|
|
 September 16, 2011, 03:36:07 AM
|
Newbie
Posts: 25
|
Hi all,
First post and I am genuinely undecided about JFK's assassination. I have researched as much as I can and have really enjoyed the debate here for a while now.
I am leaning to the conclusion (without great conviction) that Oswald was the lone shooter and the reason for all the conspiracy theories is that the whole aftermath was simply botched by inept police, a panicked government and shoddy investigators and that leaves plenty of room open for holes in the case. Maybe he was coerced into doing it, but was still the lone gunman. Only leaning and open minded about other theories. Not convinced either way yet.
I do have a few questions and forgive me if they have been answered somewhere here before (which I assume thay have).
1. If Oswald didn't do it, or was part of a team and he was set up as a self proclaimed patsy, why didn't he use his brief time in front of the press to "out" people? Maybe they threatened his family?
2. Why would Oswald choose the escape route he did after the assassination? If you had just shot the president why walk down a street in clear view? Did he think he had gotten away unseen?
3. I have seen a report claiming the Zapruder tape a fake (or that it has been altered) claiming a lack of "pincushioning". Can those that believe it is genuine refute that? It seems as though it has been dismissed, as if it were proven it would be bigger news that it appears to be.
4. Was Oswald stupid, careless or simply had no fear of being caught to leave the shell casings on the 6th floor of the place where he worked? Could they have been planted I guess is the counter argument.
5. Did Oswald just get lucky in hitting the president or was it a relatively straight forward shot? If it was an easy shot why did the first miss by so much?
Thanks for having a look. Not a troll - this whole thing fascinates me. I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 02:16:03 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
Was E. Howard Hunt's death bed confession at all respected in the whole saga? Also the lady who said she witnessed Hunt handing over cash to the man she traveled from Miami with in a car fully loaded with guns. Has she been dismissed?
Hunt said in essence "I confess, I'm innocent, others are guilty." Hunt wanted to hurt people that he didn't like. False "confessions" are very common in famous cases. Over 200 people confessed to taking part in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, a kidnapping that almost certainly committed by one man, Bruno Hauptman.
I don't think anyone is 100% sure either way. I'd be staggered if any people that think it was Oswald alone truly believe anything more than he "probably" or "highly likely" did it, even if they would never admit to anyone here just as CT believers couldn't 100% say that Oswald was zero chance of having done it alone.
Does anyone think there is evidence out there somewhere that 100% proves what happened either way? Evidence that actually makes the other side concede?
Nothing is ever known for 100% certainty. Everyone is biased but the one's who are 100% certain are the most biased of all. In a sense, the theory that Oswald alone killed JFK can never be proven. If ten witnesses are discredited, one hundred more can effortlessly be brought forth. Lots of people want some fame. But there is one argument that can cut the Gordian Knot, as made below: The best evidence that there was no conspiracy is how Oswald got his job. His wife, along with Ruth Paine, were invited to a neighbor's house and there they found out another neighbor who was there, had a brother who worked at the TSBD. Ruth Paine made a phone call and that is how Oswald got his job at the TSBD. These four Texas housewives are very unlikely conspirators. Some claim that Ruth Paine must have been a CIA agent. She wasn't, but even if we accept that, how did she arrange for one neighbor to have a brother go work at the TSBD and then for another neighbor to invite them all for coffee where she could "discover" a possible job at the TSBD. In real life, if a major robbery of a vault at a bank took place, it was an inside job, the man employed by the bank who robbed the vault was killed, and he was involved in a conspiracy to rob the bank three months before the robbery, your not going to find out that the man got the job as a result of hearing about it two months earlier from a bunch of innocent housewives.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 02:55:20 AM by Joe Elliott »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 02:24:55 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6711
|
Hunt said in essence "I confess, I'm innocent, others are guilty." Hunt wanted to hurt people that he didn't like.
False "confessions" are very common in famous cases. Over 200 people confessed to taking part in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, a kidnapping that almost certainly committed by one man, Bruno Hauptman.
Nothing is ever known for 100% certainty. Everyone is biased but the one's who are 100% certain are the most biased of all.
The best evidence that there was no conspiracy is how Oswald got his job. His wife, along with Ruth Paine, were invited to a neighbor's house and there they found out another neighbor who was there, had a brother who worked at the TSBD. Ruth Paine made a phone call and that is how Oswald got his job at the TSBD.
These four Texas housewives are very unlikely conspirators. Some claim that Ruth Paine must have been a CIA agent. She wasn't, but even if we accept that, how did she arrange for one neighbor to have a brother go work at the TSBD and then for another neighbor to invite them all for coffee where she could "discover" a possible job at the TSBD.
In real life, if a major robbery of a vault at a bank took place, it was an inside job, the man employed by the bank who robbed the vault was killed, and he was involved in a conspiracy to rob the bank three months before the robbery, your not going to find out that the man got the job as a result of hearing about it two months earlier from a bunch of innocent housewives.
FYI a criminal ratting out his colleague who have betrayed him is not necessarily lying about what they all were doing. And leave Oswald out of it. The conspiracy would not need to recruit Oswald, just frame him. Only someone high up in intelligence would have the ability to track Oswald's activities and take his name off the watchlist.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 02:25:37 AM by Anthony Marsh »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 02:26:19 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 589
|
Humans inherently develop biases on any subject. I am, without any doubt, biased in believing that Life on Earth did evolve, that Bigfoot does not exist and that Oswald alone shot JFK. I believe I have excellent reasons for all these beliefs. But I cannot pretend I'm not biased on any of them, although I think I am more capable than most at changing my mind if the evidence warrants it.
