JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on May 01, 2026, 11:10:04 AM
-
Are there any JFKA "researchers" here who started out as Lone Nutters but who are now Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy Theorists?
How about the other way around?
Don't be shy.
-
I started as an LN, became a CT in the 1980s for a few years, then became an LN again sometime in the late 1980s
-
TG--
Started neutral, but based on some on-the-ground facts regarding the physical JFKA, moved into CT camp.
Never bought into extravagant left-wing-Islamo-fascist-KGB narratives regarding JFKA.
James Woolsey's book is informative, but not conclusive.
My guess is small clique involved, likely freelancers with connections to G2, or possibly Alpha 66, although G2'ers had penetrated Alpha 66.
Maybe three people involved in JFKA.
-
I started as an objective student in High School, who wrote in a paper for history class that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a man named Oswald. I had no opinion on it whatsoever, but assumed it to be true as it was given as a fact in the few books on JFK we had in our school library. But I guess it qualifies me as a LN at that time.
That changed when I had to review a (bad) book on JFK at University and found out there were a lot of questions about the validity of the conclusions of the official Report. It stimulated me to read more on the assassination, focusing on books written by critics/conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately I found out that many of their claims are not based on a correct interpretation of the evidence, to phrase it politely.
Now I consider myself to be a Warren Commission critic and support the HSCA conclusion of a 'probable conspiracy.' I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement, but try to keep an open mind. Like Mr. Cole above, I believe that a relatively small, but powerful and well-funded group was behind the assassination.
-
I started as an objective student in High School, who wrote in a paper for history class that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a man named Oswald. I had no opinion on it whatsoever, but assumed it to be true as it was given as a fact in the few books on JFK we had in our school library. But I guess it qualifies me as a LN at that time.
That changed when I had to review a (bad) book on JFK at University and found out there were a lot of questions about the validity of the conclusions of the official Report. It stimulated me to read more on the assassination, focusing on books written by critics/conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately I found out that many of their claims are not based on a correct interpretation of the evidence, to phrase it politely.
Now I consider myself to be a Warren Commission critic and support the HSCA conclusion of a 'probable conspiracy.' I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement, but try to keep an open mind. Like Mr. Cole above, I believe that a relatively small, but powerful and well-funded group was behind the assassination.
Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History addresses every criticism leveled at the WCR (at least the ones invented up to the time his book was published)_ He does a thorough job of demolishing every one of them. There are two absolute truths of the JFKA. One is the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The other is there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice in the crime. Since CTs have no evidence, their only avenue to establishing a conspiracy is to tear down the findings of the WC rather than present any positive evidence there was a conspiracy. If people applied as much skepticism to criticisms of the WCR as they do to the WCR, there would be a lot fewer CTs.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to believe the WCR, nothing is going to stop them.
-
[...] I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement [...]
I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?
-
I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?
The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The only reason for believing Oswald could be innocent is a desire to believe there was a conspiracy and since there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, negating the findings of the WCR is the only path to that conclusion. Hardcore Oswald-deniers will come up with any cockamamie excuse they can think of to dismiss each and every piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. Vincent Bugliosi has identified over 50 such pieces of evidence. It becomes a rather silly exercise when one has to invent so many excuses to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Conspiracy believers could argue for conspiracy with Oswald as the shooter. Such a scenario is theoretically possible. If Oswald had even a single accomplice, say a getaway driver who got cold feet and bailed on him at the last minute, you would still have a conspiracy. The evidence under that scenario would look exactly the same as it does with Oswald as a lone gunman, but since there is no evidence of such an accomplice or any other accomplices, there really isn't much reason to believe there was a conspiracy at all.
The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence. Such people have allowed themselves to be duped into believing things such as the impossibility of the SBT or a second shooter on the GK. If they had a thorough knowledge of the evidence, they would know the evidence doesn't support either of those beliefs. Some really smart people fall into that trap. Bill Maher is one such person. I disagree with him about 75% of the time on political issues but I am still a fan because I find him both funny and smart. It seems obvious to me he was taken in by Oliver Stone's bogus courtroom reconstruction of the SBT, bogusly claiming the SBT was impossible. Either that or he got it from a conspiracy book that has made much the same invalid arguments.
-
Joffrey van de Wiel:
I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.
My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.
They got lucky on the motorcade route.
How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.
The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.
-
The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt.
<Br><BR>
The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence.
Spoken like a true narrow minded and condescending LN. There are many researchers that have "educated themselves" and have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt. I have "educated myself" enough to conclude that LHO never fired a shot on November 22, 1963. And I didn't need the "myriad conpiracy books" (sic) or Oliver Stone's JFK to do so. There is plenty of evidence that proves as much. However, it could never be accepted by the LN that soley relies on their own "Textus Receptus" (i.e. the WC) or Bugliosi's thinly argued 53 points of which all have been argued against throughout this forum (at least it was prior to the forum reset).
-
Joffrey van de Wiel:
I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.
Who would want to fund a non-existent conspiracy?
My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.
That had to be a guess because there's no evidence of that.
They got lucky on the motorcade route.
How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.
How much planning would it take for one guy to stick a rifle out a window and shoot another guy a short distance away?
The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.
More speculation with zero supporting evidence.
That's the great thing about imagination. You can dream up anything you like and no evidence is required. It is so limiting when you stick with what there is actually evidence to support.
-
Spoken like a true narrow minded and condescending LN.
The time for being open minded about Oswald's innocence expired a long time ago. He was the assassin as the evidence clearly proves.
There are many researchers that have "educated themselves" and have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt.
My experience has been those are people who are really, really bad at weighing evidence.
I have "educated myself" enough to conclude that LHO never fired a shot on November 22, 1963.
Case in point.
And I didn't need the "myriad conpiracy books" (sic) or Oliver Stone's JFK to do so. There is plenty of evidence that proves as much.
Such as?
However, it could never be accepted by the LN that soley relies on their own "Textus Receptus" (i.e. the WC) or Bugliosi's thinly argued 53 points of which all have been argued against throughout this forum (at least it was prior to the forum reset).
The WC got it right from the start. It has made far more sense than any conspiracy book I've read or all the arguments I've read online over the past 35 years combined. Bugliosi's book was an affirmation of the WCR, swatting down all the silly alternative theories that had been made up to that point.
