JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on July 28, 2023, 12:03:33 PM
-
On October 19, 1963 LHO reportedly watched two movies about assassinations. Here is a snip from “Marina and Lee” by Priscilla McMillan:
Every now and then after that she felt him sit up straight and strain toward the television set, greatly excited. She had very little idea what he was watching.
Lee saw two movies that night, both of them saturated in violence. One was Suddenly (1954), starring Frank Sinatra, which is about a plot to kill the president of the United States. In the film Sinatra, a mentally unbalanced ex-serviceman who has been hired to do the job, drives into a small Western town where the president is due to arrive by train, debark, and get into a car that will drive him into the High Sierras for some mountain fishing. Sinatra finds a house overlooking the railroad station and seizes it, subduing its occupants. He leans out of a window and gets the railroad tracks into the crosshairs of his rifle sight. He waits and waits; finally, the train comes into view. But it chugs through town without stopping, and in the end Sinatra is killed.
Marina dozed through the first movie, and the one that followed—We Were Strangers (1949). This, too, was about assassination. Based on the actual overthrow of the Machado dictatorship in Cuba in 1933, the movie stars John Garfield as an American who has come to help the cause of revolution. He and a tiny band of cohorts plot to blow up the whole cabinet, including the president, at a single stroke. The plot fails and Garfield dies, but the people rise up in small groups all over Cuba and overthrow the dictatorship.
The movie “Suddenly” was broadcast recently and I was able to record it. Yesterday I watched it and was impressed with the acting of Frank Sinatra. The title of this thread is a line (paraphrased) from that movie. If I remember correctly, there is a YouTube video available for anyone who might want to watch it.
-
On October 19, 1963 LHO reportedly watched two movies about assassinations. Here is a snip from “Marina and Lee” by Priscilla McMillan:
Every now and then after that she felt him sit up straight and strain toward the television set, greatly excited. She had very little idea what he was watching.
Lee saw two movies that night, both of them saturated in violence. One was Suddenly (1954), starring Frank Sinatra, which is about a plot to kill the president of the United States. In the film Sinatra, a mentally unbalanced ex-serviceman who has been hired to do the job, drives into a small Western town where the president is due to arrive by train, debark, and get into a car that will drive him into the High Sierras for some mountain fishing. Sinatra finds a house overlooking the railroad station and seizes it, subduing its occupants. He leans out of a window and gets the railroad tracks into the crosshairs of his rifle sight. He waits and waits; finally, the train comes into view. But it chugs through town without stopping, and in the end Sinatra is killed.
Marina dozed through the first movie, and the one that followed—We Were Strangers (1949). This, too, was about assassination. Based on the actual overthrow of the Machado dictatorship in Cuba in 1933, the movie stars John Garfield as an American who has come to help the cause of revolution. He and a tiny band of cohorts plot to blow up the whole cabinet, including the president, at a single stroke. The plot fails and Garfield dies, but the people rise up in small groups all over Cuba and overthrow the dictatorship.
The movie “Suddenly” was broadcast recently and I was able to record it. Yesterday I watched it and was impressed with the acting of Frank Sinatra. The title of this thread is a line (paraphrased) from that movie. If I remember correctly, there is a YouTube video available for anyone who might want to watch it.
The, or "a", problem with trying to psychoanalyze Oswald - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" - is that the one in the Soviet Union was fundamentally different than the one who lived in the US. The violence, the anger, the alienation simply wasn't there in the USSR where he had friends, socialized, showed little violence. Priscilla McMillan put it this way: "The anger and violence that were to characterize Oswald’s behavior after his return to the United States were barely visible during his time in Minsk."
So what happened? Why the change?
-
The, or "a", problem with trying to psychoanalyze Oswald - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" - is that the one in the Soviet Union was fundamentally different than the one who lived in the US. The violence, the anger, the alienation simply wasn't there in the USSR where he had friends, socialized, showed little violence. Priscilla McMillan put it this way: "The anger and violence that were to characterize Oswald’s behavior after his return to the United States were barely visible during his time in Minsk."
So what happened? Why the change?
