JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 03, 2025, 07:39:55 PM
-
A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”
Does it?
Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."
Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.
Yes, this is old hat, JFKA 101 sort of stuff, but how many members of the public think there was a conspiracy largely because CTers constantly beat the patsy drum as though it had dark conspiratorial implications?
-
A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”
Does it?
Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."
Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.
Yes, this is old hat, JFKA 101 sort of stuff, but how many members of the public think there was a conspiracy largely because CTers constantly beat the patsy drum as though it had dark conspiratorial implications?
Honestly, the patsy statement to me is very much about what LHO's brother Robert describes about their mother and those traits being passed on to LHO:
ROBERT OSWALD : She had certain characteristics that were so much like Lee. The time and circumstances always seemed to be against her. The world owed her a living. She wanted to be somebody. I think this was passed on to Lee.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html)
-
There's no proof that he shot a gun that day
-
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations? Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?
-
Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations? Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?
Consciousness of guilt.
-
Consciousness of guilt.
Confirmation bias.
-
Confirmation bias.
KGB*-approved trolling by John Iacoletti.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations? Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?
Well, Duh!
In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence,[1] and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence.[2] Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt".[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_of_guilt
Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime.
Criminal defense attorney Stephen G. Rodriguez
Oswald's actions was the very definition of flight from the scene of the crime, and thus would be "admissible evidence", and it would be up to Oswald and/or his Defence team to fabricate a narrative that could convince a Jury that this is just typical behaviour of an innocent man simply going about his day! Good luck with that!
JohnM
-
Consciousness of guilt.
Oswald wasn’t the only employee to leave the Book Depository after Kennedy was shot. Were they all guilty?
No one has been able to prove that he was on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
-
Oswald wasn’t the only employee to leave the Book Depository after Kennedy was shot. Were they all guilty?
How many employees left with 3 minutes of the assassination?
How many employees owned the rifle on the 6th floor which was directly linked to the bullet fragments found in the Limo?
How many employees got on and off a slow moving bus, caught a cab and got out way past where the lived?
How many employees went to their residence and got a revolver?
How many employees killed a cop?
How many employees snuck into a theatre, resisted arrest and tried to kill more cops?
How many employees were arrested and told one provable lie after another?
Can you name one other employee that satisfied even one of those criteria?
JohnM
-
Well, Duh!
In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence,[1] and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence.[2] Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt".[3][/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_of_guilt
At some point you have to have some actual evidence.
-
How many employees left with 3 minutes of the assassination?
How many employees owned the rifle on the 6th floor which was directly linked to the bullet fragments found in the Limo?
How many employees got on and off a slow moving bus, caught a cab and got out way past where the lived?
How many employees went to their residence and got a revolver?
How many employees killed a cop?
How many employees snuck into a theatre, resisted arrest and tried to kill more cops?
How many employees were arrested and told one provable lie after another?
Can you name one other employee that satisfied even one of those criteria?
You forgot to even prove that Oswald satisfied those criteria.
-
At some point you have to have some actual evidence.
Another mindless one liner. Yawn!
Not even you can deny there is a literal mountain of evidence in this case, the fact that you keep saying/implying the incriminating evidence was fabricated, planted and lied about, is for you to prove and so far after 60+ years not one of your fellow CK's have proven even one piece of evidence is fraudulent!
JohnM
-
Not even you can deny there is a literal mountain of evidence in this case,
I absolutely can deny it. Your “mountain” is silly crap like a ring in a cup and calling it “Oswald’s rifle” (LOL).
the fact that you keep saying/implying the incriminating evidence was fabricated, planted and lied about, is for you to prove
I said nothing of the kind. Your problem is that your “evidence”, even if genuine, does not prove who killed Kennedy.
-
Your problem is that your “evidence,” even if genuine, does not prove who killed Kennedy.
If three people had photographed Oswald as he was shooting at JFK from his Sniper's Nest, you would probably claim that their photos, lacking a digital time stamp (or a clock in the background) and a notarized statement in triplicate, were fake.
-
If three people had photographed Oswald as he was shooting at JFK from his Sniper's Nest, you would probably claim that their photos, lacking a digital time stamp (or a clock in the background) and a notarized statement in triplicate, were fake.
Cool fantasy, bro. Almost as creative as your fantasy about Gloria Calvery.
-
At some point you have to have some actual evidence.
Oh, the irony of that sentence is too thick to measure!
Imagine the gall of a JFKA CTer writing the above comment. Just incredible.
Pot meets Kettle (yet again).
-
If three people had photographed Oswald as he was shooting at JFK from his Sniper's Nest, you would probably claim that their photos, lacking a digital time stamp (or a clock in the background) and a notarized statement in triplicate, were fake.
I would be sceptical if their cameras came out of Ruth Paine's garage.
-
I would be sceptical if their cameras came out of Ruth Paine's garage.
Yeah, you're probably right . . . or if they'd belonged to probable long-term KGB "illegal," George DeMohrenschildt.
-
Who brought Oswald's rifle from New Orleans to Dallas? (if it wasn't Ruth Paine)
-
How many employees left with 3 minutes of the assassination?
That doesn't prove that he fired the shots. He could have been fleeing because he realised that things were looking bad for him because of how much he was involved in... something.
How many employees owned the rifle on the 6th floor which was directly linked to the bullet fragments found in the Limo?
Again, this doesn't prove that he fired it that day.
How many employees got on and off a slow moving bus, caught a cab and got out way past where the lived?
How many employees went to their residence and got a revolver?
Again, this could have been his panic, his fear that things were looking bad or weird, in relation to what he'd been involved in.