-
Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History addresses every criticism leveled at the WCR (at least the ones invented up to the time his book was published)_ He does a thorough job of demolishing every one of them. There are two absolute truths of the JFKA. One is the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The other is there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice in the crime. Since CTs have no evidence, their only avenue to establishing a conspiracy is to tear down the findings of the WC rather than present any positive evidence there was a conspiracy. If people applied as much skepticism to criticisms of the WCR as they do to the WCR, there would be a lot fewer CTs.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to believe the WCR, nothing is going to stop them.
The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books.
The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.
Take for instance Oswald's supposed motive. If I remember correctly, the Warren Commission stated that Oswald resented all authority and wanted to make a name for himself and go down in history like John Wilkes Booth. I am unfamiliar with any evidence that proves this supposition.
Wouldn't it be odd for an individual who disliked authority to try to gain entry into the USSR via Cuba, where the authority of the government(s) is a major element of the organization of the state and part of everyday life of the citizens?
Another issue that puzzles me is the fact that Oswald himself, during his interrogation, and his acquaintances told the law enforcement officials that he liked President Kennedy. The various (would-be) assassins that tried to kill President Trump have not, to my knowledge, made similar statements - the same goes for the creepy weirdo who shot Charlie Kirk.
An angle that was explored in a documentary on the Discovery Channel was the 'Cuban connection.' This story first popped up out of Mexico City right after the assassination. A red-headed Negro supposedly handed Oswald $6000 to eliminate the President. I think the evidence for this is flimsy if non-existent, but the Discovery Channel reinvigorated the story, albeit based on different 'evidence.'
-
The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books. \
It seems like a binary choice to me. Either a lone gunman killed JFK or there was a conspiracy. If one believes the latter, I think that makes him a conspiracy theorist, i.e. a CT. I've always thought the term LN was a misnomer because I don't think legally Oswald qualified as a lone nut but since the term has been around so long, no point in confusing things by changing it now.
The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.
There's an adage that says never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. I just discovered there is actually a name for that called Hanlon's Razor. The DPD failed to secure the garage which allowed Ruby to enter with his handgun. Oswald was originally supposed to be transferred by armored car but when it tried to back down the ramp into the garage but it discovered it was too tall to fit. To help the armored car leave the ramp, the cop who was supposed to be guarding the ramp stepped away to hold up traffic and by happenstance, that's when Jack Ruby arrived and he just walked down the unguarded ramp. I don't think Ruby had any prior intention of killing Oswald. I think when he saw Oswald's face, he became enraged and shot Oswald out of anger. Admittedly, that's speculation but it certainly fits with Ruby's movements that morning. Had he intended to kill Oswald, I think he would have gotten there earlier.
Take for instance Oswald's supposed motive. If I remember correctly, the Warren Commission stated that Oswald resented all authority and wanted to make a name for himself and go down in history like John Wilkes Booth. I am unfamiliar with any evidence that proves this supposition.
Wouldn't it be odd for an individual who disliked authority to try to gain entry into the USSR via Cuba, where the authority of the government(s) is a major element of the organization of the state and part of everyday life of the citizens?
Determining Oswald's motive is pure speculation, even by the WC. Nobody knows for sure why Oswald did what he did nor do we need to know why to know that he did it. There's plenty of evidence for that. Whatever Oswald's motive was, he took it to his grave.
Another issue that puzzles me is the fact that Oswald himself, during his interrogation, and his acquaintances told the law enforcement officials that he liked President Kennedy. The various (would-be) assassins that tried to kill President Trump have not, to my knowledge, made similar statements - the same goes for the creepy weirdo who shot Charlie Kirk.
Mark Chapman got John Lennon's autograph hours before he shot him dead. We make a mistake when we expect irrational people to act rationally. If we did know why Oswald killed JFK, it probably wouldn't make sense to us. I said earlier that I didn't think Oswald was legally insane, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a loose screw somewhere inside his head.
An angle that was explored in a documentary on the Discovery Channel was the 'Cuban connection.' This story first popped up out of Mexico City right after the assassination. A red-headed Negro supposedly handed Oswald $6000 to eliminate the President. I think the evidence for this is flimsy if non-existent, but the Discovery Channel reinvigorated the story, albeit based on different 'evidence.'
The problem I have with these stories trying to connect Oswald's Mexico City trip to the assassination is that at the time, nobody could have foreseen months later that Oswald would end up working in a building overlooking the motorcade route. Not even Oswald would have known that. That's a problem for all conspiracy theories, whether one believes Oswald was an active participant or simply a patsy.
Oswald got his job at the TSBD 6 weeks before the assassination. That was before the motorcade route had been determined or that there would even be a motorcade. Originally, the Texas trip was only going to be a one day affair and John Connally was against having a motorcade because he didn't think they had time for one. It was only after the White House agreed to make it a two day trip that JBC dropped his objection to the motorcade. He was put in charge of planning the details including the site for the luncheon. It was the choice of the Trade Mart that dictated the motorcade would drive past the TSBD. The motorcade would have gone down Main Street in downtown Dallas no matter which site was selected but had one of the other sites under consideration been selected, the motorcade would have gone through down Main Street in the opposite direction and would not have driven in front of the TSBD. It was pure happenstance that the motorcade went right by Oswald's workplace and for Oswald, it became a crime of opportunity.
-
The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books.
The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.--JVDW
---30--
Verily.
Stand your ground. Ignore the contentious types who soon move to ridicule or make derogatory comments in JFKA discussions (LN'ers and CT'ers).
You are entitled to your observations. Indeed, there is room for reasonable doubt regarding official and various CT accounts of the JFKA. And yes, some CT versions are real laughers, or inspired by ideology or ethnic biases.
My read on the Z-film is that Gov. JBC was struck ~Z-295, which is less than one second from the strike on JFK at Z-313.
Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)[/b][/i]
The above happens ~Z-295.
There is the additional curiosity of the entry wound on the dorsal (wristwatch) side on JBC's right wrist---from a bullet that first passed through JBC's chest? His surgeon, Dr. Shaw, thought that was inexplicable. Try touching the face of a wristwatch to your chest. I advise all readers herein to do this.
Then...we see JBC holding his Stetson hat at Z-272, in his right hand. The WC says he had been shot though the right wrist by a large tumbling slug (the Western Cartridge slug is 1 1/4 inches long)---but that JBC maintained his grip on the hat even after being shot through the wrist.
