On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

I'm not exactly sure what other context something could ever be deemed incriminating unless someone is accused of a crime.  The BY photos are incriminating in the context of the JFK assassination.  They are not normal photos like other sane people in Texas would take. Of course no one would ever have any cause to see them had Oswald not committed a high-profile crime.  He would just be another anonymous oddball in the world (of which there are many) but I'm not sure what relevance that has in this context.

Taking pictures with rifles is "normal" in Texas. No one would think the photos are strange or incriminating if he wasn't accused of shooting the President. There are also photos of Oswald posing with a shotgun in Russia by the way.

Oswald was never diagnosed with any sort of mental illness. Dismissing everything he did as an example of "insanity" is just intellectual laziness on your part.

He did it for a reason. Just admit that you don't know why he did it. Almost no one knows why...

[Richard Smith]

Taking pictures with rifles is "normal" in Texas. No one would think the photos are strange or incriminating if he wasn't accused of shooting the President. There are also photos of Oswald posing with a shotgun in Russia by the way.

Oswald was never diagnosed with any sort of mental illness. Dismissing everything he did as an example of "insanity" is just intellectual laziness on your part.

He did it for a reason. Just admit that you don't know why he did it. Almost no one knows why...

You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature.  There is nothing normal about that.  It is downright bizarre.  In the 1960s, it would have been even more atypical.  I thought even CTers agreed with that obvious conclusion since they often allege the photos were faked to incriminate Oswald as some type of kook.  But if this is "normal" can you show us other such examples of Texas citizens engaging in this behavior?  I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.  Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK.  The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.  The evidence confirms, however, that he did both.  If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero.  And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.  Which, in a way, they have done but in a different way than he anticipated.

[Martin Weidmann]

You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature.  There is nothing normal about that.  It is downright bizarre.  In the 1960s, it would have been even more atypical.  I thought even CTers agreed with that obvious conclusion since they often allege the photos were faked to incriminate Oswald as some type of kook.  But if this is "normal" can you show us other such examples of Texas citizens engaging in this behavior?  I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.  Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK.  The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.  The evidence confirms, however, that he did both.  If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero.  And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.  Which, in a way, they have done but in a different way than he anticipated.

You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature.  There is nothing normal about that.  It is downright bizarre.

Yes, it would be for a superficial person who does not know the actual reasons for those pictures being taken.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.

Wow, now there's a surprise

Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK.  The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.

What "nutty background" would that be? You know something we don't or are you just swallowing the stuff they are feeding you?

If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero.  And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.

Let's see if I understand this.... Oswald had these photos taken, months before he knew Kennedy was coming to Dallas and without knowing he would be in a position to take a shot to kill him, to be portrayed as a "revolutionary hero"?

It seems your imagination is running away with you.....

[Richard Smith]

You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature.  There is nothing normal about that.  It is downright bizarre.

Yes, it would be for a superficial person who does not know the actual reasons for those pictures being taken.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.

Wow, now there's a surprise

Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK.  The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.

What "nutty background" would that be? You know something we don't or are you just swallowing the stuff they are feeding you?

If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero.  And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.

Let's see if I understand this.... Oswald had these photos taken, months before he knew Kennedy was coming to Dallas and without knowing he would be in a position to take a shot to kill him, to be portrayed as a "revolutionary hero"?

It seems your imagination is running away with you.....

I'm sure that your daddy still loves you even if you are a closet CTer.

[Jon Banks]

You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature.  There is nothing normal about that.  It is downright bizarre. 

Neither the rifle or the Marxist publications in the photo are incriminating or crazy if Oswald never becomes a suspect in JFK's murder.

In the US of A where we love our guns, there's nothing weird or unusual about taking pictures with rifles. 

But if this is "normal" can you show us other such examples of Texas citizens engaging in this behavior?

You mean posing with guns or posing with Marxist publications? Obviously, there weren't many Marxists in Texas in 1963 so that part would be odd. But even if it's odd, that alone doesn't make it incriminating.

