JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Jorn Frending on April 03, 2020, 09:32:59 PM
-
The basement shooting of Oswald ...
This question can seem less important, but think about it, we are considering a big scale conspiracy ...
This could certainly not have happened according to a carefully elaborated plan, it was definitely too risky, just being able to get near Oswald and that nobody else got hurt is by itself sheer luck ...
Oswald may not have died, he could have proven his innocence after probably getting better protection ...
No doubt, a big scale conspiracy would have done a better job ...
Yes, it looked like another lone nut job by a Jack Ruby who was never silenced !?
-
The basement shooting of Oswald ...
This question can seem less important, but think about it, we are considering a big scale conspiracy ...
This could certainly not have happened according to a carefully elaborated plan, it was definitely too risky, just being able to get near Oswald and that nobody else got hurt is by itself sheer luck ...
Oswald may not have died, he could have proven his innocence after probably getting better protection ...
No doubt, a big scale conspiracy would have done a better job ...
Yes, it looked like another lone nut job by a Jack Ruby who was never silenced !?
In other words; just because you can not figure out or even imagine how a small scale conspiracy (and a massive cover up) could have done it, it didn't happen..... Got it!
What exactly is the "nightmare" part? You start out with the speculative assumption that "we are considering a big scale conspiracy ..." and after that it only goes downhill fast
-
In other words; just because you can not figure out or even imagine how a small scale conspiracy (and a massive cover up) could have done it, it didn't happen..... Got it!
What exactly is the "nightmare" part? You start out with the speculative assumption that "we are considering a big scale conspiracy ..." and after that it only goes downhill fast
If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him. Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.
If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?
In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...
-
If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him. Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.
If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?
In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...
If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him.
In your opinion, that is... right? The question is easily countered by this one: why take the risk that somebody might believe him?
Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.
Again, in your opinion, right? And how do you know this? If it was a mob hit as some suggest it was (and btw I'm not claiming it was, as I wasn't involved and don't know) couldn't it be that Jack Ruby was far easier to control than Oswald would have been?
If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?
If there were no conspirators, then Jack Ruby would have been the only person who could have answered that question.
In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...
Excuse me, but the biggest creator of conspiracy theories was the WC, who left so many crucial questions unanswered and jumped to conclusions not supported by the evidence that IMO it was inevitable that there would be conspiracy theories.... and who knows, one of those might actually be true or very close to the truth.
I get that you find these things implausible, but it could very well be that you, like the rest of us, are simply not privy to all the facts and it isn't easy to solve a puzzle when some pieces are missing. Things sometimes happen that at first don't make any sense, yet once everything is out in the open suddenly make perfect sense.
But by all means keep asking questions... who knows what you may end up learning some day.
-
You may be surprised but I actually appreciate your answers, thank You Martin :)
-
If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him.
In your opinion, that is... right? The question is easily countered by this one: why take the risk that somebody might believe him?
Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.
Again, in your opinion, right? And how do you know this? If it was a mob hit as some suggest it was (and btw I'm not claiming it was, as I wasn't involved and don't know) couldn't it be that Jack Ruby was far easier to control than Oswald would have been?
If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?
If there were no conspirators, then Jack Ruby would have been the only person who could have answered that question.
In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...
Excuse me, but the biggest creator of conspiracy theories was the WC, who left so many crucial questions unanswered and jumped to conclusions not supported by the evidence that IMO it was inevitable that there would be conspiracy theories.... and who knows, one of those might actually be true or very close to the truth.
I get that you find these things implausible, but it could very well be that you, like the rest of us, are simply not privy to all the facts and it isn't easy to solve a puzzle when some pieces are missing. Things sometimes happen that at first don't make any sense, yet once everything is out in the open suddenly make perfect sense.
But by all means keep asking questions... who knows what you may end up learning some day.
it isn't easy to solve a puzzle when some pieces are missing.
IMO It's worse than simply some pieces missing.....(Although there's no doubt that you're right about that) The authorities actually dumped pieces from other puzzles into the pile ( misinformation and disinformation) and that creates an even bigger problem.
-
My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent :)
-
My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent :)
if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen
I think that you know that Lee was NOT an "UNAWARE CITIZEN"..... Anybody who has studied his actions and movements after he joined the Marine Corps until the time of his death will discern that Lee Oswald was a US intel agent. Like any intel agent he was a chameleon, and able to appear as something that he was not.
