Jesse Curry Interviews Nov 1963

[Charles Collins]

A class contrarian rabbit hole scenario.  They ask a question which must, by necessity, include a certain amount of logical inference from the facts to answer.  Like why would Oswald target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a Dem.  Of course, only Oswald would know the answer with absolute certainty.  And he was a nut job meaning there isn't a tidy, logical explanation for his every action.  Everyone else must use what was known about Oswald and these events to formulate a logical inference.  When the answer is provided it is rejected as the produce of "story telling" or "speculation" but without any substantive rebuttal as to why they think it is wrong.  LOL.  And round and round we go.  The contrarian kooks don't like the answer to their question which necessitates drawing inferences from the facts and dismiss any answer on the basis of not having an Ouija board to contact Oswald.

Everyone else must use what was known about Oswald and these events to formulate a logical inference.  When the answer is provided it is rejected as the produce of "story telling" or "speculation" but without any substantive rebuttal as to why they think it is wrong.


I call it “holding for Hux”, they will “tool” with you as long as you let them.  Nothing that tends to incriminate their idol makes any sense to them. But, believing that everyone except their idol lied, and that all of the incriminating evidence is “highly questionable”, or outright fake, makes perfect sense to them. It’s more than simple confirmation bias. It’s insanity personified.

[John Iacoletti]

There’s a difference between a logical inference and assuming something is true and then inventing a story out of whole cloth to “explain” it.

[John Iacoletti]

I call it “holding for Hux”, they will “tool” with you as long as you let them.  Nothing that tends to incriminate their idol makes any sense to them. But, believing that everyone except their idol lied, and that all of the incriminating evidence is “highly questionable”, or outright fake, makes perfect sense to them. It’s more than simple confirmation bias. It’s insanity personified.

As soon as you start invoking this “idol” nonsense, you’ve already lost the debate. Nobody believes that “everybody lied” — that’s a strawman. The evidence (real evidence, not nonsense like “he preferred Dr. Pepper”) isn’t all that incriminating, which is why WC evangelists are forced to use rhetoric and misrepresentation.

[Walt Cakebread]

Your false premise that he ”had to know” how they got to the elevator in order to say anything about seeing them is not the point. The other possibilities include:

1. He was just simply lying without really having any idea of where Norman and Jarman were at the time. But thought it would sound good as part of his lie.

2. He heard the elevator being used and stopping before it got to the sixth floor and seconds later heard Norman and Jarman below him. He deduced that in order to get onto the elevators Norman and Jarman would [most likely, if you insist] have been within sight of the door of the domino room. And he included this as part of his lie.

My point is that it wasn’t necessary for him to see Norman and Jarman outside in order to deduce that they would [most likely, if you insist] have been in view from the door of the domino room.

1. He was just simply lying without really having any idea of where Norman and Jarman were at the time. But thought it would sound good as part of his lie.

You've got to be joking!   This idea isn't even rational.   Lee had to have seen Jarman and Norman as they walked past the lunchroom or he couldn't have told Fritz that he had seen them as they walked by.    You're making a fool of yourself Mr Collins.....

[Charles Collins]

1. He was just simply lying without really having any idea of where Norman and Jarman were at the time. But thought it would sound good as part of his lie.

You've got to be joking!   This idea isn't even rational.   Lee had to have seen Jarman and Norman as they walked past the lunchroom or he couldn't have told Fritz that he had seen them as they walked by.    You're making a fool of yourself Mr Collins.....

Why would anyone claim that LHO couldn’t tell a lie?   

This isn’t the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.   

[Charles Collins]

As soon as you start invoking this “idol” nonsense, you’ve already lost the debate. Nobody believes that “everybody lied” — that’s a strawman. The evidence (real evidence, not nonsense like “he preferred Dr. Pepper”) isn’t all that incriminating, which is why WC evangelists are forced to use rhetoric and misrepresentation.

As soon as you start invoking this “idol” nonsense…

The perfect opening for chappie and his claim of seeing an image of you taking a knee at his gravesite. Seems that you have a rather sensitive area…

[Richard Smith]

a certain amount of logical inference from the facts

Before you make any kind of inference you first need to establish that the so-called "facts" are in fact facts. You just believe whatever they have told you about Oswald, regardless of it being true or not.

You are not making any kind of "logical inference". Instead you are making stuff up based on what you (often mistakenly) think you know.

Jerry posed the question as to why Oswald would target Walker, a right winger, and JFK, a leftist, for assassination.  What facts do I "need to establish" to respond to this question?  There is no debate that a sniper attack on a public figure is an extremely rare crime.  There is no debate that both crimes occurred in Dallas.  There is no debate that both crimes occurred just a few months apart.  From those widely known and accepted facts, we can logically infer that the crimes were related due to their rarity and proximity in time and location.  It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated.  So the same shooter almost certainly committed both crimes. 

Are you suggesting these facts are incorrect and that the two crimes are not related?  If Oswald committed both crimes (as the evidence confirms including his confession to Marina regarding his involvement in the Walker attempt), then we can infer from these facts certain conclusions as to why Oswald choose these specific targets for the reasons that I've discussed.  Most importantly opportunity and political grievances.  Walker lived in Dallas.  He was a right winger who Oswald hated for his political views.  His presence in Dallas made him accessible to Oswald who had limited means of transportation and funds.   Similarly, JFK's motorcade passed Oswald's place of employment.  Oswald had grievances against the US that he freely expressed.  JFK was the literal and symbolic head of the country that Oswald detested.  Oswald had motive and opportunity to commit both crimes.  There is nothing made up about any of this.  Certainly nothing you have articulated since your responses have been limited to contrarian commentary directed at me instead of addressing the facts and circumstances of the case.

[John Iacoletti]

It would be extremely unlikely that two such rare crimes would occur in Dallas within such a relatively short time frame and be unrelated.  So the same shooter almost certainly committed both crimes. 

Making up likelihoods is what “Richard” considers “logic”.