It is difficult for me to say what happened. I certainly am no expert; but the article linked below seems interesting to me.
https://psychreel.com/jekyll-and-hyde-personality/ (https://psychreel.com/jekyll-and-hyde-personality/)
-
The, or "a", problem with trying to psychoanalyze Oswald - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" - is that the one in the Soviet Union was fundamentally different than the one who lived in the US. The violence, the anger, the alienation simply wasn't there in the USSR where he had friends, socialized, showed little violence. Priscilla McMillan put it this way: "The anger and violence that were to characterize Oswald’s behavior after his return to the United States were barely visible during his time in Minsk."
So what happened? Why the change?
Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union. He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence. He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR. When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.
-
Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union. He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence. He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR. When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.
Isn't it just amazing how "Richard Smith" can tell us exactly what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago?
-
Isn't it just amazing how "Richard Smith" can tell us exactly what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago?
Isn't it amazing that responses to questions that call for a certain amount of conjecture because only Oswald himself could know the answer with certainty are criticized by contrarians for being addressed with reasoned inference. The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however. Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald. It's amusing. Like children seeking the attention of their parents.
-
Isn't it amazing that responses to questions that call for a certain amount of conjecture because only Oswald himself could know the answer with certainty are criticized by contrarians for being addressed with reasoned inference. The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however. Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald. It's amusing. Like children seeking the attention of their parents.
The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however.
There is nothing to rebut. Your opinion isn't evidence and as such completely worthless, so stop presenting it as "fact".
Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald.
Wrong again. I have in fact dismissed most of the conspiracy narratives as they are the same as your LN theory; scant on physical evidence and loaded with speculation and jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts.
Simple question for you; when you tell us what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago, do you do so based on factual evidence or are your merely making stuff up?
-
Since when are any of “Richard’s” claims not based on conjecture?
-
Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union. He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence. He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR. When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.
I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.
McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true: "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."
I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.
I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.
BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.
-
I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.
McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true: "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."
I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.
I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.
BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.
Thanks for the heads up about McMillan’s book “The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer: and the Birth of the Modern Arms Race.” We saw the movie “Oppenheimer” yesterday and enjoyed it a lot. The movie is based on another book “American Prometheus,” by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherman. I wish I had read it before seeing the movie because there is a lot to the story that I was unaware of. And it is a very fascinating story that I consider to be world-changing. The Kindle version of McMillan’s book only costs about $3.00. So, I think I will read it first.
BTW, (spoiler alert for those who might want to see the movie) JFK’s name appears near the end of the movie as one of three Senators who abstained in the vote to confirm Lewis Strauss as Commerce Secretary to President Eisenhower. This caused his confirmation to fail. There are also some interesting things to read about Strauss in this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss)
-
I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.
McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true: "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."
I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.
I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.
BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.
Steve, I see a man that, from the time of his punishment in the brig of the USMC, was determined to strike back. His determination to go to Russia appears to have developed soon after he got out of the brig. And, at that time, defecting to Russia was one of the most outrageous statements against the US that he could have made. When he didn’t become infamous enough (to suit him) for that action, he decided to return to the US. And Cuba was in the news (as a foe of the US) constantly at that time, so taking the side of Cuba was another statement of protest against the US. Taking a shot at Walker was an attempt to defend his hero Castro. And the opportunity for the JFK assassination just seems to have fallen into his lap. JFK’s stance against Cuba only made it a more enticing opportunity. And JD Tippit died a hero trying to stop LHO.
-
The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however.
There is nothing to rebut. Your opinion isn't evidence and as such completely worthless, so stop presenting it as "fact".
Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald.
Wrong again. I have in fact dismissed most of the conspiracy narratives as they are the same as your LN theory; scant on physical evidence and loaded with speculation and jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts.
Simple question for you; when you tell us what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago, do you do so based on factual evidence or are your merely making stuff up?
Steve posed a question regarding why Oswald returned to the US embittered. Any response to that question MUST contain some conjecture because only Oswald could know the answer with certainty. Can you understand that simple point? I posed a possible explanation. Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it, you derail the discussion taking it down the contrarian rabbit hole. If you have nothing to say of substance on the topic, why interject your contrarian nonsense into every thread? You are the single worst poster on this forum since Caprio was tossed. At least he sometimes had thoughts on topics under discussion.
-
I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.
McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true: "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."
I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.
I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.
BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.
