Why did Oswald go get his revolver?

[Lance Payette]

If Oswald was a patsy, and the plan was to kill him to keep him from talking, then he is killed in the TSBD or Texas Theatre.  The last thing that the conspirators could allow is for him to be arrested and given a chance to speak to law enforcement, a lawyer, and a room full of reporters.  There was ample opportunity to the DPD or someone in law enforcement to kill him.  Particularly at the TT when he was resisting arrest while trying to pull out a gun after just having killed another police officer.  A Jack Ruby scenario which requires him to commit murder on national TV and spend the rest of his life in jail on behalf of the conspirators to silence Oswald is ludicrous as a plan.

CT hat on: What you say is true if the conspirators in fact wanted the patsy dead. If the patsy thinks he's involved in a pro-Castro operation when he in fact is involved in something entirely different, his survival might serve the conspirators' purpose. All he can do is spout his pro-Castro rhetoric and point the finger exactly where they want it to be pointed. It really makes no difference if he lives or dies because he really doesn't know anything. His murder by Ruby would not be part of the plan, but just an unanticipated event that is largey irrelevant to the conspirators. This to me is the most plausible conspiracy theory: conspirators who wanted the JFKA to point to Castro and who recruited pro-Castro Oswald for what was actually an anti-Castro plot. This would not have Oswald as an innocent or unknowing patsy, but simply one who thought he was involved in a conspiracy that was 180 degrees different from what it actually was.

[Martin Weidmann]

As in the lunchroom encounter with Baker, Oswald seems to have been in a weird dissociative state. With Baker, Whaley and Roberts, it would seem that feigned astonishment would have served his interests: "What? The President was shot? What happened? I was eating lunch and missed the whole thing." With Roberts and Whaley, he might even have asked questions that would have aided his escape: "Do they know who did it? Have they captured anyone?" Instead, literally nothing. But then in the theater and in custody, he snaps out of it and is the typical Oswald. Very odd, or at least it seems so to me.

The Baker encounter is really bizarre. Baker rushes into the building in search of a suspect. He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach. Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect. That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.

He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach.

How do you know that Oswald didn't ask that or a similar question?

Secondly, do you agree that not everybody reacts to situations in the same way?

Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect.

So, now we have Baker and Oswald who did not react in the way you expect them to do?

That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.

This is just one of many bizarre things when it comes to Oswald.

For example, isn't it the LN narrative that Oswald decided to kill Kennedy after Marina refused to live with him again? If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?

And does it even make sense to make a paper bag, when it is alleged that Oswald took the rifle (unseen) to New Orleans on public transport. Duffel bags were found in Ruth Paine's garage and they apparently belonged to Oswald. So, why not simply use a duffel bag to bring the rifle into the TSBD? And while we're on the subject, if Oswald transported to rifle to New Orleans in a duffel bag, why not use the same bag to place it in Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. Why use a blanket instead and risk the rifle being seen by Ruth?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Anytime we ask ourselves what Oswald was thinking at any given time, we are speculating because he was the only one who knew and he took those secrets to his grave. If you believe in a hereafter and you go to the hot place, maybe you can ask him.

Obviously his decision to kill JFK was not done on the spur of the moment. That took planning and preparation. He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest. His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle. Had the case gone to trial, those facts would have been used to establish premeditation.

His actions post assassination are another matter. We have no idea what he was thinking from that point on. He probably knew he would be the subject of a manhunt and his decision to get his gun might well have been to arm himself against a cop(s). The fact he killed the first cop who encountered him and tried to kill the second is a strong indication he didn't intend to be taken alive. The cops would have been legally justified in killing him in the theater but chose instead to act with restraint. Did he have a destination in mind? Who knows but with only $13 in his pocket, he wasn't likely to get far. Maybe he would have held up a bank or a liquor store to get more cash. Who knows but it's fun to speculate about, just as it is fun to speculate about his motive for killing JFK.

$13 in 1963 was quite a bit of money, the equivalent of $141 today.