I have reasonable doubts about the above scenario. How can anyone not have doubts?
The WC version also contends, after being shot through the chest, JBC did a 180-degree-turn in his seat to look for JFK.
I have reasonable doubts about that too.
In short, there are grounds to suspect two gunsels in the JFKA, given that it appears one gunsel (likely LHO) was armed with the M-C.
-
The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books.
The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.--JVDW
---30--
Verily.
Stand your ground. Ignore the contentious types who soon move to ridicule or make derogatory comments in JFKA discussions (LN'ers and CT'ers).
You are entitled to your observations. Indeed, there is room for reasonable doubt regarding official and various CT accounts of the JFKA. And yes, some CT versions are real laughers, or inspired by ideology or ethnic biases.
My read on the Z-film is that Gov. JBC was struck ~Z-295, which is less than one second from the strike on JFK at Z-313.
Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)[/b][/i]
The above happens ~Z-295.
There is the additional curiosity of the entry wound on the dorsal (wristwatch) side on JBC's right wrist---from a bullet that first passed through JBC's chest? His surgeon, Dr. Shaw, thought that was inexplicable. Try touching the face of a wristwatch to your chest. I advise all readers herein to do this.
Then...we see JBC holding his Stetson hat at Z-272, in his right hand. The WC says he had been shot though the right wrist by a large tumbling slug (the Western Cartridge slug is 1 1/4 inches long)---but that JBC maintained his grip on the hat even after being shot through the wrist.
I have reasonable doubts about the above scenario. How can anyone not have doubts?
The WC version also contends, after being shot through the chest, JBC did a 180-degree-turn in his seat to look for JFK.
I have reasonable doubts about that too.
In short, there are grounds to suspect two gunsels in the JFKA, given that it appears one gunsel (likely LHO) was armed with the M-C.
Do you believe three shots were fired from the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor?
-
The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books.
The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.--JVDW
---30--
Verily.
Stand your ground. Ignore the contentious types who soon move to ridicule or make derogatory comments in JFKA discussions (LN'ers and CT'ers).
You are entitled to your observations. Indeed, there is room for reasonable doubt regarding official and various CT accounts of the JFKA. And yes, some CT versions are real laughers, or inspired by ideology or ethnic biases.
My read on the Z-film is that Gov. JBC was struck ~Z-295, which is less than one second from the strike on JFK at Z-313.
That's a really, really bad read.
Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)[/b][/b][/i]
The above happens ~Z-295.
It happened long before Z295. What do you think caused all the gyrations JBC was going through between Z225 and Z295?
There is the additional curiosity of the entry wound on the dorsal (wristwatch) side on JBC's right wrist---from a bullet that first passed through JBC's chest? His surgeon, Dr. Shaw, thought that was inexplicable. Try touching the face of a wristwatch to your chest. I advise all readers herein to do this.
Shaw was not a forensic medical examiner. Why would you expect him to figure that out?
Then...we see JBC holding his Stetson hat at Z-272, in his right hand. The WC says he had been shot though the right wrist by a large tumbling slug (the Western Cartridge slug is 1 1/4 inches long)---but that JBC maintained his grip on the hat even after being shot through the wrist.
He held onto his hat after Z295 too. How do you explain that?
I have reasonable doubts about the above scenario. How can anyone not have doubts?
The WC version also contends, after being shot through the chest, JBC did a 180-degree-turn in his seat to look for JFK.
Is there a specific way a person is supposed to act after being shot through the chest?
I have reasonable doubts about that too.
In short, there are grounds to suspect two gunsels in the JFKA, given that it appears one gunsel (likely LHO) was armed with the M-C.
One gunsel is supported by evidence. The other gunsel is supported by speculation and imagination.
-
Here's the MPI version of Z295 below. If you think JC was shot at this point (and only here), and in the back, from the TSBD, your thinking needs work. As in, "How did he end up in this position?"
Rest of the frames/film is here: https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox-frame-sets
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sitesv/AA5AbUA9F79l4TRSyJN_vqtUlc3no1Ju4XHJ1Uv9QFStHEKI5vHzB6k7GVNTSj0FWu5IhGk1cnCwAY2uJFB71ls2MwtAHSma7vwHG0cjfcrFQTl9QVjXFyPJ4HufVYJW0hTrS0tgeAjxAyXJIW7tvEBneHc3MjKtH1_eQEn0fUO3C06TLj48NN6Z6ImTt3Y=w1280)
-
Deleted.
-
Here's the MPI version of Z295 below. If you think JC was shot at this point (and only here), and in the back, from the TSBD, your thinking needs work. As in, "How did he end up in this position?"
Rest of the frames/film is here: https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox-frame-sets
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sitesv/AA5AbUA9F79l4TRSyJN_vqtUlc3no1Ju4XHJ1Uv9QFStHEKI5vHzB6k7GVNTSj0FWu5IhGk1cnCwAY2uJFB71ls2MwtAHSma7vwHG0cjfcrFQTl9QVjXFyPJ4HufVYJW0hTrS0tgeAjxAyXJIW7tvEBneHc3MjKtH1_eQEn0fUO3C06TLj48NN6Z6ImTt3Y=w1280)
I wonder if Jerry Organ is still around. He was one of the best on the photographic evidence.
-
I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?
Mark,
I think my doubts are reasonable, but unsure if they meet the legal threshold. Had I been on the jury in the Clay Shaw trial, I would have voted not guilty. I have not however read the Garrison book On the trail of the Assassins and base this verdict on the Oliver Stone movie JFK, which is entertaining but for a large part speculation and fantasy.
I had an interesting exchange with John Corbett regarding Oswald's motive, and perhaps you will be able to address the following topic, an issue which has, ever so slightly, been pushing me over to the conspiracy benches across the aisle.
Immediately after the shots and the quick departure of the Presidential limousine to Parkland Memorial Hospital a great many people, both civilians and law enforcement personnel, crossed to the north of Elm Street and entered the area behind the picket fence on the infamous grassy knoll, the parking lot and the section immediately to the west of the TSBD.
A number of these people met individuals who claimed to be agents of the US Secret Service. They showed badges. At least one of them was armed with an automatic weapon. Another (or the same) one had dirty hands and wasn't dressed as expected of a federal agent on duty. Secret Service agents, plural, were located behind the TSBD. They identified themselves as such to a DPD officer, if I remember all this correctly.