Oswald was one of those guys who blamed others for his unhappiness and failures. He was a lifelong malcontent at school and home. I think he was always an angry guy. The USSR held out a possible alternative life for him. When that didn't work out, I think he became more embittered. Returning to the US to work in a series of mundane, low wage jobs would have been a trigger for his repressed anger. So he took matters into his own hands. It's hard to say why some angry nuts commit violent acts and many others never do. For every nut who commits a violent act, there are hundreds or thousands of people who have many of the same warning signs. Some people snap and act on those impulses and others do not.
-
Steve posed a question regarding why Oswald returned to the US embittered. Any response to that question MUST contain some conjecture because only Oswald could know the answer with certainty. Can you understand that simple point? I posed a possible explanation. Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it, you derail the discussion taking it down the contrarian rabbit hole. If you have nothing to say of substance on the topic, why interject your contrarian nonsense into every thread? You are the single worst poster on this forum since Caprio was tossed. At least he sometimes had thoughts on topics under discussion.
I posed a possible explanation.
You just forgot to tell us it was merely a "possible explanation", right?
Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it,
There was nothing to address. You gave an opinion and, as you always do, presented it a fact. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing your opinions.
Get off your high horse...
-
I posed a possible explanation.
You just forgot to tell us it was merely a "possible explanation", right?
Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it,
There was nothing to address. You gave an opinion and, as you always do, presented it a fact. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing your opinions.
Get off your high horse...
Down the contrarian rabbit hole we go again. How many times can you interject yourself into a discussion without making any substantive points. I have tried to explain to you that the question posed required an answer based on conjecture. No one is suggesting that it MUST be the absolute truth because only Oswald would know that for sure. Why try to derail a conversation based on your contrarian idiocy when it comes to any possible negative connotation regarding Oswald? If you think there is no merit to discussing his state of mind, why not just avoid this thread? Is there nothing else to do in "Europe}?
-
Down the contrarian rabbit hole we go again. How many times can you interject yourself into a discussion without making any substantive points. I have tried to explain to you that the question posed required an answer based on conjecture. No one is suggesting that it MUST be the absolute truth because only Oswald would know that for sure. Why try to derail a conversation based on your contrarian idiocy when it comes to any possible negative connotation regarding Oswald? If you think there is no merit to discussing his state of mind, why not just avoid this thread? Is there nothing else to do in "Europe}?
Why try to derail a conversation
I don't do that. I just don't let you get away with spreading your usual BS.
-
Why try to derail a conversation
I don't do that. I just don't let you get away with spreading your usual BS.
Unreal. Every thread on this forum is derailed by your nonsense.
-
Unreal. Every thread on this forum is derailed by your nonsense.
Calling it nonsense is far easier than actually dealing with it, isn't it?
-
Calling it nonsense is far easier than actually dealing with it, isn't it?
Dealing with what? I made a comment in response to a question that called for conjecture. You have stupidly interjected posts like this numerous times into the discussion without making a single substantive observation on the topic. The same derailing of the topic that you cause in every single thread. Not just with me but every single person here who has concluded that Oswald was guilty.
-
Dealing with what? I made a comment in response to a question that called for conjecture. You have stupidly interjected posts like this numerous times into the discussion without making a single substantive observation on the topic. The same derailing of the topic that you cause in every single thread. Not just with me but every single person here who has concluded that Oswald was guilty.
Dealing with what?
Calling you out on bogus claims you couldn't support with actual evidence...
Remember this; "the evidence that shows that Oswald came down the stairs unseen within 75 seconds after the last shot is that it happened" - "Richard Smith"
Btw, I paraphrased.
I made a comment in response to a question that called for conjecture.
Except you didn't present it as conjecture. Arrogantly you presented it as fact.
The same derailing of the topic that you cause in every single thread. Not just with me but every single person here who has concluded that Oswald was guilty.
Calling out bogus claims that you can't support with evidence isn't derailing the thread. Replying with strawman arguments and idiotic rants instead of entering into a discussion (as you do all the time) does derail threads.
-
What I think is unreal is how many armchair psychoanalysts there are who base their analyses on the assumption that Oswald actually killed people.