How many employees killed a cop?
Much debated here.
How many employees snuck into a theatre, resisted arrest and tried to kill more cops?
Again, could relate to his fear of the situation.
How many employees were arrested and told one provable lie after another?
Ditto.
-
There is NO EVIDENCE putting Oswald inside that sniper's nest when the shots were fired. I believe Oswald probably moved the boxes around and set the sniper's nest up. That was the level of his involvement in the JFK Assassination. If he had been the shooter, I believe he would have also brought his hand gun with him.
-
There is NO EVIDENCE putting Oswald inside that sniper's nest when the shots were fired. I believe Oswald probably moved the boxes around and set the sniper's nest up. That was the level of his involvement in the JFK Assassination. If he had been the shooter, I believe he would have also brought his hand gun with him.
I have had that same thought. If LHO knew he would be involved with the assassination of a President in advance, why did he leave his pistol at home?
I also have never gotten an explanation for Oswald's conversation with James Jarman on the morning of 11/22/63. Jarman said LHO asked why crowds were lining up outside the Book Depository. Which implies that he wasn't aware that JFK's motorcade was going to pass the Book Depository prior to that conversation.
The best explanation I've heard is that Oswald was plotting his alibi in advance. That's possible but if that were true, wouldn't he have had the same conversation with other people at work that morning? How could he have known that Jarman would mention it later in his statements to the police?
-
I have had that same thought. If LHO knew he would be involved with the assassination of a President in advance, why did he leave his pistol at home?
I also have never gotten an explanation for Oswald's conversation with James Jarman on the morning of 11/22/63. Jarman said LHO asked why crowds were lining up outside the Book Depository. Which implies that he wasn't aware that JFK's motorcade was going to pass the Book Depository prior to that conversation.
The best explanation I've heard is that Oswald was plotting his alibi in advance. That's possible but if that were true, wouldn't he have had the same conversation with other people at work that morning? How could he have known that Jarman would mention it later in his statements to the police?
If he wanted an alibi, all he had to do was go to the front step and engage in conversation with multiple people.
-
I believe Oswald was told to establish his alibi by staying inside that 2nd Floor Lunchroom. The plan was to "pop" him inside the Lunchroom and make it look like a suicide. DPD Officer Baker beat the assassin to that lunchroom. After being confronted by Baker, Oswald got to thinking he was a sitting duck, possibly being setup, and he then left the TSBD and got his gun. At that point, Oswald was in scramble mode. No Plan.
-
I believe Oswald was told to establish his alibi by staying inside that 2nd Floor Lunchroom. The plan was to "pop" him inside the Lunchroom and make it look like a suicide. DPD Officer Baker beat the assassin to that lunchroom. After being confronted by Baker, Oswald got to thinking he was a sitting duck, possibly being setup, and he then left the TSBD and got his gun. At that point, Oswald was in scramble mode. No Plan.
Yes, I think something like that was going on - Oswald following some sort of instruction without knowing that the hit was taking place at that moment... with his rifle in the scenario. Hence, as you say, his panic run.
Not so sure about a lunchroom execution though.
-
I believe Oswald was told to establish his alibi by staying inside that 2nd Floor Lunchroom. The plan was to "pop" him inside the Lunchroom and make it look like a suicide. DPD Officer Baker beat the assassin to that lunchroom. After being confronted by Baker, Oswald got to thinking he was a sitting duck, possibly being setup, and he then left the TSBD and got his gun. At that point, Oswald was in scramble mode. No Plan.
What gun would he have "popped" himself with in the lunchroom? As an admitted amateur at assassination planning, I would have placed the Carcano under his chin and blown his head off right there in the sniper's nest. Now there is a plausible "suicide."
The problem with the "panic" explanation for Oswald's post-assassination actions is that it's completely ad hoc. You posit "panic" because you're stuck with his actions. You have a very difficult time explaining why he would've panicked unless he'd known his rifle was in the TSBD. You have a very difficult time explaining why, with his rifle in the TSBD and the Presidential motorcade going by, he would have failed to put 2+2 together and would have agreed to placidly wait in the lunchroom. If he didn't know his rifle was in the TSBD, of course, panic makes no sense. If he did know but was completely innocent, heading for the nearest policeman and cooperating fully seems more plausible to me than what he actually did. On top of all that, why would the Oswald who was cool as a cucumber in the lunchroom encounter and mystifyingly cool under interrogation have "panicked" when you say he did?
-
Oh, the irony of that sentence is too thick to measure!
Imagine the gall of a JFKA CTer writing the above comment. Just incredible.
Pot meets Kettle (yet again).
Only because you think that disbelieving the official fantasy (and for good reason) is the same thing as a "conspiracy theory".
Don't make claims you can't prove. Seems simple enough.
-
You think that disbelieving the official fantasy (and for good reason) is the same thing as a "conspiracy theory".
You don't think the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor -- with Oswald's prints on it and which the bullet fragments found in the limo and CE-399 were ballistically matched to -- belonged to Oswald.
Therefore, you believe that someone other than Oswald must have fired it and put it there so that he (Oswald) would be incriminated for the assassination.
It seems to me that you, like Dylan's "Thin Man," know there was a conspiracy, but you don't know what it was . . . because you haven't been able to think of one that makes more sense that the one proclaimed by the Warren Commission Report, especially one that wouldn't necessitate the witting involvement of oodles a gobs of bad guys and bad gals.
Yet you continue to snipe away like mad because the official story is . . . gasp . . . too implausible for your contrarian mind to believe.
"You should be made to wear earphones."