The record shows that no Secret Service agents remained at Dealey Plaza after the motorcade left. They followed the limousine to Parkland, others remained at Love Field and the Trade Mart. Any agent encountered by witnesses at the location of the assassination must therefore be an impostor. With my tinfoil hat on, I can understand that some might think that these men were in fact the assassins, or covering the retreat of them. Interesting that they were located both behind the fence and the TSBD.
What is your understanding of this episode? Am I reading too much in it?
-
LN's or CT's have nothing to do with the " Truth " .
-
LN's or CT's have nothing to do with the " Truth " .
Is there a third choice? Maybe JFK died from a self-inflicted wound.
-
Had I been on the jury in the Clay Shaw trial, I would have voted not guilty. I have not however read the Garrison book On the Trail of the Assassins and base this verdict on the Oliver Stone movie JFK, which is entertaining but for a large part speculation and fantasy.
Garrison lied in his 1988 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, when he said he didn't find out until after the 1969 trial that the (Communist-owned) Italian newspaper Paese Sera had published an article three days after he had arrested Clay Shaw in March 1967 (on suspicion of having masterminded a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK!), which Paese Sera article claimed that Shaw was an evil, evil CIA agent and that he had tried to help reinstate Fascism in Italy in the 1950s!
Factoid: Joan Mellen's ex-husband, far-left Ralph Schoenman (who was far-left Bertran Russell's secretary in London) had provided Garrison in 1967 with a translated-into-English knockoff version of the story that was published in the far-left French newspaper, L' Humanite.
Our very own Gary "Snideness" Aguilar debated Max Holland on this issue several years ago on C-Span and tried to destroy Holland's argument by pointing out that a far-left French newspaper had published an article on the 1961 "Generals' Plot" a day or two before Paese Sera had.
LOL!
https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/warren-report-the-garrison-investigation/136882
-
Garrison lied in his 1988 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, when he said he didn't find out until after the 1969 trial that the (Communist-owned) Italian newspaper Paese Sera had published an article three days after he had arrested Clay Shaw in March 1967 (on suspicion of having masterminded a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK!!!), which alleged that Shaw was a CIA agent and that he had tried to help it reinstate Fascism in Italy in the 1950s!!!
Well Tom, I am still going to read the book. I find it hard to believe that Garrison didn't uncover anything of value in his long investigation of Oswald in New Orleans. Also curious about the source for the question asked of Marina Oswald on the night of the 24th of November if I recall the date correctly: if her husband had known a David Ferry (sic).
Ferrie, Banister, Shaw, Dean Andrews, the Cubans, Sergio Arcacha Smith etc, it will be an interesting read.
-
Well Tom, I am still going to read the book. I find it hard to believe that Garrison didn't uncover anything of value in his long investigation of Oswald in New Orleans. Also curious about the source for the question asked of Marina Oswald on the night of the 24th of November if I recall the date correctly: if her husband had known a David Ferry (sic).
Ferrie, Banister, Shaw, Dean Andrews, the Cubans, Sergio Arcacha Smith etc, it will be an interesting read.
Fine, but you should balance it out by reading Patricia Lambert's book, "False Witness," which you can read for free by googling "false witness" "lambert" and "archive" simultaneously.
-
Are there any JFKA "researchers" here who started out as Lone Nutters but who are now Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy Theorists? How about the other way around? Don't be shy.
Your extreme bias and lack of objectivity never fail to manifest themselves in your posts.
For most of my adult life, I wholly accepted the WC's conclusions. I believed that Oswald was guilty and that he acted alone. I changed my mind in the 1990s after I began to read books on the assassination.
The only people wearing "tin-foil hats" are those who still ardently defend the WC's lone-gunman theory.
It is worth noting, again, that numerous surveys have shown that 2/3 to 3/4 of adults in the Western world reject the WC's lone-gunman theory.
It is also worth noting, again, that the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, i.e., the 1977-1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), rejected the WC's lone-gunman finding and concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy that involved two gunmen and that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll.
-
Your extreme bias and lack of objectivity never fail to manifest themselves in your posts.
For most of my adult life, I wholly accepted the WC's conclusions. I believed that Oswald was guilty and that he acted alone. I changed my mind in the 1990s after I began to read books on the assassination.
The only people wearing "tin-foil hats" are those who still ardently defend the WC's lone-gunman theory.
It is worth noting, again, that numerous surveys have shown that 2/3 to 3/4 of adults in the Western world reject the WC's lone-gunman theory.
It is also worth noting, again, that the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, i.e., the 1977-1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), rejected the WC's lone-gunman finding and concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy that involved two gunmen and that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll.
Fortunately, the truth is not subject to popular support. The HSCA's conclusion of a second gunman was FUBAR based on junk science that was never vetted of peer reviewed prior to its acceptance by the HSCA. It will be a cold day in hell before I let a committee of congressmen do my thinking for me.
-
Numerous surveys have shown that 2/3 to 3/4 of adults in the Western world reject the WC's lone-gunman theory.
Which is an indication of just how pervasive and influential KGB disinformation ops have been ever since it set up Department D in the First Chief Directorate (today's SVR) and Department 14 in the Second Chief Directorate in 1959 and started applying them to the JFK assassination literally on Day One (11/22/63) via Morris Childs (FBI's SOLO) in Moscow.
The KGB's "Master Plan" / "Master Plot" of getting us to defeat ourselves by waging disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations against the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies which began in 1959 (see above) really came to fruition after it planted an article in the Communist-owned Italian newspaper Paese Sera in March 1967 which motivated overly ambitious, scandal-plagued, and revengeful Jim Garrison to change his theory against Clay Shaw from "He masterminded the homosexual 'thrill kill' assassination of JFK!" to "He was a "highly paid contract agent" for the evil, evil CIA, and he organized the assassination for it!!!"
How many times have you watched the self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie, "JFK," by Garrison's hagiographer, Oliver Stone, now, Griffith?