As for your other comments, I recommend you read two articles:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing

[John Corbett]

As in the lunchroom encounter with Baker, Oswald seems to have been in a weird dissociative state. With Baker, Whaley and Roberts, it would seem that feigned astonishment would have served his interests: "What? The President was shot? What happened? I was eating lunch and missed the whole thing." With Roberts and Whaley, he might even have asked questions that would have aided his escape: "Do they know who did it? Have they captured anyone?" Instead, literally nothing. But then in the theater and in custody, he snaps out of it and is the typical Oswald. Very odd, or at least it seems so to me.

The Baker encounter is really bizarre. Baker rushes into the building in search of a suspect. He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach. Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect. That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.

This is a classic example of what I wrote in another thread. You're overthinking this. You are making assumptions about what you think Oswald's demeanor should have been had he shot JFK. Perhaps you are imagining how you would have acted had you been in Oswald's shoes. That approach only makes sense if you assume Oswald would think like you in the same circumstances. I am going to assume you are not a wannabe presidential assassin so I see no reason to believe Oswald demeanor would mimic yours under the same circumstances.

I see no reason to think Oswald would have been surprised by being confronted by a cop with his gun drawn given that he knew what he had just done. Acting innocent when we have done something wrong is a life skill most of us learn when we are very young. "I don't know who knocked over the flower pot". That skill has served me well over the years. I even pulled it on my boss once. And it worked. That was many years ago. I hope he's not reading this.

[Lance Payette]

He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach.

How do you know that Oswald didn't ask that or a similar question?

I obviously don't KNOW that. However, both Baker's and Truly's descriptions of the encounter are sufficiently "pro-Oswald" that I see no compelling reason they would have omitted a statement along those lines.

Secondly, do you agree that not everybody reacts to situations in the same way?

Obviously they don't. But there is certainly a range of "normal" or "expected" behaviors when one has assassinated a President two minutes previously and now has a police officer sticking a gun in his stomach. Oswald's behavior seems to me outside that range, which is why I have described it as seeming like a dissociative state. On this thread or another one, I quoted an article to the effect that killers sometimes do exhibit a weird dissociative sort of calm.

Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect.

So, now we have Baker and Oswald who did not react in the way you expect them to do?

I would have no expectations for Truly. Baker actions don't strike me as very solid police work, but he may not have been thinking clearly under the circumstances.

That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.

This is just one of many bizarre things when it comes to Oswald.

For example, isn't it the LN narrative that Oswald decided to kill Kennedy after Marina refused to live with him again? If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?

And does it even make sense to make a paper bag, when it is alleged that Oswald took the rifle (unseen) to New Orleans on public transport. Duffel bags were found in Ruth Paine's garage and they apparently belonged to Oswald. So, why not simply use a duffel bag to bring the rifle into the TSBD? And while we're on the subject, if Oswald transported to rifle to New Orleans in a duffel bag, why not use the same bag to place it in Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. Why use a blanket instead and risk the rifle being seen by Ruth?

I think you're confusing me with John Corbett. I started an entire thread not long ago about the seeming disconnect between Oswald's behavior in Irving on 11-21 and his assassination of JFK: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4977.0.html.

I have also stated in just the last day or so that the paper bag strikes me as one of the weak links in the LN narrative. I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.

If Oswald constructed and used a paper bag, I assume he did so because it would make his excuse to Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods more plausible. One would think that a paper-wrapped package described as curtain rods would be likely to raise fewer questions than a duffle bag. I don't know what size duffle bags Oswald had, but that might have seemed like an odd and extreme way to carry curtain rods. It may also have had something to do with the way the disassembled rifle was packaged inside the blanket, which Michael Paine described as seeming as though it were tied together.

You seem to have shifted the focus away from what you were suggesting in the post to which I responded: What "framing" scenario explains Oswald's actions if the M-C rifle was not in fact his and if he didn't know it was in the building?

[Lance Payette]

This is a classic example of what I wrote in another thread. You're overthinking this. You are making assumptions about what you think Oswald's demeanor should have been had he shot JFK. Perhaps you are imagining how you would have acted had you been in Oswald's shoes. That approach only makes sense if you assume Oswald would think like you in the same circumstances. I am going to assume you are not a wannabe presidential assassin so I see no reason to believe Oswald demeanor would mimic yours under the same circumstances.