-
You don't think the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor -- with Oswald's prints on it and which the bullet fragments found in the limo and CE-399 were ballistically matched to -- belonged to Oswald.
You forgot to prove it had "Oswald's prints on it", or that those bullet fragments were "found in the limo", or that CE-399 had anything to do with the assassination.
Therefore, you believe that someone other than Oswald must have fired it and put it there so that he (Oswald) would be incriminated for the assassination.
False dichotomy. Next?
-
A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”
Does it?
Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.
What knowledge would a Dallas cop have regarding the past travel habits of a nobody like Oswald ?
You suggest there is a reason the police should be knowledgeable of his past travel history/life story, why do you believe that would be the case ?
-
What knowledge would a Dallas cop have regarding the past travel habits of a nobody like Oswald ?
You suggest there is a reason the police should be knowledgeable of his past travel history/life story, why do you believe that would be the case ?
I don't suggest that AT ALL. That is what Oswald SAID. He obviously knew he'd been in the USSR. Before he was arrested, I don't think the DPD had the faintest idea he'd ever been in the USSR. Like all of his other lies and absurdities, this was just Oswald being Oswald.
-
I don't suggest that AT ALL. That is what Oswald SAID. He obviously knew he'd been in the USSR. Before he was arrested, I don't think the DPD had the faintest idea he'd ever been in the USSR. Like all of his other lies and absurdities, this was just Oswald being Oswald.
Oswald was not being absurd or off topic when he mentioned Russia being the basis for what most interested the "AGENTS" as he was being held in the Dallas Police station.
There were two FBI agents questioning him and if anyone was behaving in a bizarre manner it was the FBI Agents .
One of them named Agent Hosty.
They questioned him about whether he had been to Russia , about his time in the Marines.
Huh!
Why would the first things the FBI want to know about was to question Oswald the assassin who just killed the president on things they knew all about already ????
The questioning from agent Hosty also shows that Oswald knew he had been under federal surveillance for some time and that the FBI had been harassing Marina at least 2 times.
It's all in the Dallas PD summery of the interrogation:
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A11_ReportsDPD.pdf
What do you think about Oswald actually being on point in mentioning his having been to Russia as a main concern of the Feds who were involved in questioning him?
-
Oswald was not being absurd or off topic when he mentioned Russia being the basis for what most interested the "AGENTS" as he was being held in the Dallas Police station.
There were two FBI agents questioning him and if anyone was behaving in a bizarre manner it was the FBI Agents .
One of them named Agent Hosty.
They questioned him about whether he had been to Russia , about his time in the Marines.
Huh!
Why would the first things the FBI want to know about was to question Oswald the assassin who just killed the president on things they knew all about already ????
The questioning from agent Hosty also shows that Oswald knew he had been under federal surveillance for some time and that the FBI had been harassing Marina at least 2 times.
It's all in the Dallas PD summery of the interrogation:
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A11_ReportsDPD.pdf
What do you think about Oswald actually being on point in mentioning his having been to Russia as a main concern of the Feds who were involved in questioning him?
The point being made in my original post was that Oswald's "patsy" statement did not even vaguely suggest he was a patsy IN SOME CONSPIRACY TO ASSASSINATE JFK, which is how CTers persistently misuse the statement. He said he was a patsy of the DPD. You will see in the short video that he refers to "these police officers" having "taken me in" because "I lived in the Soviet Union." Contrary to your suggestion, he does not refer at all to federal agents or to being interrogated about his Soviet connections. As CTers persistently do, you are flatly misstating what occurred, and I no longer have the patience for these silly CT fantasy games.
Did the interrogation deal with his time in the Marines and the USSR. OBVIOUSLY IT DID. Once it became known who he was, possible Soviet involvement in the JFKA was a prime concern. But this had nothing to do with his "patsy" statement as to why "these police officers" had "taken [him] in."
-
The point being made in my original post was that Oswald's "patsy" statement did not even vaguely suggest he was a patsy IN SOME CONSPIRACY TO ASSASSINATE JFK, which is how CTers persistently misuse the statement. He said he was a patsy of the DPD. You will see in the short video that he refers to "these police officers" having "taken me in" because "I lived in the Soviet Union." Contrary to your suggestion, he does not refer at all to federal agents or to being interrogated about his Soviet connections. As CTers persistently do, you are flatly misstating what occurred, and I no longer have the patience for these silly CT fantasy games.
Did the interrogation deal with his time in the Marines and the USSR. OBVIOUSLY IT DID. Once it became known who he was, possible Soviet involvement in the JFKA was a prime concern. But this had nothing to do with his "patsy" statement as to why "these police officers" had "taken [him] in."
How & why would the Dallas police have knowledge of Oswald's travel to Russia ?
-
How & why would the Dallas police have knowledge of Oswald's travel to Russia ?
It had been in the newspapers.
D'oh
-
How & why would the Dallas police have knowledge of Oswald's travel to Russia ?
This information of Oswald leaving and returning from Russia was available from any number of newspapers since 1959.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/29/insider/oswald-article-image/oswald-article-image-tmagArticle.jpg)
New York Times 1959
(https://i.postimg.cc/zf12QKbf/lee-harvey-oswald-returning-to-USA.jpg)
JohnM
-
If he didn't know his rifle was in the TSBD, of course, panic makes no sense.
Not at all. If he'd been part of some plan, being manipulated by the conspirators, he could have been unaware that an assassination would be attempted that day!
When the shots rang out, seemingly (from some people) coming from the TSBD, he could have thought "WTF? This wasn't the plan!" or even that the shooting had nothing whatsoever to do with the plan that he thought he was part of.