-
The movie “Suddenly” was broadcast recently and I was able to record it. Yesterday I watched it and was impressed with the acting of Frank Sinatra. The title of this thread is a line (paraphrased) from that movie. If I remember correctly, there is a YouTube video available for anyone who might want to watch it.
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/suddenly-1954-movie.html
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zyJx9bl02G0/TaPXT4WBHZI/AAAAAAAAUSY/B-zlhzXlcJA/s1600/Reclaiming-History-Excerpts-Regarding-The-1954-Film-Suddenly.jpg)
-
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/suddenly-1954-movie.html
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zyJx9bl02G0/TaPXT4WBHZI/AAAAAAAAUSY/B-zlhzXlcJA/s1600/Reclaiming-History-Excerpts-Regarding-The-1954-Film-Suddenly.jpg)
👍
I need to review where I got the date of the broadcast. If I remember correctly I thought it was October 19 because they had a birthday celebration for LHO just before it according to Priscilla McMillan in her book. It seems unlikely that Bugliosi and McMillan would have different dates specified.
-
What I think is unreal is how many armchair psychoanalysts there are who base their analyses on the assumption that Oswald actually killed people.
Indeed, and then "Richard Smith" actually wants to discuss his biased opinions....
-
Dealing with what?
Calling you out on bogus claims you couldn't support with actual evidence...
Remember this; "the evidence that shows that Oswald came down the stairs unseen within 75 seconds after the last shot is that it happened" - "Richard Smith"
Btw, I paraphrased.
I made a comment in response to a question that called for conjecture.
Except you didn't present it as conjecture. Arrogantly you presented it as fact.
The same derailing of the topic that you cause in every single thread. Not just with me but every single person here who has concluded that Oswald was guilty.
Calling out bogus claims that you can't support with evidence isn't derailing the thread. Replying with strawman arguments and idiotic rants instead of entering into a discussion (as you do all the time) does derail threads.
Again, the question by NECESSITY called for conjecture. It is not necessary to add a disclaimer. Aa a result, only a fool would suggest the answer was presented as a fact. If there were any doubt, however, I've explained that you a dozen times. You have yet to address the topic. Instead it is just more endless contrarian nonsense to derail the thread. Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt. In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence. But you are just a neutral arbiter of the case. LOL. Delusional.
-
Again, the question by NECESSITY called for conjecture. It is not necessary to add a disclaimer. Aa a result, only a fool would suggest the answer was presented as a fact. If there were any doubt, however, I've explained that you a dozen times. You have yet to address the topic. Instead it is just more endless contrarian nonsense to derail the thread. Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt. In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence. But you are just a neutral arbiter of the case. LOL. Delusional.
Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt. In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence.
You have yet to address the topic.
Why would I waste my time with utter speculation about the state of mind of a man I have never met, know nothing about first hand and who died sixty years ago?
I'm playing devil's advocate and you can't handle it... it's really that simple.
-
Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt. In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence.
You have yet to address the topic.
Why would I waste my time with utter speculation about the state of mind of a man I have never met, know nothing about first hand and who died sixty years ago?
Why? Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime. That might lend itself to having some interest in the matter. You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind? Otherwise you know nothing about him? LOL. What a mind-bending level of contrarian idiocy even from you. How much first-hand knowledge do historians have of Caesar or Napoleon? I guess they can know nothing about them. There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald. Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge. We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind. Your contrarian bull doesn't change that equation one iota.
-
Why? Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime. That might lend itself to having some interest in the matter. You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind? Otherwise you know nothing about him? LOL. What a mind-bending level of contrarian idiocy even from you. How much first-hand knowledge do historians have of Caesar or Napoleon? I guess they can know nothing about them. There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald. Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge. We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind. Your contrarian bull doesn't change that equation one iota.
Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum
No, that's you...
and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime.
So, what? What does that tell you about his state of mind?
You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind?
Because in any other way, you have to rely and base your opinions on the speculative opinions of others.
There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald.
Indeed and they often conflict with eachother on just about everything in this case, making them worthless to form an "informed" opinion, unless of course you already have a bias.
Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge.
First hand knowledge about what? Oswald's state of mind? Really.....
We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind.
That's always the problem with you. You always say you have enough information/evidence to support your own conclusion and every time you fail to deliver that information/evidence.
All you've got is a biased opinion, based on your opinion that Oswald did in fact kill Kennedy.... Just admit it. You are not fooling anybody.