I have friends who live in the south and like guns. Gun culture isn't taboo there like in the northern States.

I've seen lots of pictures of people posing with their guns or rifles. Again, something like that only becomes incriminating if the person commits of violent crime.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.

Admit that you don't have all the answers for a change.

We don't know why Oswald did it but there's no reason to assume based on no evidence, that he was mentally unstable at the time when the photos were taken.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm sure that your daddy still loves you even if you are a closet CTer.

I'm sure he would, if he had not passed away recently, you freak!

[Richard Smith]

You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature.  There is nothing normal about that.  It is downright bizarre.

Yes, it would be for a superficial person who does not know the actual reasons for those pictures being taken.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.

Wow, now there's a surprise

Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK.  The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.

What "nutty background" would that be? You know something we don't or are you just swallowing the stuff they are feeding you?

If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero.  And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.

Let's see if I understand this.... Oswald had these photos taken, months before he knew Kennedy was coming to Dallas and without knowing he would be in a position to take a shot to kill him, to be portrayed as a "revolutionary hero"?

It seems your imagination is running away with you.....

You are getting increasingly hysterical.  What "nutty" background did Oswald have?  Are you for real?  You mean the guy who defected to the USSR?  HA HA HA.  When these photos were taken Oswald was contemplating killing Gen. Walker and defecting to Cuba.  No one said it had anything to do with assassinating JFK.  More strawman nonsense.  This is real simple.  Even for you.  Forget about me and try to focus on the subject matter.  I know that is difficult for you.  Ready?  Do the BY pictures depict a "normal" pose for someone in Texas during the 1960s or not?   A man dressed in all black including a polo type shirt holding his rifle and displaying Commie literature.  Do you find that to be "normal" behaviour or not?  Don't get sidetracked.

[Richard Smith]

Neither the rifle or the Marxist publications in the photo are incriminating or crazy if Oswald never becomes a suspect in JFK's murder.

In the US of A where we love our guns, there's nothing weird or unusual about taking pictures with rifles. 

You mean posing with guns or posing with Marxist publications? Obviously, there weren't many Marxists in Texas in 1963 so that part would be odd. But even if it's odd, that alone doesn't make it incriminating.

I have friends who live in the south and like guns. Gun culture isn't taboo there like in the northern States.

I've seen lots of pictures of people posing with their guns or rifles. Again, something like that only becomes incriminating if the person commits of violent crime.

Admit that you don't have all the answers for a change.

We don't know why Oswald did it but there's no reason to assume based on no evidence, that he was mentally unstable at the time when the photos were taken.

Oswald isn't just posing with his guns like someone going deer hunting.  He is dressed in all black and prominently displaying Commie literature.  The imagery is very bizarre and troubling.  Have you come across any similar example from that same time period?  My guess is no.  If Oswald had not assassinated JFK, no one would have cause to be aware of his existence much less a few nutty photos taken of him.  So what?  They are plenty of kooks in the world who go unnoticed.  But we are not operating in some type of vacuum.  The evidence is cumulative.   It is Oswald's rifle found on the 6th floor.   He is the person implicated in the crime by the evidence.  Upon investigating the suspect, they find these bizarre pictures.  Do the BY photos standing alone mean that Oswald was guilty of the assassination?  Of course not.  But like his wedding ring, the BY photos are another brick in the cumulative wall of his guilt.  They are incriminating as they display a person with a thin grasp on reality who envisions himself as some type of political revolutionary willing to commit violence for the cause and holding the weapon used in the crime. 

The real irony for Oswald is that CTers have desperately attempted to rob him of the historical credit of his one notable achievement.  Assassinating the President.  And unfortunately for Oswald, he comes off even to those who accept his guilt as less like Che Guevara and more as some pathetic loser who blamed society for his disappointments and failures.  The BY photos are highly incriminating in that context.