Then he left to seek his contact(s) to find out what he hell was going on (perhaps also realising that he might have been set up).
-
How & why would the Dallas police have knowledge of Oswald's travel to Russia ?
When the DPD arrested Oswald, I don't believe they did have the faintest idea who he was. Even with the newspaper coverage, it's highly unlikely that in the circumstances of his arrest anyone would have recalled "Hey, this is the guy who defected to Russia!" The likely scenario is that Oswald himself made some statement equivalent to his patsy statement ("You've only arrested me because ..."). By the time of Hosty's involvement, they obviously knew who he was. You appear to be the typical CTer who (1) can't deal with the actual facts, and (2) moves the goal post to avoid dealing with them. The actual fact is, he said NOTHING about being a patsy in any conspiracy. This is a Conspiracy Meme that has no basis in reality. He said he was a patsy, he said he was a patsy, he said he was a patsy ... of the arresting DPD officers.
-
Not at all. If he'd been part of some plan, being manipulated by the conspirators, he could have been unaware that an assassination would be attempted that day!
When the shots rang out, seemingly (from some people) coming from the TSBD, he could have thought "WTF? This wasn't the plan!" or even that the shooting had nothing whatsoever to do with the plan that he thought he was part of.
Then he left to seek his contact(s) to find out what he hell was going on (perhaps also realising that he might have been set up).
You're going all ad hoc on us again. Why would he have immediately connected "the assassination" to "the plan" (to do what - toss water balloons out the window? wave protest signs?)? Why would he have played dumb in the lunchroom encounter and the encounter with Mrs. Reid? Why would he have hopped a bus, changed to a taxi, had Whaley drop him off past the rooming house, yada yada yada? This is your idea of how a patsy in some non-lethal plan "seeks out his contacts"? Why did he resist arrest, refuse to cooperate in the interrogation, give no clue to reporters or his family that his only involvement was in some non-lethal plan? If one thought one were involved in some non-lethal plan and had actually done nothing, would not the rational response in the face of a Presidential assassination be to remain in place and be fully cooperative? Your excuses for his actual conduct are entirely ad hoc and entirely lacking in plausibility.
-
He said he was a patsy, he said he was a patsy, he said he was a patsy ... of the arresting DPD officers.
The only person asking him completely irrelevant questions to the shooting, questions about, travel to Russia , Medals he received in the military, etc, etc,,,,,was FBI agent Hosty.
The DPD officer did not ask him one question about Russia .
Do you think Oswald thought the previous harassment he says he & Marina suffered from the FBI agent Hosty sitting in front of him , harassment he slams his fist on the table about in anger had anything to do with Russia ?
Why do you think the FBI was tracking him to begin with ?
Could it be Russia , Russia, Russia ?
You don't think Oswald knew that ?
Given how the FBI had dogged him & Marina over the past weeks in Dallas , and then having the same harassing FBI agent walk in the interrogation room , why would Oswald think anybody but the FBI was responsible for his being singled out for arrest ?
The DPD were just the delivery boys in Oswald's mind once Hosty entered the room and made clear who was in charge .
-
You're going all ad hoc on us again. Why would he have immediately connected "the assassination" to "the plan" (to do what - toss water balloons out the window? wave protest signs?)? Why would he have played dumb in the lunchroom encounter and the encounter with Mrs. Reid? Why would he have hopped a bus, changed to a taxi, had Whaley drop him off past the rooming house, yada yada yada? This is your idea of how a patsy in some non-lethal plan "seeks out his contacts"? Why did he resist arrest, refuse to cooperate in the interrogation, give no clue to reporters or his family that his only involvement was in some non-lethal plan? If one thought one were involved in some non-lethal plan and had actually done nothing, would not the rational response in the face of a Presidential assassination be to remain in place and be fully cooperative? Your excuses for his actual conduct are entirely ad hoc and entirely lacking in plausibility.
If he was a patsy in what he thought was a non-lethal plan that turned lethal - that is, an innocent person caught up in something larger - then here is the opportunity (among others) to expose it. And clear his name. But instead of saving himself and becoming a hero by exposing the traitors, Oswald says: "I don't know what this is all about."
I'd still like to know how an innocent Oswald comes out of the building and immediately figures out what happened. It was chaos out there; nobody knew exactly what happened. Any explanation that has Oswald as some sort of innocent person - fully or in part - has to simply make things up, grab explanations out of thin air. It's the only way they work.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.H3dvq9uQe4xN_eZEnXaG3gHaIS?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)
-
The only person asking him completely irrelevant questions to the shooting, questions about, travel to Russia , Medals he received in the military, etc, etc,,,,,was FBI agent Hosty.
The DPD officer did not ask him one question about Russia .
Do you think Oswald thought the previous harassment he says he & Marina suffered from the FBI agent Hosty sitting in front of him , harassment he slams his fist on the table about in anger had anything to do with Russia ?
Why do you think the FBI was tracking him to begin with ?
Could it be Russia , Russia, Russia ?
You don't think Oswald knew that ?
Given how the FBI had dogged him & Marina over the past weeks in Dallas , and then having the same harassing FBI agent walk in the interrogation room , why would Oswald think anybody but the FBI was responsible for his being singled out for arrest ?
The DPD were just the delivery boys in Oswald's mind once Hosty entered the room and made clear who was in charge .
I'm beginning to think your avatar is perhaps an actual photo of yourself. :D You are persistently - perhaps willfully? - missing the point. My point is in regard to the patsy statement: he never suggested he was a patsy in any conspiracy. You now want to shift this is to: he was telling the truth, he actually was arrested only because he'd been to Russia. That's an entirely different issue. If you want to believe this explains Oswald's actions on the day of the assassination, be my guest. You are forced to adopt the complete fantasy that the FBI had been closely monitoring him - but again, be my guest.
