JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Let's try to keep our conspiracy theories at least "sorta kinda" rational, eh?

<< < (3/4) > >>

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: Tom Graves on September 03, 2025, 02:15:40 AM ---Dear Lance,

Do you mean the conspirators may have not only encouraged / provoked / duped Oswald into shooting at JFK, but tried to make it look as though at least one other pro-Castro sniper had shot at him, too?

Why not keep it simple and just encourage / provoke / dupe former Marine sharpshooter Oswald to do it all by him widdle pro-Castro self?

Were they afraid he would unintentionally miss and rat them out?

-- Tom

--- End quote ---
The intent of my original post was not to outline specific conspiracy theories but merely to try to keep CTers in the ballpark of rationality. (Oh, OK, my real purpose was just to post the YouTube video of the Dos Equis ads, which I always thought were a hoot.)

Putting on my CTer beanie - the one with the propellor on top - I suppose the conspirators would not entrust the JFKA to Oswald alone because they would fear he might fail at the task. If there was a conspiracy, I would think objective #1 would be to kill JFK. Oswald alone with his trusty Carcano would make the assassination rather iffy - he may well have been successful, as I believe he was, but no conspirators who really wanted JFK dead would have put their faith in him alone. Hence, one or more other shooters in other locations would make sense, and there would be no need for the flurry of bullets to appear to have come from Oswald.

As far as ratting them out, this seemingly would be a risk in any conspiracy in which Oswald was a knowing participant, even if he was the lone shooter. If he was a patsy, logically he would have been silenced right there on the sixth floor. If he wasn't a patsy, he presumably would have had to have been kept in the dark as to the identity of the planners and other shooters - a highly compartmentalized conspiracy, in other words.. Oh, dear, my propellor is starting to spin from all this conjecture and I'm getting a headache.

Oh, just yesterday I was interested to see that the CT-oriented law professor linked by Michael goes through an exercise not unlike my original post. He concludes - wait for it - that the only scenario that really makes sense is Oswald as a wholly innocent patsy! Yikes, my propellor beanie just flew off my head and got caught in the ceiling fan. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1184&context=fac_pm.

To answer your other post, I would have no problem with your mole-hunting scenario so long as Oswald was completely oblivious to this mission. The real Oswald was an idealistic young Marxist, dissatisfied and bitter with the U.S., who sincerely defected to the USSR because he wanted to shock all who had known him and show his contempt for the U.S., he sincerely (albeit naively) expected to find a Marxist utopia in the USSR, and he expected to at last be taken seriously as the deep thinker he thought he was. That's simply who the real Oswald was. There is no way on earth he would have knowingly cooperated with the CIA on anything. If TV programs to which we were devoted as kids are going to be used to analyze our actions as adults, I shudder to think what my own profile might look like. I was pretty devoted to "The Twilight Zone" and "Mr. Ed" ... yeah, that's why I went to law school.

Now that's funny, and Larry the Cable Guy agrees ...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck43JCFAUR8

Tim Nickerson:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 03, 2025, 08:05:00 PM ---Thanks, Tim. I am glad you have taken up the rubber hammer of Whack-a-Mole insofar as Michael is concerned. I simply do not have the patience. As others have pointed out, exposing the untruths in the work of a machine-gunning factoid spewer like Michael is absolutely exhausting and ultimately futile. The good news is, posts like his most recent on the Ruth Paine thread should make clear to even the most casual lurker that this is a genuine crackpot. As with many other prominent CTers, there was a time when silly me actually thought Michael's work was reasonably factual and worth reading; something seems to have happened over the last three or so years to cause these characters to show their true colors - desperation, perhaps?

--- End quote ---

You're welcome. Griffith throws all lot of stuff into his posts. Pretty much all of the conspiracy claims in them have been debunked too many times to count. It makes no difference to him. He just keeps repeating them; the truth be damned. I've never seen his work as being reasonably factual, but I never realized how hard-nosed and unreasonable that he is until I started interacting with him in 2020. He has great difficulty grasping rather simple concepts and is easily confused.