Let me ask you a simple question, you probably won't answer, but here goes; do you think it is possible that your opinion about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect?
-
Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum
No, that's you...
and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime.
So, what? What does that tell you about his state of mind?
You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind?
Because in any other way, you have to rely and base your opinions on the speculative opinions of others.
There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald.
Indeed and they often conflict with eachother on just about everything in this case, making them worthless to form an "informed" opinion, unless of course you already have a bias.
Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge.
First hand knowledge about what? Oswald's state of mind? Really.....
We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind.
That's always the problem with you. You always say you have enough information/evidence to support your own conclusion and every time you fail to deliver that information/evidence.
All you've got is a biased opinion, based on your opinion that Oswald did in fact kill Kennedy.... Just admit it. You are not fooling anybody.
Let me ask you a simple question, you probably won't answer, but here goes; do you think it is possible that your opinion about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect?
Insane.
-
Insane.
No answer to my question.... now, why am I not surprised?
Thank you for proving my point.
-
No answer to my question.... now, why am I not surprised?
Thank you for proving my point.
You are asking me if it is "possible" that my conjecture about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect? LOL. Almost anything is possible. For example, it is possible that you really live in "Europe." It is possible that you haven't posted here under numerous aliases including several first and one time only posters to support you when you are making a fool of yourself. It is also remotely possible that you are not a loon but someone who is just spoofing the contrarian line to pass the time. Many things are possible. Instead of asking such an idiotic question why not respond to the points made if you disagree? Or ignore them if you think that they are not relevant. Why go on and on down the rabbit hole?
-
You are asking me if it is "possible" that my conjecture about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect? LOL. Almost anything is possible. For example, it is possible that you really live in "Europe." It is possible that you haven't posted here under numerous aliases including several first and one time only posters to support you when you are making a fool of yourself. It is also remotely possible that you are not a loon but someone who is just spoofing the contrarian line to pass the time. Many things are possible. Instead of asking such an idiotic question why not respond to the points made if you disagree? Or ignore them if you think that they are not relevant. Why go on and on down the rabbit hole?
So many words and beyond the meaningless "almost anything is possible" remark, it's just another personal attack and idiotic insinuations to divert the attention away from my question.
If you were halfway honest you would answer that it is of course possible that your opinions about Oswald's state of mind are incorrect, but you don't do that simply because you actually believe that they are not correct.
Many things are possible.
Indeed. It is even possible that once in a while you are actually right and honest about something, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
-
But is it possible that your name is actually "Richard Smith", and that you really believe with a straight face that the best evidence for Oswald going down the stairs from the sixth floor to the second floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by 12 people along the way is that it happened?
-
So many words and beyond the meaningless "almost anything is possible" remark, it's just another personal attack and idiotic insinuations to divert the attention away from my question.
If you were halfway honest you would answer that it is of course possible that your opinions about Oswald's state of mind are incorrect, but you don't do that simply because you actually believe that they are not correct.
Many things are possible.
Indeed. It is even possible that once in a while you are actually right and honest about something, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty? Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is evidence that it is incorrect as you stupidly imply. Again, there is a lot known about Oswald. Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him. Literally millions of pages on the topic. We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history. Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind. Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.
-
Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty? Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is incorrect as you stupidly imply. Again, there is a lot know about Oswald. Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him. Literally millions of pages on the topic. We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history. Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind. Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.
Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.
-
Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty? Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is evidence that it is incorrect as you stupidly imply. Again, there is a lot known about Oswald. Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him. Literally millions of pages on the topic. We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history. Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind. Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.
Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald
Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not. That, by itself, makes any opinion you have speculative. Add to this that you accept that it is possible that your conjecture is wrong and you end up with a meritless insignificant opinion of which the veracity can not be verified. This in turn makes it a complete waste of time to "address the substance of the discussion".
formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.
Which is just another way of saying; because I believe what others have told me about Oswald, I can now make up stuff based upon that belief.
-
Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.
Says the guy who idiotically repeats the same list of false and unsubstantiated claims over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message, and calls it “evidence”.
-
Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.
Thumb1:
The single bullet fantasy isn’t impossible, therefore it happened.
