Tippit Debate

[Zeon Mason]

Ok, let’s say that JohnM source material is at least to some degree accurate and accept the premise that Oswald has by 1963 left a trail of bizarre actions.

Would not at least the CIA be aware of this trail of behavior and be monitoring Oswald after he defected to the USSR? 

If so, then LBJ could know of this bizarre acting defecting USMC s trail of crazy like behavior too  yes?

So is it conceivable that LBJ all by himself figured out a simple plan after having gotten information from CIA, FBI, George DeM, etc. that the crazy Oswald had a job in TSBD and had just recently shot at Walker?

The simplest plan of all: Encourage JFK to
visit Dallas and suggest a route that goes thru Dealey plaza that goes right past the TSBD.
And suggest publishing the route several days in advance in all the newspapers.

So it’s not a pre planned elaborate set up , rather it’s just a probability “roll the dice” plan that figured there was better than 50% chance that the defector USMC kook would take a shot if JFK is offer up on a silver platter as a sitting duck in a n open car without the usual SS  agents riding in the limo itself.

Perhaps this is why LBJ was ducking down As his car turned onto Houston street approaching the TSBD?

[Martin Weidmann]

You can't be serious, I made an innocuous observation and your pent up rage responded with a torrent of uncontrolled insults, Why Martin?
All I did was reach out and offer a peaceful hand because your attitude is completely unwarranted in proportion to my calm niceness.

You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.

JohnM

You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.

It's still what you have been told about Oswald. You have no way of knowing if what you are being told is accurate. You just want to believe it is!

It's easy enough to understand that there is a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them. So, what is it exactly that you don't understand?

[John Mytton]

You're not making your point very convincingly, Oswald's actions, contacts and interactions were widely investigated and therefore a comprehensive picture emerges of exactly who he was. For instance if my life was investigated and my actions were documented and my friends and enemies were interviewed, the man who I am would be revealed.

It's still what you have been told about Oswald. You have no way of knowing if what you are being told is accurate. You just want to believe it is!

It's easy enough to understand that there is a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them. So, what is it exactly that you don't understand?

Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed, Serial Killers have neighbours who had a great relationship with the killer and then started to notice a foul odour emanating from their home. You hear it all the time that, I never suspected "Bob", he was such a nice guy.
But if these neighbours had a chance to investigate the history of the real "Bob", and know how he defected to the enemy, had a rifle and a revolver which has virtually untraceable bullets all purchased through an alias, how he tried to commit suicide because he had a temper tantrum, bashed his wife, attempted to assassinate someone who didn't share his views, Killed the President, Killed a nice cop who simply stopped him, tried to kill more cops who arrested him, was diagnosed by a professional when he was young that he needed mental help, that he wagged school for a lot of the school year, was unpleasant, etc etc. Then yes, we have a solid foundation that this man was stupid and crazy!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed, Serial Killers have neighbours who had a great relationship with the killer and then started to notice a foul odour emanating from their home. You hear it all the time that, I never suspected "Bob", he was such a nice guy.
But if these neighbours had a chance to investigate the history of the real "Bob", and know how he defected to the enemy, had a rifle and a revolver which has virtually untraceable bullets all purchased through an alias, how he tried to commit suicide because he had a temper tantrum, bashed his wife, attempted to assassinate someone who didn't share his views, Killed the President, Killed a nice cop who simply stopped him, tried to kill more cops who arrested him, was diagnosed by a professional when he was young that he needed mental help, that he wagged school for a lot of the school year, was unpleasant, etc etc. Then yes, we have a solid foundation that this man was stupid and crazy!

JohnM

Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed,

That's not my argument. In this case all you know about Oswald is what you have been told. That's my argument!

And since you've misrepresented my argument, everything else you wrote is no more than your usual 

Here it is again; ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT OSWALD IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!

[Zeon Mason]

I’m not sure , But it looks like that JohnM might  agree with me that LBJ could have known that Oswald was stupid and crazy, that he beat his wife, that he probably had shot at Walker, and LBJ knew that much about Oswald several months BEFORE Nov 22/63?

[John Mytton]

Your argument that I need to know someone personally to know who they really are is flawed,

That's not my argument. In this case all you know about Oswald is what you have been told. That's my argument!

And since you've misrepresented my argument, everything else you wrote is no more than your usual 

Here it is again; ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT OSWALD IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!

Your words Martin, not mine!

It's easy enough to understand that there is a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them. So, what is it exactly that you don't understand?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Your words Martin, not mine!

JohnM

What's your point? Isn't there a difference between knowing somebody personally or going by what others say about them?

My argument still stands. You never knew Oswald personally, so all you know (or think you know) about him is what you have been told.

It's not really difficult to understand, so why are you struggling to comprehend?