-
The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The only reason for believing Oswald could be innocent is a desire to believe there was a conspiracy and since there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, negating the findings of the WCR is the only path to that conclusion. Hardcore Oswald-deniers will come up with any cockamamie excuse they can think of to dismiss each and every piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. Vincent Bugliosi has identified over 50 such pieces of evidence. It becomes a rather silly exercise when one has to invent so many excuses to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Conspiracy believers could argue for conspiracy with Oswald as the shooter. Such a scenario is theoretically possible. If Oswald had even a single accomplice, say a getaway driver who got cold feet and bailed on him at the last minute, you would still have a conspiracy. The evidence under that scenario would look exactly the same as it does with Oswald as a lone gunman, but since there is no evidence of such an accomplice or any other accomplices, there really isn't much reason to believe there was a conspiracy at all.
The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence. Such people have allowed themselves to be duped into believing things such as the impossibility of the SBT or a second shooter on the GK. If they had a thorough knowledge of the evidence, they would know the evidence doesn't support either of those beliefs. Some really smart people fall into that trap. Bill Maher is one such person. I disagree with him about 75% of the time on political issues but I am still a fan because I find him both funny and smart. It seems obvious to me he was taken in by Oliver Stone's bogus courtroom reconstruction of the SBT, bogusly claiming the SBT was impossible. Either that or he got it from a conspiracy book that has made much the same invalid arguments.
The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC.
This is what happens when a "reasonable and objective" researcher turns into a fanatically zealot. It's impossible to have a normal conversation with somebody like this. Kinda sad, really!
-
I was always kind of a free-floating CTer (i.e., no specific theory) because all I read was gee-whiz CT literature for decades. With deeper - much deeper - study, I gravitated to the LN position. After extensive study of Oswald, I will admit that I have a certain degree of sympathy or empathy for him; I really don't see him at all the way most LNers seem to do - more the "goofy mixed-up kid from a badly broken home" than the "murderous sociopath." I cannot explain his role in the JFKA in a way that is entirely satisfactory to me, based on all I know about him (which I think is about as much as can be known). It almost seems that there HAS to be more to the story than the LN narrative provides; the LN narrative could well be correct in its bottom-line conclusion, but my sense is that "something is missing." Many hardcore LNers seem to me to try too hard to insist there are no mysteries and nothing to talk about. As far as CT theories go, the one that makes by far the most sense to me is the Mafia. Not the Mafia++++, but just the Mafia or even a single Mafioso like Marcello. The Mafia had an incredibly strong, multi-faceted motive, the JFKA would have been little more than business as usual for them, and Oswald would have been an absolutely perfect patsy. A tight, tightly controlled, no-cover-up-necessary JFKA. Connecting Oswald and the Mafia is, however, a challenge. John Orr's Mafia theory strikes me as weak in this respect.
-
I have zero sympathy or empathy for Oswald. I can think of no American who has ever done more harm to our country. I wish the SOB had been hit by a bus on 11/21/1963. Most people would have never heard of him and that would be just fine. As far as I'm concerned, he lived 3 days longer than he should have.
-
I have zero sympathy or empathy for Oswald. I can think of no American who has ever done more harm to our country. I wish the SOB had been hit by a bus on 11/21/1963. Most people would have never heard of him and that would be just fine. As far as I'm concerned, he lived 3 days longer than he should have.
I am not applauding or condoning whatever he did in connection with the JFKA, up to and including being a Lone Nut. I'm saying that I have empathy for who he was and what factors likely led him to do it. I would have the same empathy if he'd assassinated the local dogcatcher. The fact that JFK was the victim really doesn't change that analysis. I don't see anything about Oswald that should give me some visceral hatred for him. I guess we could debate what "harm to the country" he actually did, but LBJ was firmly at the helm within a matter of days and in some ways was a far more qualified President. About the only thing to which JFK worshippers can point is that the Vietnam War likely would not have escalated to the same extent if JFK had lived and been reelected. Even that is speculation to some degree, but the rest is mostly the rose-colored glasses that people wear when a leader dies young and tragically. Probably the whole JFKA thing has created a great deal of public skepticism about government, which can be viewed as a harm (or maybe not), but the way the WC proceeded largely justifies that skepticism.
-
I am not applauding or condoning whatever he did in connection with the JFKA, up to and including being a Lone Nut. I'm saying that I have empathy for who he was and what factors likely led him to do it. I would have the same empathy if he'd assassinated the local dogcatcher. The fact that JFK was the victim really doesn't change that analysis. I don't see anything about Oswald that should give me some visceral hatred for him. I guess we could debate what "harm to the country" he actually did, but LBJ was firmly at the helm within a matter of days and in some ways was a far more qualified President. About the only thing to which JFK worshippers can point is that the Vietnam War likely would not have escalated to the same extent if JFK had lived and been reelected. Even that is speculation to some degree, but the rest is mostly the rose-colored glasses that people wear when a leader dies young and tragically. Probably the whole JFKA thing has created a great deal of public skepticism about government, which can be viewed as a harm (or maybe not), but the way the WC proceeded largely justifies that skepticism.
I hope Oswald never had a minute of happiness in his life. After what he did, he deserved everything bad that happened to him including Jack Ruby shredding his guts with a well place .38 Special bullet. I hope he was conscious up until he went into surgery and was feeling excruciating pain. People choose to be what they are. He chose to be an evil monster.
-
I hope Oswald never had a minute of happiness in his life. After what he did, he deserved everything bad that happened to him including Jack Ruby shredding his guts with a well place .38 Special bullet. I hope he was conscious up until he went into surgery and was feeling excruciating pain. People choose to be what they are. He chose to be an evil monster.
I said you were a fanatical zealot and you've just proven it. I rest my case.
The level of hatred you display against a man who has been dead for more than six decades, isn't healthy. You may need professional help.
-
I said you were a fanatical zealot and you've just proven it. I rest my case.
The level of hatred you display against a man who has been dead for more than six decades, isn't healthy. You may need professional help.
I would also strongly dsipute John's statement that "people choose to be what they are." Oswald was only 24. He had been shaped by a broken home and a chaotic life with the mother from hell. Every attempt to find a better life had gone awry. He was intelligent, idealistic and frustrated at his inability to achieve what he thought he was capable of achieving. Ernst Titovets, who probably knew him better than anyone, found him likeable, amusing and incapable of anything like the JFKA. I don't completely excuse him, but "evil monster" is way over the top.