Like a communist revolutionary, for example. However he was a bit egotistical and full of himself, and not quite the accomplished undercover agent that he fancied himself to be.
In the summer of 63 and up until the time of the coup d e'tat he thought that he was working undercover for the FBI. And in fact one of his handlers. Warren De Brueys, was an FBI agent.
The Back Yard Photo ( CE133A) is a good example of his naive and inept attempt to portray himself as something that he was not. That BY photo is supposed to depict a heavily armed, communist revolutionary who is ready to fight for the cause. But close examination reveals the absurdity of the photo. It's like one of those gag photos that are taken at carnivals that show a person in striped pajamas like a jail bird might wear.
Marina said that she took that photo at Lee's request ( she thought that he was nuts, for posing like that) and I believe that she did take the photo. At any rate the photo reveals the naive mind behind that staged photo. ( It amazes me that many many highly intelligent people can't see through transparent subterfuge )
But that phenomenon might be explained by the fact that their minds are closed and they are focused on the idea that the photo proves that Lee Oswald owned a carcano like the one that was discovered in the TSBD after the murder. They simply don't want to see that the photo is an hilarious caricature.....created by a naive fool.
-
My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent :)
I agree.
It seems obvious to us that if these powerful groups that allegedly needed to silence him, to prevent him from exposing their conspiracy, then he never would have been arrested alive. He would have been "accidentally" shot in the theater. Or on the street.
They certainly wouldn't have let him talk to his family and others. And meet with the press. And make phone calls. No one can seriously suggest that they needed to silence him and then they let him do all of these things. It's illogical.
This is all speculation but we are discussing a controversial historic event. That always engenders speculation. Even "non-controversial" events have people speculating about specifics.
The Oswald defenders and conspiracy believers don't like these types of questions. They get very upset. That's because they can't logically answer them. It causes conspiracy cognitive dissonance - facts contradict their conspiracy beliefs - so they want to avoid them. It's understandable: if they are forced to confront them their conspiracy beliefs fall apart.
-
I think that you know that Lee was NOT an "UNAWARE CITIZEN".....
Mr. LIEBELER - Did Oswald say anything about having been a Marine?
Mr. BLALOCK - Yes, sir; he did, and he explained that he took training in guerrilla warfare, and he told us how to blow up bridges, derail trains, make zip guns, make homemade gunpowder.
Mr. LIEBELER - He told you about this in detail?
Mr. BLALOCK - He told us how to blow up the Huey P. Long Bridge.
:D
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say that he knew how to make gunpowder?
Mr. BLALOCK - Yes, sir; he told us the formula, and I--saltpeter and nitrate some formula--I don't remember.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say anything about guns?
Mr. BLALOCK - About zip guns, how to make them out of tubing and a plunger.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say something to the effect that he knew all about guns?
Mr. BLALOCK - No; he told us he had a manual that explained all about guns, a Marine manual, and that he had training in guns, trained with guns.
Lee Harvey Oswald...Navy Seal wannabe.
More..... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/blalock.htm
-
I agree.
It seems obvious to us that if these powerful groups that allegedly needed to silence him, to prevent him from exposing their conspiracy, then he never would have been arrested alive. He would have been "accidentally" shot in the theater. Or on the street.
They certainly wouldn't have let him talk to his family and others. And meet with the press. And make phone calls. No one can seriously suggest that they needed to silence him and then they let him do all of these things. It's illogical.
This is all speculation but we are discussing a controversial historic event. That always engenders speculation. Even "non-controversial" events have people speculating about specifics.
The Oswald defenders and conspiracy believers don't like these types of questions. They get very upset. That's because they can't logically answer them. It causes conspiracy cognitive dissonance - facts contradict their conspiracy beliefs - so they want to avoid them. It's understandable: if they are forced to confront them their conspiracy beliefs fall apart.
They certainly wouldn't have let him talk to his family and others. And meet with the press. And make phone calls. No one can seriously suggest that they needed to silence him and then they let him do all of these things. It's illogical.
This statement reveals a shallow naive mind...... The conspirators were confident that Lee would never ever reveal that he was a undercover intel agent.
Just minutes before he was murdered by Ruby, Lee was talking to a man who he thought was a contact ..... And somehow Lee got the idea that the transfer from the city jail to the county jail was a ploy that was intended to allow him to escape. He said something like..."oh. so that is now the plan?" he then was lead to his lynching......
-
My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent :)
I agree to some extend.