It’s not impossible for Oswald to have descended 4 flights of noisy stairs in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by 12 people along the way, therefore it happened.
It’s not impossible for Oswald to get to Tenth and Patton on foot prior to Tippit’s shooting, therefore he did.
It’s not impossible for a rifle to be in a paper wrapper, therefore it was.
It’s not impossible for the rifle in the photo to be C2766, therefore it was.
Lather, rinse, repeat, vomit.
-
Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.
Oswald DID do it. The evidence demonstrates that beyond doubt. What is under discussion here is his state of mind. Something only Oswald could know with certainty. And something that doesn't have to be proven with certainty to still conclude that he was the assassin. It certainly isn't necessary to prove his state of mind to the subjective satisfaction of every CTer.
-
Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald
Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not. That, by itself, makes any opinion you have speculative. Add to this that you accept that it is possible that your conjecture is wrong and you end up with a meritless insignificant opinion of which the veracity can not be verified. This in turn makes it a complete waste of time to "address the substance of the discussion".
Wow. This statement is breathtaking in the scope of its stupidity. Even from you. I can't believe that you actually own up to this. Apply this lunatic contrarian standard to any person or event in history. It effectively precludes ever reaching any conclusion or establishing a fact in world history. It does explain a lot, though, about the mindset of a contrarian.
-
Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald
Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not. That, by itself, makes any opinion you have speculative. Add to this that you accept that it is possible that your conjecture is wrong and you end up with a meritless insignificant opinion of which the veracity can not be verified. This in turn makes it a complete waste of time to "address the substance of the discussion".
formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.
Which is just another way of saying; because I believe what others have told me about Oswald, I can now make up stuff based upon that belief.
Wow. This statement is breathtaking in the scope of its stupidity. Even from you. I can't believe that you actually own up to this. Apply this lunatic contrarian standard to any person or event in history. It effectively precludes ever reaching any conclusion or establishing a fact in world history. It does explain a lot, though, about the mindset of a contrarian.
Classic fallacious "reasoning". A breathtaking willingness to accept any unverifiable information to reach an idiotic [i.e. made up] conclusion about Oswald's state of mind and present it as fact.
Even worse, when called out about it, the LN fool falsely claims that not accepting unverifiable 'evidence' precludes ever reaching a conclusion about anything or establishing a fact.
All of it demonstrates that this particular LN (and a few more) don't care if evidence is authentic and verifiable as long as it offers a possibility to conclude that Oswald was guilty.
It's a bit like the Republicans constantly claiming they have evidence of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton and/or Joe Biden which they are never able to produce.
Both are equally pathetic and both are supported by "Richard Smith", making it perfectly clear with what kind of individual we are dealing here.
-
Oswald DID do it. The evidence demonstrates that beyond doubt.
LOL.
-
"Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not."
M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher
Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached. For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. All I know about it comes from "what others have told me." I have no time machine to verify if it really happened. Perhaps it is all made up. There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible." I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence. Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.
-
"Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not."
M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher
Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached. For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. All I know about it comes from "what others have told me." I have no time machine to verify if it really happened. Perhaps it is all made up. There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible." I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence. Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.
We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.
This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.
-
"Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not."
M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher
Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached. For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. All I know about it comes from "what others have told me." I have no time machine to verify if it really happened. Perhaps it is all made up. There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible." I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence. Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.
Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an event rather than Oswald's state of mind?
Your entire argument is pathetic. People were present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and witnessed the event. When they say it happened, you have actual eyewitness accounts and thus evidence that justifies the verifiable conclusion that the event happened.
Nobody can say with any kind of certainty what went on in Oswald's mind. All they can do is guess. And none of it is verifiable, leaving you with no basis to reach any conclusion.
If you don't understand the difference between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago.
-
We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.
This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.
Hilarious
-
We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.
This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.
Apples to Oranges if you’re comparing Lee Oswald to public figures whose lives are exposed to far more people.
The biggest problem with understanding Oswald is that there’s lots of gaps in information and a lot of contradictory behavior in his short life.
Some choose to ignore the gaps, contradictions, and lack of a clear motive by simply dismissing him as a “nut”.
Others view some of those odd behaviors and patterns as evidence that he was some sort of intelligence agent or asset.