Slightly humorous, or at least I think so: I came from a truly traumatic childhood, alone in the home with two incorrigibly alcoholic parents. In 1968, I was a freshman in Apache Dorm at the University of Arizona. One of my good friends informed me that the other residents on our floor had voted me the person "most likely to go up in a tower and start shooting people" as Charles Whitman had done at the University of Texas in 1966. I was deeply flattered and amazed they were so perceptive. Fortunately for me, I got some breaks Oswald never got thanks to a very wealthy grandmother.
-
I would also strongly dsipute John's statement that "people choose to be what they are." Oswald was only 24. He had been shaped by a broken home and a chaotic life with the mother from hell. Every attempt to find a better life had gone awry. He was intelligent, idealistic and frustrated at his inability to achieve what he thought he was capable of achieving. Ernst Titovets, who probably knew him better than anyone, found him likeable, amusing and incapable of anything like the JFKA. I don't completely excuse him, but "evil monster" is way over the top.
Slightly humorous, or at least I think so: I came from a truly traumatic childhood, alone in the home with two incorrigibly alcoholic parents. In 1968, I was a freshman in Apache Dorm at the University of Arizona. One of my good friends informed me that the other residents on our floor had voted me the person "most likely to go up in a tower and start shooting people" as Charles Whitman had done at the University of Texas in 1966. I was deeply flattered and amazed they were so perceptive. Fortunately for me, I got some breaks Oswald never got thanks to a very wealthy grandmother.
Lot's of people come from broken homes and unhappy childhoods. Most of them do not assassinate Presidents. I don't care what problems Oswald faced during his life, he chose to become an assassin and a cop killer. He deserved what he got and wouldn't have if not for Jack Ruby. Even though Oswald probably expected he would be sentenced to death, I doubt he even cared. I'll bet he was looking forward to the notoriety he would receive for what he did. He was finally going to be somebody important. Jack Ruby robbed him of that. Thanks, Jack.
Empathy for Oswald? I feel more empathy when I swat a fly.
-
I'll bet he was looking forward to the notoriety he would receive for what he did.
DELLA: Minor problem, Perry. That doesn't fit ANYTHING he said or did. No manifesto. No note. No hint in custody. Nada, zilch. Is this a problem, Perry?
MASON: Not at all, Della. Give me a week or so to think about it.
DELLA: Possibly, Perry, he was saving it all for a theatrical trial in which he would at last strut his stuff?
MASON: Nice work, Della. I like it.
DELLA: And yet, Perry, the operation was so fraught with risk that he couldn't reasonably have expected to survive for a trial. Is this a problem, Perry?
MASON: Not at all, Della. Shirley was actually Ted in a latex mask, the dog actually belonged to Bob, and it all stemmed from a confrontation between Shirley and Babs on a summer vacation in Istanbul back in college.
DELLA and DRAKE (in unison): Genius, Perry.
Roll the credits.
One of the psychological explanations for elaborate conspiracy theories is that believers need an assassination worthy of JFK, not a one-off by some "little commie punk" (Jackie).
John seems to be the mirror image of this: to be worthy of JFK, Oswald had to be an "evil monster," the Worst Person In the World.
-
DELLA: Minor problem, Perry. That doesn't fit ANYTHING he said or did. No manifesto. No note. No hint in custody. Nada, zilch. Is this a problem, Perry?
MASON: Not at all, Della. Give me a week or so to think about it.
DELLA: Possibly, Perry, he was saving it all for a theatrical trial in which he would at last strut his stuff?
MASON: Nice work, Della. I like it.
DELLA: And yet, Perry, the operation was so fraught with risk that he couldn't reasonably have expected to survive for a trial. Is this a problem, Perry?
MASON: Not at all, Della. Shirley was actually Ted in a latex mask, the dog actually belonged to Bob, and it all stemmed from a confrontation between Shirley and Babs on a summer vacation in Istanbul back in college.
DELLA and DRAKE (in unison): Genius, Perry.
Roll the credits.
One of the psychological explanations for elaborate conspiracy theories is that believers need an assassination worthy of JFK, not a one-off by some "little commie punk" (Jackie).
John seems to be the mirror image of this: to be worthy of JFK, Oswald had to be an "evil monster," the Worst Person In the World.
Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.
-
At 24 years of age why would Oswald want to spend the next 60+ years behind bars?
-
Oswald had agency, made his decisions (however limited they were) on his own, they weren't forced on him. He had two brothers who also grew up in the same (roughly) environment. They turned out not only to not be bad men they turned out to be good ones.
He disgraces himself in the Marines (among other things twice court-martialed), he defects to the Soviet Union and tells his family to get lost but then asks for help when he needs them. He brutally beats Marina. He prevents her from learning English so that she's dependent on him. He tries to kill Walker and in doing so would abandon his family on their own. He then tries to defect to Cuba and again is abandoning his family including a seven months pregnant Marina (he told Marina to find her way to Cuba on her own). Instead of providing for him family he thinks he's some type of historic figure. Then of course he kills JFK. And a police officer. Both men with families and small children.
That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.
So who or what "forced" him to do this (from "Marina and Lee")?
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13524303544/Keyrv6h3ijnubia/Screenshot 2026-05-30 122406.jpg)
-
Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.
You are the one who said he "wanted notoriety." He prepared anticipated reporters' questions and his answers before arriving back in the U.S. from Russia. He spent money to have his "historical diary" typed up (at least $10 worth). He spent considerable time on his "Athenian system" manuscript. He had FPCC materials printed up and handed out Corliss Lamont's booklets. He was eager to appear on radio on behalf of the FPCC. He at least left a note before the Walker attempt.
But the JFKA, supposedly the "crowning notoriety" of his life? NOTHING. Nothing before, nothing after.
I don't think that's a red herring. I think that's a legitimate puzzle.
-
That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.
Philosophically, "free will" is far from a simple concept, complex enough that even the existence of free will is hotly debated in both philosophy and science. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
For purposes of the criminal justice system, we at least have to pretend it exists or no one would be held accountable for anything. However, the insanity defense - which used to require the defendant to be a "wild animal" (the actual terminology) who couldn't understand right from wrong - has now been so watered down that it sometimes seems we are on the verge of no one being held accountable for anything. (There is an interesting question: What psychological defenses would be argued if Oswald were tried today?)