However, even if he was totally innocent (and I am not saying he was), he would still be able to explain or at least try to explain his version of what happened. For instance, if we assume he was manipulated into ordering the rifle from Klein's and being photographed with it, he could point towards the person(s) involved. If we assume he was manipulated into picking up "curtain rods" or whatever else it was and bringing them with him on Friday morning in a paper bag, he could explain what happened to the package. If he gave it to somebody during the morning hours, he could identify that person. He could explain where he really was, during the time that they say he was in Mexico and he could explain his connection to David Ferrie etc etc....
Whether anybody would listen to him or believe him is another matter. Similar to a sting operation, he could have been unaware of the conspiracy and being manipulated in individual instances, only to put it all together in his mind after Kennedy was shot.
Better be safe than sorry and finish him off as quickly as possible.
-
If we assume he was manipulated into picking up "curtain rods" or whatever else it was and bringing them with him on Friday morning in a paper bag, he could explain what happened to the package. If he gave it to somebody during the morning hours, he could identify that person.
You'd think such a person would have given him the correct length curtain rods?
-
You'd think such a person would have given him the correct length curtain rods?
You're missing the point
-
Martin and Gerry, the shooting of Oswald is to me still a CT nightmare question and gives me a hard time being a CT.
If Oswald shot JFK then there would be no conspirators to want to Kill him. If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders. Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.
However, had Oswald somehow participated believing that something else was going to happen and that the plan had been to finish him off earlier then perhaps a lot of things would be easier to explain. That's the reason for me to suggest that CTs may consider the possibility of Oswald being an intelligence asset (not necessarily exactly how Walt would explain it but close enough)
-
Martin and Gerry, the shooting of Oswald is to me still a CT nightmare question and gives me a hard time being a CT.
If Oswald shot JFK then there would be no conspirators to want to Kill him. If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders. Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.
However, had Oswald somehow participated believing that something else was going to happen and that the plan had been to finish him off earlier then perhaps a lot of things would be easier to explain. That's the reason for me to suggest that CTs may consider the possibility of Oswald being an intelligence asset (not necessarily exactly how Walt would explain it but close enough)
Jorn,
You are repeating yourself and, it would seem, are pushing towards your preferred conclusion that Oswald was an intelligence asset. You may well be right, but Oswald is such an enigma that anything is possible. There are so many things going on with that guy which can in no way be associated with the penniless loser he was made out to be.
If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders.
First of all, it has been a question of debate for over half a century if Oswald was indeed at, or anywhere near, 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed. Some claim he was, others point to the timing problem and conclude he physically couldn't have been.
As for the Kennedy murder, if Oswald was set up by a conspiracy it wouldn't really matter where he was, because that kind of information could "disappear" during a cover up, provided Oswald was no longer around to dispute it.
Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.
Maybe, but it could have been a back up plan, after the original plan failed.
-
Jorn,
You are repeating yourself and, it would seem, are pushing towards your preferred conclusion that Oswald was an intelligence asset. You may well be right, but Oswald is an enigma that anything is possible. There are so many things going on with that guy which can in no way be associated with the penniless loser he was made out to be.
If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders.
First of all, it has been a question of debate for over half a century if Oswald was indeed at, or anywhere near, 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed. Some claim he was, others point to the timing problem and conclude he physically couldn't have been.
As for the Kennedy murder, if Oswald was set up by a conspiracy it wouldn't really matter where he was, because that kind of information could "disappear" during a cover up, provided Oswald was no longer around to dispute it.
Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.
Maybe, but it could have been a back up plan, after the original plan failed.
Hello Martin, you are the one who brings up the 50 years + business, wouldn't that be a good reason to at least consider for a moment a different line of investigation?
And by the way I was referring to Oswald being at the right time in the TT and regarding the killing of Oswald I don't believe it would even qualify as a back up plan but rather as a desperate last minute attempt since something went wrong.
-
Hello Martin, you are the one who brings up the 50 years + business, wouldn't that be a good reason to at least consider for a moment a different line of investigation?
And by the way I was referring to Oswald being at the right time in the TT and regarding the killing of Oswald I don't believe it would even qualify as a back up plan but rather as a desperate last minute attempt since something went wrong.
Hello Martin, you are the one who brings up the 50 years + business, wouldn't that be a good reason to at least consider for a moment a different line of investigation?