I see no reason to think Oswald would have been surprised by being confronted by a cop with his gun drawn given that he knew what he had just done. Acting innocent when we have done something wrong is a life skill most of us learn when we are very young. "I don't know who knocked over the flower pot". That skill has served me well over the years. I even pulled it on my boss once. And it worked. That was many years ago. I hope he's not reading this.

No, I don't believe I'm overthinking it. I am simply noting Oswald's behavior as described by Baker and Truly and finding it exceedingly odd. If I jumped to "and that behavior is impossible for someone who just assassinated JFK," that would indeed be overthinking it. I simply note that this is a guy who shot the President of the United States something like two minutes previously, stashed his rifle, started down the stairs, heard someone coming up, ducked into the lunchroom - and was cooler than the proverbial cucumber when confronted by an officer who stuck a gun in his stomach. By any standard, that is remarkable - and suggestive to me of a dissociative state of some sort. We are allowed to at least think in LN Land, aren't we? It's a certainty that Baker and Truly would have been star witnesses for the defense if there had been a trial.

[John Corbett]

$13 in 1963 was quite a bit of money, the equivalent of $141 today.

As for your other comments, I recommend you read two articles:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing

$141 isn't going to get you very far today. I just looked up the Greyhound bus fare from Dallas to El Paso. it's $62.99. Roughly 45% of your cash. $13 might have allowed Oswald to eat some meals and take a short trip somewhere in 1963, but it would be gone in a few days. Complicating this is his face would be in every newspaper and TV news program not just in this country but neighboring countries as well.

I read your article about the problems with the case against Oswald. You should have quit after the second paragraph. You immediately started to go downhill from there. You demonstrate something I wrote recently in another thread. CTs will invent one lame excuse after another to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. Just taking your imagined problems regarding the Carcano rifle. You claim the money order Oswald used to purchase the rifle was bought at a time Oswald was at work. You cited Summers as a source. I'm assuming that's Anthony Summers, longtime conspiracy author. Do you have another source for that. My research tells me the claim is based on the postmark of the letter to Klein's which contained the money  order. The post office doesn't postmark letters when they are mailed. They have collection times for mailboxes and the time stamps are made when those collected letters are processed. There's no telling when Oswald mailed the letter to Klein's.

You also pointed out that nobody at the post office remembered handing Oswald a long package. Seriously? There's no telling which postal employee handed the package to Oswald and do you really think whoever it was that handed Oswald the package would have remembered doing so 8 months prior to the assassination.

You make an issue of the fact that Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle but received a 40 inch rifle. Gee, whoever heard of a mail order house making a substitution like that? Even today I occasionally have to send something back to Amazon because what I received was not what I ordered. The serial number C2766 was unique to that rifle and that is the one Klein's sent to Oswald. He was photographed with the rifle and his palmprint was on the underside of the barrel.

Furthermore, the purchaser was listed as A. Hidell. How did these conspirators know 8 months in advance that one day Oswald would be working at a building overlooking a motorcade that was part of a presidential visit toe Dallas that wasn't even in the planning stages. How could they have known their patsy would have been carrying a fake ID with the name Alex Hidell. Do you guys ever bother to think these things out before you make these outrageous claims.

Then you suggest that all the documents with Oswald's handwriting on them could have been forged. I sat on a jury in a forgery case once and it was explained to us that most forgeries do not involve the forger copying somebody else's handwriting but disguising their own. Again, the suggestion that the conspirators were already trying to frame Oswald 8 months before the assassination are ludicrous.

The rest of your perceived problems with the evidence regarding the Carcano fall into the coulda, wouldna, shoulda category with zero evidence to support any of them.

The above are just the logical fallacies you committed in the first three pages of your article. Had I continued pointing out the logical fallacies in the rest of your 39 page diatribe, I might be here until next week. I wonder how much of your time you wasted on that article but I wasn't going to waste my time pointing out your silliness. I've told you before your material hasn't improved one bit since I first came across it on the old Prodigy service 35 years ago. If anything, you have just become more verbose.