As I've stated previously, the CT community comprises two distinct types:
1. Oswald as one of the assassins. This is where at least superficial plausibility is to be found.
2. Oswald as an innocent patsy. This requires so many ad hoc explanations, so many absurdities, that it is where the tinfoil hats are to be found.
-
You are forced to adopt the complete fantasy that the FBI had been closely monitoring him - but again, be my guest.
Mr. HOSTY. Yes; that is my recollection that we looked it [where Oswald was working] up in her telephone book to show it at 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Tex.
Are you saying the FBI"s stated full knowledge that Oswald had a custom made snipers nest directly above the President's motorcade as a fringe benefit of his daily employed presence at the school Book depository was found out by "fantasy" ?
By the way what did the FBI do when they discovered that Oswald who by their own admission was under investigation as being a Russian asset & also who they knew had a criminal conviction record for illegal firearms, and violent assault, would be viewing the presidents motorcade from his workplace on the 6th floor of the book depository where he could literally spit on the president , when the President's Secret Service Advance Team came calling wanting to know the local threats .
I'll bet the FBI could not wait to warn the Secret Service advance Team that based on the current criminal investigation of Oswald being a Russian asset , as well as his violent criminal history of assault , and illegal firearms that the motorcade should stay away from his perfect snipers nest in the book depository ?
Right ?
That is a YES or a NO by the way ?
"April 11, 1958 Court-Martial: Partly Printed Document. Two two-sided pages, 8" x 12.5", Atsugi Japan, April 11, 1958. Being the "Charge Sheet" which contains Oswald's typed information as the accused, as well as names of witnesses, information provided by commanding officers, Oswald's punishment, and other remarks. On October 27, 1957, Oswald accidentally shot himself in the left elbow with his personal .22 derringer. Possession of such a firearm was in direct violation of "a lawful general order... by having in his possession a privately-owned weapon that was not registered." Following a three-week stay at the Yokosuka Naval Hospital and various unrelated delays, Oswald's court-martial commenced on April 11, 1958, at which time Commanding Officer and Convening Authority Lt. Col. N.D. Glenn made his judgment. Oswald was demoted from private first class to private and ordered "To be confined at hard labor for 20 days, to forfeit $25.00 per month for two months and to be reduced to the grade of private... Approved and ordered executed, but the confinement at hard labor for twenty days is suspended for six months, at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the sentence to confinement at hard labor for twenty days will be remitted without further action."
June 24, 1958 Court-Martial: Partly Printed Document Signed. Two two-sided pages, 8" x 12.5", Atsugi Japan, June 24, 1958. This "Charge Sheet" contains Oswald's typed information as the accused, the names of witnesses, information provided by commanding officers, Oswald's punishment, and other remarks. Just two months after his first court-martial, Oswald was brought before a second military court on charges that he insulted and assaulted a superior officer."
-
Mr. HOSTY. Yes; that is my recollection that we looked it [where Oswald was working] up in her telephone book to show it at 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Tex.
Are you saying the FBI"s stated full knowledge that Oswald had a custom made snipers nest directly above the President's motorcade as a fringe benefit of his daily employed presence at the school Book depository was found out by "fantasy" ?
By the way what did the FBI do when they discovered that Oswald who by their own admission was under investigation as being a Russian asset & also who they knew had a criminal conviction record for illegal firearms, and violent assault, would be viewing the presidents motorcade from his workplace on the 6th floor of the book depository where he could literally spit on the president , when the President's Secret Service Advance Team came calling wanting to know the local threats .
I'll bet the FBI could not wait to warn the Secret Service advance Team that based on the current criminal investigation of Oswald being a Russian asset , as well as his violent criminal history of assault , and illegal firearms that the motorcade should stay away from his perfect snipers nest in the book depository ?
Right ?
That is a YES or a NO by the way ?
"April 11, 1958 Court-Martial: Partly Printed Document. Two two-sided pages, 8" x 12.5", Atsugi Japan, April 11, 1958. Being the "Charge Sheet" which contains Oswald's typed information as the accused, as well as names of witnesses, information provided by commanding officers, Oswald's punishment, and other remarks. On October 27, 1957, Oswald accidentally shot himself in the left elbow with his personal .22 derringer. Possession of such a firearm was in direct violation of "a lawful general order... by having in his possession a privately-owned weapon that was not registered." Following a three-week stay at the Yokosuka Naval Hospital and various unrelated delays, Oswald's court-martial commenced on April 11, 1958, at which time Commanding Officer and Convening Authority Lt. Col. N.D. Glenn made his judgment. Oswald was demoted from private first class to private and ordered "To be confined at hard labor for 20 days, to forfeit $25.00 per month for two months and to be reduced to the grade of private... Approved and ordered executed, but the confinement at hard labor for twenty days is suspended for six months, at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the sentence to confinement at hard labor for twenty days will be remitted without further action."
June 24, 1958 Court-Martial: Partly Printed Document Signed. Two two-sided pages, 8" x 12.5", Atsugi Japan, June 24, 1958. This "Charge Sheet" contains Oswald's typed information as the accused, the names of witnesses, information provided by commanding officers, Oswald's punishment, and other remarks. Just two months after his first court-martial, Oswald was brought before a second military court on charges that he insulted and assaulted a superior officer."
I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.