To have empathy for Oswald doesn't require one to think he was a good guy. Empathy is "the ability to understand, share, and recognize the feelings and perspectives of another person." I think I can do this to a large extent with Oswald without thinking he was a good guy. As stated, he was intelligent and idealistic. He could have been steered in positive directions. Ernst Titovets and George de Mohrenschildt, neither of whom was an uncultured dummy, enjoyed his company. But he went off the rails. Some of it was undoubtedly his genetic predisposition, some of it was poverty and circumstances, some of it anger and frustration at his circumstances, some of it just poor choices on his part. This is why it is so difficult to articulate a plausible reason why he would have killed JFK.
Empathy is in the vein of the old saying "There but for the grace of God goes I." Put me in the exact circumstances of Oswald, and I'm not sure I would have turned out much different - possibly not murdering JFK, but easily drifting into pretty serious crime and antisocial behavior.
The venom spewed toward Oswald by people like John is simply beyond me. To be a good little LN soldier, am I required to hate Oswald with every fiber of my being?
It seems to me there is predisposition to make Oswald far more of an "evil monster" than he was because it makes it easier to fit him into the LN narrative. The actual Oswald may fit, but not so easily.
-
Count me among those who don't give a shit about Oswald's feelings.
-
Oswald had agency, made his decisions (however limited they were) on his own, they weren't forced on him. He had two brothers who also grew up in the same (roughly) environment. They turned out not only to not be bad men they turned out to be good ones.
He disgraces himself in the Marines (among other things twice court-martialed), he defects to the Soviet Union and tells his family to get lost but then asks for help when he needs them. He brutally beats Marina. He prevents her from learning English so that she's dependent on him. He tries to kill Walker and in doing so would abandon his family on their own. He then tries to defect to Cuba and again is abandoning his family including a seven months pregnant Marina (he told Marina to find her way to Cuba on her own). Instead of providing for him family he thinks he's some type of historic figure. Then of course he kills JFK. And a police officer. Both men with families and small children.
That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.
Excellent, excellent points, Steve.
-
Excellent, excellent points, Steve.
Always nice to have a cheerleader. Do you have pom-poms to go with the outfit? (You aren't Jonathan Cohen, are you? He's famous for short, content-free, LN-cheerleading observations at the Ed Forum.)
As I think about this, and not intending to portray Oswald as an Eagle Scout:
1. The passage from Priscella Johnson's book is suspect at best. She "bonded" with Marina to an extent that was "just a bit" odd. Marina's WC and HSCA testimonies were not this dramatic. She described Oswald as a "good family man" who helped around the house and was a loving father. Yes, she said that he hit her and that he sometimes went into a state where he seemed like a stranger and became angry over trifles. On the other hand, Marina admitted that she was sometimes to blame, and observers of the couple said she was very sharp-tongued and went so far as impugning his manhood in public.
2. Robert Oswald and John Pic bailed out of the home at their earliest opportunity, which is exactly what my siblings did. They did not receive the full Marguerite treatment. Their childhoods were bad enough, but not the chaos of Oswald's.
3. Did Oswald have a significant history of violence, bullying or anything of the sort in school? Not really. One notable fight, but no indication of an out-of-control anger. Did he torture animals, anything like that? No. While he was truant, he went to the zoo and rode the subway; he didn't join a gang or otherwise wreak havoc. A social worker described "a rather pleasant, appealing quality about this emotionally starved, affectionless youngster which grows as one speaks to him."
4. The Marine incidents are closer to tomfoolery than anything suggestive of a serious problem. Was he a constant problem, detested by his superiors and fellow Marines? No.
5. Did he exhibit anything like violence during his time in Russia? No, he was generally well-liked, had friends and girlfriends. Lazy at work, but not a disciplinary problem.
6. When fired from jobs, did he become irate and threaten retribution? No, he was quite passive. Ditto in his encounter with Carlos Bringuier ("Go ahead, Carlos, hit me"). Ditto when he was sandbagged on the radio with the surprise revelation that he had defected to Russia.
7. The night before the JFKA, did he become angry and abusive when Marina rebuffed him? No. She said he was upset but not angry, and he went to bed early. She accepted his excuse that he had come to Irving to try to make peace after their tiff on the phone.
It seems to me that the main aspects of Oswald's personality were (1) he knew he was intelligent and could have done more than he would ever be able to do with his lack of education and opportunity, which had to be extremely frustrating; (2) he was idealistic and thought he had world-changing ideas if only he had a forum to express them; (3) he wanted to be, and thought he should be, taken seriously and placed in an important position; and (4) he had a very big chip on his shoulder in regard to all forms of authority and derived enjoyment from thumbing his nose. By the time of the JFKA, his big hopes and big ideas had hit rock bottom.
The willingness to simply leave his young family to fend for themselves, as he was apparently willing to do with both the Walker attempt and JFKA, is extremely puzzling since Marina and everyone who knew him emphaiszed his love for his children. It's a complex picture, but I think it's overly simplistic to try to portray Oswald as some evil character and the JFKA as the natural consequence of who he was. It makes the LN narrative more compelling, but I don't think it's the reality. I find the Walker attempt and the JFKA puzzling precisely because of who he was.
-
In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome. As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims. Nothing can be further from truth. I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization. There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detect before committing this crime. There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every actions. None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime. I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt. Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.
-
In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome. As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims. Nothing can be further from truth. I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization. There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detect before committing this crime. There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every actions. None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime. I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt. Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.
I agree with pretty much all of that except for one. I do hate Oswald. Intensely. Maybe it's because I was alive when Oswald murdered JFK. It was 6 days before my 12th birthday. Those of my generation had a connection to JFK and know what was taken from us by one very evil little man. Even those who did not agree with him politically couldn't help recognizing his charisma.
-
I agree with pretty much all of that except for one. I do hate Oswald. Intensely. Maybe it's because I was alive when Oswald murdered JFK. It was 6 days before my 12th birthday. Those of my generation had a connection to JFK and know what was taken from us by one very evil little man. Even those who did not agree with him politically couldn't help recognizing his charisma.
I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.
-
I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.
Then why are you here?
-
Then why are you here?
Ah, the "why are you here?" ploy! I see this at least ten times a week on the FOX News comments, when someone dares to criticize the one-sided inanity of many FOX articles. "Then why are you here, you non-MAGA maggot?"
Putting myself under oath, an honest answer would be something like "sheer boredom" and "amusing myself as my own best audience."
