On The Trail Of Delusion

[Bill Chapman]

_No pretence needed, Slick

In Hollywood there are thousands of waitresses, bell boys etc who say the same thing and call themselves actor or actrice.

Are you implying something?
And leave those struggling actors alone, punk

[Bill Chapman]

My career proclaimed itself
Unlike you, I'm not looking to get replies
Not my bad that you chuckleheads can't
put names to your claims.

What, too soon?

[Bill Brown]

The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).

The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes.  During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast.  These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark.  In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints.  In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints.  The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.

The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
 When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.

Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.

[Richard Smith]

That makes no sense unless you're implying that Oswald knew in advance that he would be killed before having his day in court (which allowed the US government to convict him in the court of public opinion without a real trial).

Assuming that he didn't know that Jack Ruby was going to kill him, we can't assume that he had any idea how "history" would view him.

At the time of his death, maybe he believed that he could beat the charges. That's the only reasonable explanation for his denial of responsibility (assuming he was guilty).


It's only relevant if Oswald expressed anger towards JFK or a dislike of his policies, which he NEVER did despite the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis.

In fact, Oswald told several people including Marina that he liked JFK and supported his policies on Civil Rights. In other words, there's no indication that Oswald's expressions of Marxist beliefs had anything to do with JFK.

I find it more plausible that the photos were related to Oswald's hatred of General Edwin Walker but that's just speculative and based on the "Hunter of Fascists" caption that was found on George DeMorenschildt's copy of the BYP. 


I accept the authenticity of the photos. I question "who" took them if not Marina, who has given sketchy and inconsistent testimony on the photos.

Beyond that, there's nothing incriminating about the photos. It only becomes incriminating when associated with someone accused of a violent crime.

I actually said just the opposite.  Oswald had no way to know that he had less than 48 hours to live after his arrest.  For all he knew he had months or years to hold out the possibility of a confession to explain his motives.  That was the only card that he had to play after his arrest.  From a legal perspective, he was not going to give up his confession without some type of concession from the authorities such as not sending him to the electric chair.  He knew he had pulled the trigger to assassinate the President.  The historical implications were already his even if he never confessed to the act.

You keep asking for a rational explanation for the irrational act of a mentally unbalanced person then rejecting it because it doesn't make sense to you.  Of course it makes no sense to assassinate the President from any rational perspective.   Oswald himself likely couldn't articulate any "motive" if you mean by that some reasonable explanation for his actions.  We are only left to speculate based on what we know about his character and background.  He was a life-long malcontent who appeared to blame society for his failures.  The poster boy of the angry nut who commits a violent act that we have become so familiar with in the last few decades. 

My best guess is that Oswald did not target JFK because he had any personal animosity toward JFK himself but that he was targeting the President of the United States due to some deep-seated anger towards America.  And don't forget that the opportunity literally fell into his lap.  He didn't stalk JFK to some location to commit the act as most assassins in history have done.  In the typical assassination scenario, picking a specific individual out for assassination from everyone else in the world displays some specific animosity toward a particular target.  In contrast, however, in the JFK assassination, the target by chance comes to the assassin.  Oswald doesn't "select" JFK for assassination in the same he did with Walker.  He takes advantage of an opportunity.  He works in the building that overlooks the presidential motorcade.  A fluke of fate.  Oswald does the same regardless of who is president.  He would have assassinated Nixon, LBJ, or whomever occupied that role had they been president on 11.22.63.  It just happened to be JFK.

[Jon Banks]

I actually said just the opposite.  Oswald had no way to know that he had less than 48 hours to live after his arrest.  For all he knew he had months or years to hold out the possibility of a confession to explain his motives.  That was the only card that he had to play after his arrest.  From a legal perspective, he was not going to give up his confession without some type of concession from the authorities such as not sending him to the electric chair.  He knew he had pulled the trigger to assassinate the President.  The historical implications were already his even if he never confessed to the act.

You keep asking for a rational explanation for the irrational act of a mentally unbalanced person then rejecting it because it doesn't make sense to you. Of course it makes no sense to assassinate the President from any rational perspective.   Oswald himself likely couldn't articulate any "motive" if you mean by that some reasonable explanation for his actions.  We are only left to speculate based on what we know about his character and background.  He was a life-long malcontent who appeared to blame society for his failures.  The poster boy of the angry nut who commits a violent act that we have become so familiar with in the last few decades. 

Well your post is perfect example of your attempting to have it both ways.

In your mind, Oswald was rational enough to have a plan for his legal defense but at the same time, he was so mentally unstable that he assassinated JFK for no reason.

Both things can't possibly be true.

If he was such a Loon that he would shoot someone for no reason then it can't reasonably be assumed that he was rational enough to have a strategy for his legal defense.

[Richard Smith]

Well your post is perfect example of your attempting to have it both ways.

In your mind, Oswald was rational enough to have a plan for his legal defense but at the same time, he was so mentally unstable that he assassinated JFK for no reason.

Both things can't possibly be true.

If he was such a Loon that he would shoot someone for no reason then it can't reasonably be assumed that he was rational enough to have a strategy for his legal defense.

Sure they can.  Being mentally unbalanced doesn't mean an individual can't make any reasoned decisions.  Particularly when taking actions in their own self interests.  Such folks are often quite intelligent and cunninng.  And I didn't say that Oswald assassinated JFK for "no reason."  I said there can be no tidy explanation that we all agree upon because it was not a rational act and whatever subjective motivation that caused Oswald to take this action is known only to him with certainty.  His background provides some insight for informed speculation but there is no way to know with absolute certainty.  This is not like an episode of Perry Mason where the motive for a crime is apparent (i.e. the stepson did it because he was cut out in the will).

[Jon Banks]

Sure they can.  Being mentally unbalanced doesn't mean an individual can't make any reasoned decisions.  Particularly when taking actions in their own self interests.  Such folks are often quite intelligent and cunninng.

I'm not sure what your experience is with people who are mentally ill (ie Schizo or Bipolar) but in my experience, they aren't liars or good at keeping secrets. They tend to say whatever crosses their minds even if it's not based in reality.

Someone who can form coherent thoughts or think of a strategy for their legal defense definitely isn't mentally ill.

Maybe you're thinking of Sociopathic personalities? Sociopaths can be intelligent and dishonest but that's a personality type, not a mental illness. Meaning, mental illness can be treated or cured but there's only so much that can be done to change a person's personality. 

No one who interrogated Oswald after the JFK assassination concluded that he was suffering from depression or mental illness at that time but I'm open to the possibility that he was a sociopath.

 

And I didn't say that Oswald assassinated JFK for "no reason."  I said there can be no tidy explanation that we all agree upon because it was not a rational act and whatever subjective motivation that caused Oswald to take this action is known only to him with certainty.  His background provides some insight for informed speculation but there is no way to know with absolute certainty.  This is not like an episode of Perry Mason where the motive for a crime is apparent (i.e. the stepson did it because he was cut out in the will).

Fair enough.

I'm just pushing back because you often return to the "Oswald was crazy" argument when you can't explain something that he did.

In contrast, I accept that we may never know why he did certain things or whether he was part of a conspiracy...