1. An 18-year-old kid manages to shoot himself in the elbow at his locker in the barracks with a .22 Derringer that he possesses in contravention of military regulations. The discharge occurs while he is reaching into his locker for shaving cream. He is charged with "wrongful conduct" but not charged with the more serious "misconduct' because it's a minor incident.
2. The same kid, while drunk, accidentally (that was the court finding) spills a drink on a Technical Sergeant, who then shoves him, and the two end up in a minor altercation outside. He is convicted of only one of the charges against him - "using provocative words."
3. For 3+ years in the USSR and U.S., the individual's only brush with the law is for disturbing the peace in violation of a New Orleans municipal ordinance, for which he is fined $10.
4. He was not "under investigation for being a Russian asset." As a former defector with a Russian wife who openly engaged in pro-Castro activities, he was of routine interest to the FBI with no indication he was dangerous or a Russian asset.
5. At the time of the JFKA, he was working as a temporary order filler in a grungy warehouse with some 95 other people, most of whom were employees of well-known publishing companies. He did not have a "workplace on the 6th floor" - it was simply one of the floors from which he filled book orders. There was no "sniper's test" until the day of the JFKA. Every window in every building along the motorcade route was a potential sniper's nest (not to mention all the other locations from which CTers think shots were fired!).
Yet you portray him as someone the FBI should have recognized as John Wilkes Booth, Jr. The fact is, the security for the motorcade was remarkably lax and any number of other gunmen could have popped JFK from any number of other buildings (or storm drains, or picket fences, or triple overpasses, or curbside umbrellas).
Yes, in retrospect it was a massive security failure, both in terms of the motorcade and the failure to at least bring Oswald to the attention of the SS. But you are doing the sort of long-after-the-fact, ad hoc "analysis" that is the lifeblood of conspiracy thinking. The day before the JFKA, Oswald was nothing more than an oddball the SS should probably at least have known about (along with God knows how many others in proximity to the motorcade). With CT 20-20 hindsight, however, he was "obviously" the most dangerous guy in Dallas and should have been chained and shackled a week in advance.
I still don't understand what point you're making. If you think Oswald was such an obvious, known threat to the CIA and FBI that their malfeasance was even greater than the rest of us think it was - well, OK, but so what? Since you interjected this line of thought into the "patsy" thread, I assume it's your position that Oswald was innocent and the FBI not only intentionally failed to alert the SS to his presence in the TSBD but somehow conspired with the real assassins to ensure he would be arrested - is that it? Maybe others are following your point, but I'm not.
-
I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.
1. An 18-year-old kid manages to shoot himself in the elbow at his locker in the barracks with a .22 Derringer that he possesses in contravention of military regulations. The discharge occurs while he is reaching into his locker for shaving cream. He is charged with "wrongful conduct" but not charged with the more serious "misconduct' because it's a minor incident.
2. The same kid, while drunk, accidentally (that was the court finding) spills a drink on a Technical Sergeant, who then shoves him, and the two end up in a minor altercation outside. He is convicted of only one of the charges against him - "using provocative words."
3. For 3+ years in the USSR and U.S., the individual's only brush with the law is for disturbing the peace in violation of a New Orleans municipal ordinance, for which he is fined $10.
4. He was not "under investigation for being a Russian asset." As a former defector with a Russian wife who openly engaged in pro-Castro activities, he was of routine interest to the FBI with no indication he was dangerous or a Russian asset.
5. At the time of the JFKA, he was working as a temporary order filler in a grungy warehouse with some 95 other people, most of whom were employees of well-known publishing companies. He did not have a "workplace on the 6th floor" - it was simply one of the floors from which he filled book orders. There was no "sniper's test" until the day of the JFKA. Every window in every building along the motorcade route was a potential sniper's nest (not to mention all the other locations from which CTers think shots were fired!).
Yet you portray him as someone the FBI should have recognized as John Wilkes Booth, Jr. The fact is, the security for the motorcade was remarkably lax and any number of other gunmen could have popped JFK from any number of other buildings (or storm drains, or picket fences, or triple overpasses, or curbside umbrellas).
Yes, in retrospect it was a massive security failure, both in terms of the motorcade and the failure to at least bring Oswald to the attention of the SS. But you are doing the sort of long-after-the-fact, ad hoc "analysis" that is the lifeblood of conspiracy thinking. The day before the JFKA, Oswald was nothing more than an oddball the SS should probably at least have known about (along with God knows how many others in proximity to the motorcade). With CT 20-20 hindsight, however, he was "obviously" the most dangerous guy in Dallas and should have been chained and shackled a week in advance.
I still don't understand what point you're making. If you think Oswald was such an obvious, known threat to the CIA and FBI that their malfeasance was even greater than the rest of us think it was - well, OK, but so what? Since you interjected this line of thought into the "patsy" thread, I assume it's your position that Oswald was innocent and the FBI not only intentionally failed to alert the SS to his presence in the TSBD but somehow conspired with the real assassins to ensure he would be arrested - is that it? Maybe others are following your point, but I'm not.
Going from memory, here, but didn't the FBI accuse the CIA of not informing it that Oswald had allegedly been in contact with a putative Department-13 (assassinations and sabotage) KGB officer in Mexico City about seven weeks before the assassination?
-
You're going all ad hoc on us again. Why would he have immediately connected "the assassination" to "the plan" (to do what - toss water balloons out the window? wave protest signs?)?
"The plan" could have been anything and not necessarily somehing that was destined to happen that day.
Why would he have hopped a bus, changed to a taxi, had Whaley drop him off past the rooming house, yada yada yada?
The bus got jammed in traffic. If he'd been spooked by what was going on, he might have realised that he now had to be careful.
