellar research he has shared here, it was Lee who provided the Bumfuck Bob photo.

And I was waiting for Lee to continue his thread on Oswald not living in the house they claim he did.

Darn!

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:She also referred to him as Pinky. Did anyone else call him Pinky that we know of?

Just found this at the EF from Lee.

Rose Cheramie claimed that Jack Ruby's nickname was "Pinky."

This nickname is also corroborated (in an interview with Mark Lane) by Darrell Wayne Garner who was the DPD's "prime suspect" in the shooting of Tippit murder "witness" Warren Reynolds. Garner is obviously connected to former stripper Nancy Mooney who provided him with an alibi for the shooting of Reynolds.

P.S I've noticed Lee has left ROKC. His membership has gone to Guest status. That is a huge and terrible loss for this forum. I sure hope he changes his mind. I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work and passion regarding this case. His biting wit and good humour will also be sorely missed.

I'm not buying it, Paul. Garner's "corroboration" only appeared during the Garrison investigation - same as Cheramie's claim. Unless there is audio of the Garner-Lane interview proving otherwise, I'm going to say the name was fed to Garner with a leading question after the name was first mentioned by Cheramie. There doesn't  appear to be a transcript, or even just a direct quote. That, along with no previous mentions of this nickname by anyone should tell us to treat it with extreme caution.

Regarding Lee: This is will be my one and only public comment. Yes, it is a huge loss. I will see what I can do about finishing unfinished threads.

greg parker wrote:

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:She also referred to him as Pinky. Did anyone else call him Pinky that we know of?

Just found this at the EF from Lee.

Rose Cheramie claimed that Jack Ruby's nickname was "Pinky."

This nickname is also corroborated (in an interview with Mark Lane) by Darrell Wayne Garner who was the DPD's "prime suspect" in the shooting of Tippit murder "witness" Warren Reynolds. Garner is obviously connected to former stripper Nancy Mooney who provided him with an alibi for the shooting of Reynolds.

P.S I've noticed Lee has left ROKC. His membership has gone to Guest status. That is a huge and terrible loss for this forum. I sure hope he changes his mind. I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work and passion regarding this case. His biting wit and good humour will also be sorely missed.

I'm not buying it, Paul. Garner's "corroboration" only appeared during the Garrison investigation - same as Cheramie's claim. Unless there is audio of the Garner-Lane interview proving otherwise, I'm going to say the name was fed to Garner with a leading question after the name was first mentioned by Cheramie. There doesn't  appear to be a transcript, or even just a direct quote. That, along with no previous mentions of this nickname by anyone should tell us to treat it with extreme caution.

Regarding Lee: This is will be my one and only public comment. Yes, it is a huge loss. I will see what I can do about finishing unfinished threads.

You're right, Greg. It isn't very substantial given the circumstances.
I too can't find any other mentions of the nickname that doesn't relate directly back to Cheramie's claim.

Very interesting.

This assassination is very complex, it has many layers. If we look at Rose Cheramie (and Jack Ruby) we're looking at the ground layer, the ground game.

So far, I have to conclude that the Mafia definitely had a role in the pre-assassination ground game. Primarily this comes from the foreknowledge stuff, all of it is Mafia, except for the part that's within the CIA. So for example, John Martino.

I ascribe the John Martino foreknowledge story a high degree of confidence, what about you? And that information, had to come from the Mafia, John Martino was a mob man and he was doing mob business. The "they" in the Martino's sentence "they're going to kill him when he gets to Dallas", is very likely the mob - we don't know that "for sure", but if it were anything more specific than that we'd expect more specificity in the verbalization.

The mafia was everywhere in the early 60's - in other words, the CIA wasn't the only one making use of them. Other politicians (at the state and local level) were making use of them, and even corporations were making use of them. ('Course, um... who's zoomin' who in this equation is a different question entirely, but let's just say "the relationship exists").

So then, here's my observation: IF we accept that the Mafia played a lead role in the ground game, then someone must have convinced them that it was the patriotic thing to do. All those Italians were patriots, they didn't much like communists either - and even if they hated Kennedy with a passion, they wouldn't have killed the President of the United States unless they were convinced there was a general involved to nod his head and give his blessing.

The logical conclusion is that this is part of the reason our government is still engaged in a cover-up, fifty years after the fact: is that the generals were in this thing. The military had to play a role, at a high level. There had to be at least one very powerful military player, .... especially when you start taking a careful look at some of the subsequent military behavior like the autopsy and so on. They were dreaming up plans like this at the time, this 1962-1963 time frame is when the Joint Chiefs were coming up with stuff like Operation Northwoods, domestic false-flags designed to generate the internal political will to get rid of Castro.

Non,

        I definitely agree the Mafia played a significant role. However in my view it is not patriotism that ultimately would guide the Black Hand's members. While they may hold their country in high esteem even more important to them is money, influence, and survival. The Kennedy's began to hunt the Mob in earnest with Marcello's trials and deportation, and with Giancana and Trafficante being questioned by Congress and the Justice Department. They lost billions with the Castro nationalization of their Casinos in Cuba. The Kennedy's then made the US unsafe for their ventures as well. However, as you stated it would require a high official, yet I do not believe it was military. 

The anti-Castro Cubans and their allies (Artime, Sergio Smith, Carlos Hernandez, Frank Sturgis, Gerald Patrick Hemming, et al.) all had military training, as well as did some Mafia as you prior noted. The plan in my view does not require any high military commander, just the order to conceal information and we know that occurred. Whether it was the body seizure by the SS or the "presumptions" of the Bethesda doctors, all seemed in CYA (Cover your ass) mode. No one wanted to be blamed, nor accept responsibility.

Does Vietnam play any part or was that just a bonus for the MIC?

steely dan wrote:Does Vietnam play any part or was that just a bonus for the MIC?

Apparently Steely we've been looking through the wrong end of the lens. It was the MIC that was the false sponsor all along.

Who knew?