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 03, 2025, 09:00:56 PM ---I would have no problem with your mole-hunting scenario so long as Oswald was completely oblivious to this mission. The real Oswald was an idealistic young Marxist, dissatisfied and bitter with the U.S., who sincerely defected to the USSR because he wanted to shock all who had known him and show his contempt for the U.S., he sincerely (albeit naively) expected to find a Marxist utopia in the USSR, and he expected to at last be taken seriously as the deep thinker he thought he was. That's simply who the real Oswald was. There is no way on earth he would have knowingly cooperated with the CIA on anything.

--- End quote ---

Dear Lance,

Although John Newman doesn't bring it up, his theory would explain why Consul Richard Snyder (rumored by some to be a CIA officer) didn't have the Marine guards arrest former U-2 radar operator Oswald when he threatened to tell the Soviets "something of special interest," and it also helps to explain why the State Department loaned him money to come back to the U.S. on.

Regardless, "idealistic" Oswald was a pretty clever guy. Maybe he thought he could penetrate the good old CIA for the Ruskies, not realizing that the KGB-controlled CIA was playing him.

-- Tom

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: Tom Graves on September 03, 2025, 11:49:10 PM ---Dear Lance,

Although John Newman doesn't bring it up, his theory would explain why Consul Richard Snyder (rumored by some to be a CIA officer) didn't have the Marine guards arrest former U-2 radar operator Oswald when he threatened to tell the Soviets "something of special interest," and it also helps to explain why the State Department loaned him money to come back to the U.S. on.

Oswald was a pretty clever guy.

Maybe he thought he could penetrate the good old CIA for the Ruskies, not realizing that the KGB-controlled CIA was playing him.

-- Tom

--- End quote ---
Well, OK, but that doesn't require Oswald to be a knowing participant, does it? If he were a knowing participant, what would have been the point of his threat to reveal secrets to the Soviets in his encounter with Snyder? What would have been the point of that charade? It doesn't add up, does it?

Perhaps because my wife spent 1954-1991 in the USSR and knows what a fraud the whole thing was, one of my favorite quotes in the entire JFKA is Snyder telling Oswald, "If you're really a Marxist, you're going to be a very lonely guy in Moscow." I picture Snyder more as a savvy pro who recognized a mixed-up kid when he saw one and knew Oswald was about to get a large dose of Soviet reality and be crying for his mommy in short order.

Perhaps my problem is that I spent at least 40 years of my working life in federal, state, county and municipal bureaucracies and thus have a very jaded perspective on the incompetence and inertia that permeates them. Every theory that involves devilishly efficient governmental plots operating like clockwork strikes me as fundamentally laughable.

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 04, 2025, 12:04:05 AM ---Well, OK, but that doesn't require Oswald to be a knowing participant, does it? If he were a knowing participant, what would have been the point of his threat to reveal secrets to the Soviets in his encounter with Snyder? What would have been the point of that charade? It doesn't add up, does it?

--- End quote ---

Dear Lance,

I'm afraid you don't understand.

A witting participant in what?

Former CIA officer Tennent H. Bagley (A Lonenutter with a PhD in Political Science) -- who was on the fast track to become Director of CIA until a false or rogue physical defector to the U.S. by the name of Major I mean Lt. Col. I mean Captain Yuri Nosenko reappeared in Geneva in late January 1964 and told him he'd been Oswald's case officer in Moscow (how lucky for J. Edgar Hoover!), and that he therefore knew for a fact that the KGB had absolutely nothing to do with "abnormal-looking" Oswald -- read some CIA documents he hadn't been privy to in 1959-60, and told JFKA CT Malcolm Blunt that Oswald had to be a "witting defector," which got the JFKA CT Community all excited because they didn't realize that the CIA officer who recruited him (Oswald) was a KGB "mole," himself. Bummer dude.

Point being, if "Pete" Bagley realized that Oswald was a "witting" CIA agent, perhaps you should take his word for it, but carry it a step further by reading my Wikipedia-like article (Wikipedia proper wouldn't publish it "because not enough recognized authors have written about him") on the aforementioned probable "mole," Bruce Leonard Solie.

Or have you already done that?

If you have, well, bless your little pea-pickin' heart, now go and read my real-deal Wikipedia article on Tennent H. Bagley.

-- Tom

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page