Sure, but are you under the misguided impression that Oswald as a possible intelligence asset has not yet been discussed and investigated?
and regarding the killing of Oswald I don't believe it would even qualify as a back up plan but rather as a desperate last minute attempt since something went wrong.
Same difference.
-
Hello Martin, you are the one who brings up the 50 years + business, wouldn't that be a good reason to at least consider for a moment a different line of investigation?
Sure, but are you under the misguided impression that Oswald as a possible intelligence asset has not yet been discussed and investigated?
and regarding the killing of Oswald I don't believe it would even qualify as a back up plan but rather as a desperate last minute attempt since something went wrong.
Same difference.
I spent years reading including on the Lancer forum before even registering at a forum and I even brought it up on the old forum. I registered exactly on the fiftieth anniversary.
I do not recall anybody suggesting that Oswald did in fact have a mission to comply with in that building which was not in order to kill Kennedy. Walt reacted to this, he may have thought on it earlier on, I don't know.
This could amongst other things explain the problem as exposed in my "nightmare question number one".
Personally I do not see Oswald being set up without his whereabouts being under control. You do apparently.
-
I spent years reading including on the Lancer forum before even registering at a forum and I even brought it up on the old forum. I registered exactly on the fiftieth anniversary.
I do not recall anybody suggesting that Oswald did in fact have a mission to comply with in that building which was not in order to kill Kennedy. Walt reacted to this, he may have thought on it earlier on, I don't know.
This could amongst other things explain the problem as exposed in my "nightmare question number one".
Personally I do not see Oswald being set up without his whereabouts being under control. You do apparently.
During the WC investigation there was already discussion about Oswald being in some way affiliated with an intelligence entity. There is, and always has been, speculation about his presence dead smack in the middle of the offices of all sorts of intelligence agencies in New Orleans. The fact that he was able to summon an FBI agent to come and see him in jail after his arrest in New Orleans and J. Edgar Hoover's memo from (I believe 1960) that somebody else might be using Oswald's identity. All this and more has been discussed over and over again.
I do not recall anybody suggesting that Oswald did in fact have a mission to comply with in that building which was not in order to kill Kennedy.
Again, Oswald was such an enigma, that any suggestion about what he was doing at the TSBD would be mere speculation.
Personally I do not see Oswald being set up without his whereabouts being under control. You do apparently.
Yes, I do think it would have been possible to set up Oswald without his whereabouts being under control as long as two conditions were met; (1) before going ahead with the murder, the conspirators would have needed to be sure that Oswald was in fact in the building. If he wasn't they would be able to abord. And (2) the conspirators would have needed to have back up from a cover up to resolve any problem that might arise re witnesses who saw something they shouldn't have seen.
As far as the latter is concerned, just how many witnesses were told they were mistaken? What happened to the man several people saw running down the grassy knoll and get into a car? Nothing, that's what happened. What happened to Carolyn Arnold's initial statement that she saw Oswald at the second floor lunchroom at 12:25? In a second statement at a later date the time changed to 12:15.....
-
During the WC investigation there was already discussion about Oswald being in some way affiliated with an intelligence entity. There is, and always has been, speculation about his presence dead smack in the middle of the offices of all sorts of intelligence agencies. The fact that he was able to summon an FBI agent to come and see him in jail after his arrest in New Orleans, J. Edgar Hoover's memo from (I believe 1960) that somebody else might be using Oswald's identity. All this has been discussed over and over again.
I do not recall anybody suggesting that Oswald did in fact have a mission to comply with in that building which was not in order to kill Kennedy.
Again, Oswald was such an enigma, that any suggestion about what he was doing at the TSBD would be mere speculation.
Personally I do not see Oswald being set up without his whereabouts being under control. You do apparently.
Yes, I do think it would have been possible to set up Oswald without his whereabouts being under control as long as two conditions were met; (1) before going ahead with the murder, the conspirators would have needed to be sure that Oswald was in fact in the building. If he wasn't they would be able to abord. And (2) the conspirators would have needed to have back up from a cover up to resolve any problem that might arise re witnesses who saw something they shouldn't have seen.
As far as the latter is concerned, just how many witnesses were told they were mistaken? What happened to the man several people saw running down the grassy knoll and get into a car? Nothing, that's what happened. What happened to Carolyn Arnold's initial statement that she saw Oswald at the second floor lunchroom at 12:25? In a second statement at a later date the time changed to 12:15.....
Thanks, I appreciate your motivated statements ...