At the end of the day, all we can do is speculate because we’re left with puzzle pieces of his life and clearly don’t have enough pieces to complete the construction of the puzzle…
-
Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an event rather than Oswald's state of mind?
Your entire argument is pathetic. People were present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and witnessed the event. When they say it happened, you have actual eyewitness accounts and thus evidence that justifies the verifiable conclusion that the event happened.
Nobody can say with any kind of certainty what went on in Oswald's mind. All they can do is guess. And none of it is verifiable, leaving you with no basis to reach any conclusion.
If you don't understand the difference between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago.
I've already explained this to you. I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality. There WERE many people who knew and left accounts of Oswald. Many people testified about him including his personality. Many competent historians and law enforcement investigators have analyzed him and written books on the topic. I've explained to you as to a small child that there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information. Instead of addressing that issue, you took the thread down the contrarian rabbit hole that nothing could be known about Oswald's state of mind because I didn't meet him personally. It goes beyond just that, however. You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin. Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason. Thus, no fact can ever proven that lends itself to Oswald's guilt no matter how well supported in your contrarian fantasy world while every manner of baseless alternatives can be entertained if it suggests doubt.
-
I've already explained this to you. I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality. There WERE many people who knew and left accounts of Oswald. Many people testified about him including his personality. Many competent historians and law enforcement investigators have analyzed him and written books on the topic. I've explained to you as to a small child that there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information. Instead of addressing that issue, you took the thread down the contrarian rabbit hole that nothing could be known about Oswald's state of mind because I didn't meet him personally. It goes beyond just that, however. You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin. Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason. Thus, no fact can ever proven that lends itself to Oswald's guilt no matter how well supported in your contrarian fantasy world while every manner of baseless alternatives can be entertained if it suggests doubt.
I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.
A great example of a complete fool considering his opinion to be reasonable. Thumb1:
Let's go back to your initial post;
Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union. He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence. He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR. When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.
There is no indication this is conjecture on your part. You just state this BS as if it is fact.
there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information.
Sure, as long as that "large volume of information" is verifiable. If it isn't, you are just making up stuff in accordance with your bias.
People can give you all their opinions about an individual's state of mind, but you will never know if it is true or not. When you, nevertheless, accept their opinions as true and use it as basis for your so-called "reasonable conjecture" all you are doing is showing us all just how low your bar is, if it exists at all.
I'll say it again; you have no idea whatsoever about what Oswald's state of mind was some 60 + years ago. Period!
You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin. Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason.
Nope. I only say that evidence is dubious if and when there is a good reason for saying that. It's not my fault or problem that the WC produced a massive number of claims that are simply not supported by the evidence. When there is no chain of custody, the evidence can not be authenticated. You may not like it but that's how it works in the real world.
-
I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.
A great example of a complete fool considering his opinion to be reasonable. Thumb1:
Let's go back to your initial post;
There is no indication this is conjecture on your part. You just state this BS as if it is fact.
This has been explained to you. When discussing someone's state of mind it is not necessary to provide a disclaimer that it contains conjecture. Reasonably intelligent people understand this. Once you displayed ignorance of this obvious point it was explained. By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty. That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture. We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture. In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person. Therefore, you concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless. The idiocy of that logic is breathtaking even considering the source.
-
This has been explained to you. When discussing someone's state of mind it is not necessary to provide a disclaimer that it contains conjecture. Reasonably intelligent people understand this. Once you displayed ignorance of this obvious point it was explained. By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty. That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture. We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture. In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person. Therefore, your concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless. The idiocy of that logic is breathtaking even considering the source.
By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty.
Indeed, so why do you present your opinion as fact and refuse to even accept that you could be wrong?
That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture.
Your so-called "reasoned conjecture" is really making stuff up without any supporting evidence
We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture.
Books written by people who are merely giving their opinion.....
In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person.
I have implied no such thing. In fact, even if you did meet the individual in person, you still can only speculate and guess about his or her state of mind. How often have you seen interviews with people saying that they knew somebody for a long time and they never expected he/she would be capable of doing something criminal. Bottom line; you don't even know what your own wife (if you have one) is really thinking!
Therefore, your concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless.
Of course it is. A speculative discussion about somebody's state of mind is a complete waste of time. I gave up trying to understand what people are thinking a long time ago.