If one thought one were involved in some non-lethal plan and had actually done nothing, would not the rational response in the face of a Presidential assassination be to remain in place and be fully cooperative?
If he'd been involved in something that already amounted to treason, he would still be on his guard. We don't know what he said to his interrogators behind closed doors.
If he was a patsy in what he thought was a non-lethal plan that turned lethal - that is, an innocent person caught up in something larger - then here is the opportunity (among others) to expose it.
To the world press? I think if he had something to say, he'd have kept it, like I said, behind closed doors.
I'd still like to know how an innocent Oswald comes out of the building and immediately figures out what happened.
Er, people running around saying that the President had been shot?
Any explanation that has Oswald as some sort of innocent person - fully or in part - has to simply make things up, grab explanations out of thin air. It's the only way they work.
Not at all. There are many possibilities. His behaviour doesn't necessarily scream "assassin".
-
A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”
Does it?
Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."
Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.
But Oswald's statement could mean he realized that he had been set up and that his phony defection was now being used against him. Given all that we now know about his "defection," that is a logical, plausible reading of his comment.
Keep in mind, too, Oswald's statement to his brother not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and his statement to the police that the backyard rifle photos had been created by someone who placed the image of his onto the backyard figure.
Also, when Oswald was arrested, he repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.
And, when he was arraigned before the judge and learned he was a suspect in JFK's death, he reacted with stunned, angry disbelief.
Finally, voice-stress analysis of his statement to reports that he didn't shoot anyone indicates he was telling the truth.
-
But Oswald's statement could mean he realized that he had been set up and that his phony defection was now being used against him. Given all that we now know about his "defection," that is a logical, plausible reading of his comment.
Keep in mind, too, Oswald's statement to his brother not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and his statement to the police that the backyard rifle photos had been created by someone who placed the image of his onto the backyard figure.
Also, when Oswald was arrested, he repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.
And, when he was arraigned before the judge and learned he was a suspect in JFK's death, he reacted with stunned, angry disbelief.
Finally, voice-stress analysis of his statement to reports that he didn't shoot anyone indicates he was telling the truth.
Ah, bonus points for creativity! So, the two parts of his statement were unrelated: (1) The DPD has arrested me only because I lived in Russia and, oh, by the way (2) I'm just a patsy in certain crimes apparently committed in Dallas on this day.
I will grant that Oswald played his role to an impressive hilt. I am fascinated by his demeanor in the lunchroom, his demeanor with Mrs. Reid, his demeanor during interrogation (which astonished the hardboiled Fritz), his demeanor with Marina, his statement to Robert, and his seemingly preposterous lies. One approach is to take it all at face value - he was indeed an innocent patsy. This is, however, inconsistent with his life history and what certainly seem to me to be irrefutable facts. Hence, I live with my fascination and the belief that he was intelligent and crafty enough to hope he might actually avoid conviction or, at a minimum, establish himself at trial as a deep Marxist thinker worthy of a place in history. Admitting anything wasn't going to further his cause, that's for sure - but still, the role he played is fascinating. His supposed "panic" upon leaving the TSBD, his shooting of Tippit and his actions in the Texas Theater all seem inconsistent with the rest of the role he played, which makes it even more fascinating.
-
Ah, bonus points for creativity! So, the two parts of his statement were unrelated: (1) The DPD has arrested me only because I lived in Russia and, oh, by the way (2) I'm just a patsy in certain crimes apparently committed in Dallas on this day.
I will grant that Oswald played his role to an impressive hilt. I am fascinated by his demeanor in the lunchroom, his demeanor with Mrs. Reid, his demeanor during interrogation (which astonished the hardboiled Fritz), his demeanor with Marina, his statement to Robert, and his seemingly preposterous lies. One approach is to take it all at face value - he was indeed an innocent patsy. This is, however, inconsistent with his life history and what certainly seem to me to be irrefutable facts. Hence, I live with my fascination and the belief that he was intelligent and crafty enough to hope he might actually avoid conviction or, at a minimum, establish himself at trial as a deep Marxist thinker worthy of a place in history. Admitting anything wasn't going to further his cause, that's for sure - but still, the role he played is fascinating. His supposed "panic" upon leaving the TSBD, his shooting of Tippit and his actions in the Texas Theater all seem inconsistent with the rest of the role he played, which makes it even more fascinating.
I was thinking last night about the discrepancy between what Oswald wrote in his Historic Diary regarding his suicide attempt, and what "Boskin Hospital" wrote about it, i.e., Oswald wrote that he cut both wrists, but the KGB I mean the hospital wrote in its records that he sliced just one.
Hmm.
I suppose that if the KGB wanted to train or program the former sharpshooting Marine, it would also want to make it look as though they had no interest in him because he was so gosh darned "unstable," and the only reason they let him stay (half-a-mile from a KGB school in Minsk) was because the mother-in-law of KGB officer Igor Kochnov (aka Kittyhawk / Kitty Hawk; look him up), Yekaterina Furtseva (look her up), intervened and . . . gasp . . . "countermanded the order of (false defector) Yuri Nosenko (LHO's case officer -- how lucky for the CIA and the FBI that he defected to us!!!) that he be kicked out of the country, and even dictated that the KGB NOT try to recruit him!!!"
Since the autopsy people in Dallas found a (shallow?) scar on both of his wrists, my theory-in-progress is that the Ruskies gave him an anesthetic and sliced both of his wrists but sewed them up right away so they could later claim, "He's so crazy, he even tried to kill himself!!! Look at those scars and read our I mean Boskin Hospital's report!!!"