Bias cannot be avoided. It's best not to claim to oneself that one is unbiased. Instead, one should make a note of it and be aware that all people, some more than others, have a tendency to keep believing what they currently believe.
There is no evidence any one impersonated Oswald in Mexico City or elsewhere. It is highly unbelievable a conspiracy would be stupid enough to do so. The real Oswald picture could appear in a newspaper the same time he was suppose to be in Mexico City. If there was a conspiracy, they would have no problem ordering Oswald to Mexico City. After all, they supposedly got Oswald to bring a suspicious package to work on November 22 so they could order him to do anything.
The picture of a man who is not Oswald entering an Embassy is not proof that that man was impersonating Oswald. Not everyone who entered the Embassy was photographed. When the U. S. authorities asked for pictures of Oswald, they just sent the pictures they did have.
oswald was impersonated on the phone. please. even the fbi knew it. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 02:27:49 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6711
|
Ashley,
I think many unbiased people have. Mainly, the experts in the case. I myself spent 3 years, early on, as a CT, before it finally got through my thick skull that the CT claims do not hold up. I have tried without fail to follow the evidence in this case. It is not easy, and the CT's certainly have it much easier, if they do not like something they claim it is faked forged or altered. I refuse to accept this as a CT and I refuse to accept this an an LN.
It is an interesting case to say the least!
No, you were never a conspiracy believer and you have never done any research. You haven't even read the Warren Report.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 02:54:20 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
Why didn't Oswald claim responsibility then?
Many assassins want fame. But not all want to this fame while held by their enemies. Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, almost certainly wanted fame. He deluded himself that with the death of Lincoln the North would give up the war on the verge of victory. He wanted to enjoy his fame, known to millions in a victorious South or at least overseas somewhere, known to a few worshippers, with an assumed name. But not amidst his enemies in prison in the North. While escaping, he traveled under an assumed name. At dinner where he was a guest, when they talked about the assassination, Booth said the assassin did not do it for money, it did it for fame. Later, when the Union soldiers cornered him in a barn, he had a option. He could surrender, confess who he was and enjoy a few weeks of fame while on trial. Or refuse to surrender and likely die. He chose to die. So he first tried to convince the soldiers that he was not the man they were after. And when that failed, he chose death, he refused to surrender. Some assassins don't mind being caught immediately. They don't mind having fame while on trial, even it they will likely be executed. But others are different. They may want fame, but not while being held by their enemies. In that sense, Oswald was like Booth. What was Oswald hoping for? A miracle. Maybe the rifle could not be tied to him. Maybe there were no fingerprints. Maybe a jury might not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Not likely, but people will cling to false hopes.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 03:28:26 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1093
God knows
|
To get unbiased views, you might have to ask a person from a neautral country.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Let justice be done, or the heavens fall.
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 04:29:05 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 589
|
Many assassins want fame. But not all want to this fame while held by their enemies.
Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, almost certainly wanted fame. He deluded himself that with the death of Lincoln the North would give up the war on the verge of victory. He wanted to enjoy his fame, known to millions in a victorious South or at least overseas somewhere, known to a few worshippers, with an assumed name. But not amidst his enemies in prison in the North.
While escaping, he traveled under an assumed name. At dinner where he was a guest, when they talked about the assassination, Booth said the assassin did not do it for money, it did it for fame.
Later, when the Union soldiers cornered him in a barn, he had a option. He could surrender, confess who he was and enjoy a few weeks of fame while on trial. Or refuse to surrender and likely die. He chose to die.
So he first tried to convince the soldiers that he was not the man they were after. And when that failed, he chose death, he refused to surrender.
Some assassins don't mind being caught immediately. They don't mind having fame while on trial, even it they will likely be executed. But others are different. They may want fame, but not while being held by their enemies. In that sense, Oswald was like Booth.
What was Oswald hoping for? A miracle. Maybe the rifle could not be tied to him. Maybe there were no fingerprints. Maybe a jury might not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Not likely, but people will cling to false hopes.
interesting, dr. freud. however, you do not that booth was part of a .... wait for it... conspiracy.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 04:56:16 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
interesting, dr. freud.
however, you do not that booth was part of a .... wait for it... conspiracy.
Yes, Booth was part of a conspiracy. But he was part of a conspiracy, partly because he hated Lincoln, partly because he hated the Union, but also partly because he wanted fame. He told the family he was staying with his last night that the assassin, whoever he was, did it for fame. What Booth shows is that sometimes, even criminals who commit a crime who are motivated by fame, won't confess to their enemies. Now, if Booth had made it the South, if the North's war effort collapsed, if Southerners were toasting the unknown assassin who turned the war around, I doubt Booth would have kept his great secret to himself. And if Oswald somehow slipped across the border, I've no doubt he would have made his way back to the Cuban Embassy and told them what he did. Whether he would have gotten the reception he would have been expecting is another matter.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 06:36:39 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1299
Profile In Courage
|
Ashley welcome to the forum. Don't lean too much either way and try hard to keep your balance as you can easily fall for many stories and theories. Those questions you asked may remained unanswered or answered to your satisfaction. Getting a straight answer here is not the norm. If it were we wouldn't be here. Well some of us anyways. 
...as you can easily fall for many stories and theories. Paul, Might decent of you to warn this newbie about yourself!!! Ross
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 19, 2011, 07:36:00 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
No, you were never a conspiracy believer and you have never done any research. You haven't even read the Warren Report.
What a remarkably silly thing to say. Several forum members here have reposted some of my old posts from when I believed in conspiracy. They are relatively easy to find, if you had any ability to research at all. Additionally, I have to correct your research constantly.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Marsh can not even comprehend a simple time stamp. How will he ever comprehend the evidence?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