-
By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty.
Indeed, so why do you present your opinion as fact and refuse to even accept that you could be wrong?
That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture.
Your so-called "reasoned conjecture" is really making stuff up without any supporting evidence
We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture.
Books written by people who are merely giving their opinion.....
In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person.
I have implied no such thing. In fact, even if you did meet the individual in person, you still can only speculate and guess about his or her state of mind. How often have you seen interviews with people saying that they knew somebody for a long time and they never expected he/she would be capable of doing something criminal. Bottom line; you don't even know what your own wife (if you have one) is really thinking!
Therefore, your concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless.
Of course it is. A speculative discussion about somebody's state of mind is a complete waste of time. I gave up trying to understand what people are thinking a long time ago.
Here we have an outstanding explanation of the endless circle of contrarian lunacy. No fact that the contrarian doesn't want to accept can ever be proven no matter the amount of supporting evidence. In contrast, no alternative explanation can ever be disproven to the subjective satisfaction of the contrarian no matter how baseless or absurd. Round and round it goes down the contrarian rabbit hole. Every single thread is derailed by this nonsense.
-
Here we have an outstanding explanation of the endless circle of contrarian lunacy. No fact that the contrarian doesn't want to accept can ever be proven no matter the amount of supporting evidence. In contrast, no alternative explanation can ever be disproven to the subjective satisfaction of the contrarian no matter how baseless or absurd. Round and round it goes down the contrarian rabbit hole. Every single thread is derailed by this nonsense.
When you have anything of significance or interest to say, you will let me know, won't you?
-
When you have anything of significance or interest to say, you will let me know, won't you?
LOL. :'(
-
And will "Richard" ever learn that a list of unsubstantiated claims does not constitute "supporting evidence", nor does making up fanciful speculative stories?
-
The contrarian brothers after being disabused on their nonsense: :'( :'(
-
You couldn’t “disabuse” your way out of a wet paper bag.
-
I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.
McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true: "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."
I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.
I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.
BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.
Here’s an interesting snip from McMillan’s book about Oppenheimer:
In smaller ways, Oppenheimer still fell short of the perfection he required of himself. He was a “totally demanding” boss, expecting Mrs. Hobson, when she first worked for him, to take dictation in English, French, and German and in mathematical formulas. He preempted the private lives of those who worked for him. And when the White House announced in April 1963 that President Kennedy would present him with the Fermi Prize that fall, Robert “could hardly bear it” and wanted to decline. “But of course you have to accept,” she told him. “I know,” he said. But he hated the whole thing—because Teller had won the year before, and because the award to him was so clearly a political gesture. When the time came, within days of the Kennedy assassination, for President Johnson to present the award in a White House ceremony, Oppenheimer performed graciously and did not blanch even when Teller maneuvered himself within camera range in order to be photographed shaking his hand. It was a “bittersweet” occasion, Anne Marks said, and Kitty Oppenheimer saluted it in her own way. She went to New York and, for ten thousand dollars, bought a mink coat, a slender, saronglike wrap in which she was resplendent. When someone asked Robert what he was going to do with the prize money, he said, “I’ve already spent it.”4
So, JFK intended to award Oppenheimer the Fermi Prize. But the assassination changed things so that LBJ made the presentation. Here’s a link to an article about the presentation:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-upon-presenting-the-fermi-award-dr-j-robert-oppenheimer (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-upon-presenting-the-fermi-award-dr-j-robert-oppenheimer)
From that article, here are the words spoken by Robert Oppenheimer upon receiving the prize:
[At this point, Dr. Oppenheimer expressed his appreciation for the award. In a brief statement he noted that Jefferson had often written of the brotherly spirit of science. "We have not, 1 Know, always given evidence of that brotherly spirit .... This is not because we lack vital common or intersecting scientific interests. It is in part because, with countless other men and women, we are engaged in this great enterprise of our time, testing whether men can both preserve and enlarge life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and live without war as the great arbiter of history. In this enterprise, no one bears a greater responsibility than the President of the United States. I think it just possible, Mr. President, that it has taken some charity and some courage for you to make this award today. That would seem to be a good augury for all our futures.
["These words," he said, "I wrote down almost a fortnight ago. In a somber time. I gratefully and gladly speak them to you."