-
But Oswald's statement could mean he realized that he had been set up and that his phony defection was now being used against him. Given all that we now know about his "defection," that is a logical, plausible reading of his comment.
Keep in mind, too, Oswald's statement to his brother not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and his statement to the police that the backyard rifle photos had been created by someone who placed the image of his onto the backyard figure.
Also, when Oswald was arrested, he repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.
And, when he was arraigned before the judge and learned he was a suspect in JFK's death, he reacted with stunned, angry disbelief.
Finally, voice-stress analysis of his statement to reports that he didn't shoot anyone indicates he was telling the truth.
But Oswald's statement could mean he realized that he had been set up and that his phony defection was now being used against him. Given all that we now know about his "defection," that is a logical, plausible reading of his comment.
A "phony defection" that resulted in taking a wife, producing children and a lifelong commitment is a lot of extra baggage for a secret mission?!
and his statement to the police that the backyard rifle photos had been created by someone who placed the image of his onto the backyard figure.
A negative exists which was exclusively taken with Oswald's camera.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2t20B41/CE-749-backyard-negative.jpg)
On prints CE 133A/B were fine scratches indicating that they were first generation prints because 2nd generation prints would not have the same definition. Indicating that they came direct from the original negative and thus could not be a composite.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw3pFD9x/Oswald-backyard-photo-2.jpg)
The grain structure of the negative shows a consistent distribution of film grain across the entire photo therefore it shows no sign of being a composite because this merging would require a photo of Oswald's head to be taken with the exact same type of film, the same camera and from the exact same distance as the original. And then there is the problem of matching the overhead lighting which would require dragging Oswald out into a sunlit day and position him at the same angle and at the same time. And anyway this would all be for nought because by definition at the very least a composite requires a doubling up of film and this additional film grain would stick out like a LNer at a Kook convention.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxHftLN0/Backyard-photo-grain-structure.jpg)
These two screen grabs from an sfx movie perfectly illustrate the problems with compositing, the first image is virtually straight from the camera whereas the second required additional compositing with an optical printer and the end result is an accumulation of film grain which blurs the image and shows excessive film grain. And for this reason alone, is proof for why the Zapruder film has not been altered because the film grain is entirely consistent with the original Kodak film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCK3zbRz/blackhole-26-e1590384255935.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvTN8hKr/the-black-hole-crew.jpg)
Here's an interesting comparison between the DP backyard cut-out photo and Oswald's backyard photo and the bush to Oswald's left has shown considerable growth meaning that the cut-out photo wasn't a template for the backyard photos. And this is proof that the Oswald photo was taken many months before, so either the backyard photos were some type of long term plan or someone had the psychic ability to take a photo of Oswald's backyard in anticipation of Oswald being a patsy or simply Oswald just took the photo for the heck of it, as he was preparing and gathering intel to assassinate General Walker, an event that occurred just after Oswald received his rifle. Geez what a coincidence!
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnvgZNZX/oswald-backyard-bush-grow.gif)
Another point of contention is Oswald's square chin in the backyard photos but this is simply the way his face is lit and the resulting shadow. Hollywood has known for years the way to light a face that emphasizes a strong jawline. Also notice the heavy shadows under the eyebrows.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzkB84ZL/chin-oswald-backyard-arrest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQxW1Xs2/Oswald-vs-Arnold.jpg)
And finally and extremely incriminating it's too bad Oswald denied living at Neely Street, you know the location of the backyard photos. Doh!
Mr. BALL. What about the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he said they were just wrong about visiting.
Also, when Oswald was arrested, he repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.
How many criminals come right out and claim they did the deed? If only it was that easy.
And, when he was arraigned before the judge and learned he was a suspect in JFK's death, he reacted with stunned, angry disbelief.
It looks like Oswald was just disappointed that his time being the centre of attention was being dramatically cut short, as the Police interrupted Oswald by dragging him away.
Finally, voice-stress analysis of his statement to reports that he didn't shoot anyone indicates he was telling the truth.
VSA is a pseudoscientific technology that aims to infer deception from stress measured in the voice. It's amazing that you believe this to be evidence??
Ruby wanted to take a lie detector test and Oswald flat out refused. Lie detector tests at the time were probably no more effective than VSA, but the criminals didn't know and Oswald's refusal speaks volumes(pun intended).
Without exception, however, the scientific evidence reported to date shows that voice stress analyzers are not effective in detecting deception; none of these devices has yet been shown to yield detection rates above chance levels in controlled situations.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7047675/
JohnM
-
But Oswald's statement could mean he realized that he had been set up and that his phony defection was now being used against him. Given all that we now know about his "defection," that is a logical, plausible reading of his comment.
Keep in mind, too, Oswald's statement to his brother not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and his statement to the police that the backyard rifle photos had been created by someone who placed the image of his onto the backyard figure.
Also, when Oswald was arrested, he repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.
And, when he was arraigned before the judge and learned he was a suspect in JFK's death, he reacted with stunned, angry disbelief.
Finally, voice-stress analysis of his statement to reports that he didn't shoot anyone indicates he was telling the truth.
You've said here before that you fully believe Jim Garrison's allegations that Oswald conspired with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie to assassinate JFK and then proceeded with the help of the CIA to do so. And that, as Garrison stated in court, Oswald brought the rifle that was used in the act.
Now you are saying he was innocent, a "patsy", a person who had nothing to do with the assassination?
You also said you believe the John Newman claims that the Pentagon *not* the CIA assassinated JFK. But here you believe the Garrison allegations that it was the CIA.
Frankly, I think you need to figure out what you are thinking before you go about explaining what Oswald was thinking.