However, in my own little way I feel that I am contributing to that hall of mirrors called "JFKA studies." Some of my contributions, I believe, are borderline worthwhile. Not many, but sometimes I get lucky.
Am I required to still be grieving JFK and hating Oswald in order to participate on a JFKA forum? That would be a weird Term of Service, not unlike those one finds on many Christian forums:
1. Participants are reminded that this is a JFK assassination forum. For many, this is a deeply sensitive subject and their grief remains fresh. Similarly, their hatred of Oswald remains intense and equally fresh. While fawning worship of JFK's memory and foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Oswald is not a condition of participation, sensitivity is required and will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. If you do not agree that JFK was the greatest American who ever lived and that Oswald is an evil monster who would have been aborted before birth if only you had a time machine, perhaps this is not the forum for you. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not deemed True JFKA Believers and may participate only on the Unorthodox JFKA Beliefs section of the forum.
-
Ah, the "why are you here?" ploy! I see this at least ten times a week on the FOX News comments, when someone dares to criticize the one-sided inanity of many FOX articles. "Then why are you here, you non-MAGA maggot?"
Putting myself under oath, an honest answer would be something like "sheer boredom" and "amusing myself as my own best audience."
However, in my own little way I feel that I am contributing to that hall of mirrors called "JFKA studies." Some of my contributions, I believe, are borderline worthwhile. Not many, but sometimes I get lucky.
Am I required to still be grieving JFK and hating Oswald in order to participate on a JFKA forum? That would be a weird Term of Service, not unlike those one finds on many Christian forums:
1. Participants are reminded that this is a JFK assassination forum. For many, this is a deeply sensitive subject and their grief remains fresh. Similarly, their hatred of Oswald remains intense and equally fresh. While fawning worship of JFK's memory and foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Oswald is not a condition of participation, sensitivity is required and will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. If you do not agree that JFK was the greatest American who ever lived and that Oswald is an evil monster who would have been aborted before birth if only you had a time machine, perhaps this is not the forum for you. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not deemed True JFKA Believers and may participate only on the Unorthodox JFKA Beliefs section of the forum.
You did say you felt no angst about the assassination so asking for your motivation for participating here seems like a reasonable question.
A more appropriate reference than a hall of mirrors would be funhouse mirrors. Without distortion, there is no case for conspiracy.
-
In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome. As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims. Nothing can be further from truth. I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization. There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detected before committing this crime. There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every action. None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime. I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt. Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.
-
I was 13 years, 8 months, so perhaps I have a more mature perspective. I never felt the slightest connection to JFK, positive or negative. Nor do I hate Oswald any more than I hate John Wilkes Booth or the obscure assassins of Garfield and Mckinley. What was supposedly taken from us, other than JFK himself? Is charisma a big loss? LBJ to me was about as uncharismatic as they get, but he was far more qualified to be President. Am I still supposed to be grieving something? I truly don't get what, in 2026, the "JFK angst" is all about.
At the very least, Oswald murdered two people in cold blood. Regardless of who they were, double homicide is a despicable act. His actions also had longstanding cultural implications in my opinion that remain with us today. He let the genie out of the bottle that every angry nut can take a gun and make is mark. School shooting, mass shootings, other assassinations, and the security state that presidents must now live in can all be traced back to Nov. 22. The merits or lack thereof of JFK have nothing to do with that. The Camelot myth was a product of leftist revisionist history but that doesn't minimize the harm.
-
At the very least, Oswald murdered two people in cold blood. Regardless of who they were, double homicide is a despicable act. His actions also had longstanding cultural implications in my opinion that remain with us today. He let the genie out of the bottle that every angry nut can take a gun and make is mark. School shooting, mass shootings, other assassinations, and the security state that presidents must now live in can all be traced back to Nov. 22. The merits or lack thereof of JFK have nothing to do with that. The Camelot myth was a product of leftist revisionist history but that doesn't minimize the harm.
That's a fair perspective - certainly more balanced than John's. But my God, there are at least 100 news stories every year involving multiple murders that are factually more ghastly than the JFKA. I read them, factor them into my perspective on human nature and what humans are capable of, and move on. I do think you grossly overstate the case in terms of Oswald letting a genie out of the bottle. There were surprisingly ghastly crimes long before Oswald, and the 1970's and 1980's looked nothing like today in terms of what you're describing. I think the near-hell we're living in today is due to factors much more recent than the JFKA. John's suggestion was that there is something illegitimate about anyone who is interested in the JFKA for any reason other than "JFK angst" and visceral hatred of Oswald. As stated, I'm very interested in Oswald the man and can have empathy for him without minimizing his actions. I can also be interested in the JFKA simply as a whodunnit and opportunity to exercise my brain, all of which I believe to be entirely legitimate. I actually think that the attitudes John expresses are an impediment to thinking critically about the case.
-
At the very least, Oswald murdered two people in cold blood. Regardless of who they were, double homicide is a despicable act. His actions also had longstanding cultural implications in my opinion that remain with us today. He let the genie out of the bottle that every angry nut can take a gun and make is mark. School shooting, mass shootings, other assassinations, and the security state that presidents must now live in can all be traced back to Nov. 22. The merits or lack thereof of JFK have nothing to do with that. The Camelot myth was a product of leftist revisionist history but that doesn't minimize the harm.
BRAVO!!!
-
That's a fair perspective - certainly more balanced than John's. But my God, there are at least 100 news stories every year involving multiple murders that are factually more ghastly than the JFKA. I read them, factor them into my perspective on human nature and what humans are capable of, and move on. I do think you grossly overstate the case in terms of Oswald letting a genie out of the bottle. There were surprisingly ghastly crimes long before Oswald, and the 1970's and 1980's looked nothing like today in terms of what you're describing. I think the near-hell we're living in today is due to factors much more recent than the JFKA. John's suggestion was that there is something illegitimate about anyone who is interested in the JFKA for any reason other than "JFK angst" and visceral hatred of Oswald. As stated, I'm very interested in Oswald the man and can have empathy for him without minimizing his actions. I can also be interested in the JFKA simply as a whodunnit and opportunity to exercise my brain, all of which I believe to be entirely legitimate. I actually think that the attitudes John expresses are an impediment to thinking critically about the case.
The critical thinking has been done countless times over the years to expose the fallacies of all CT objections to the conclusions of the WC. The questions the LNs pose to the CTs are questions they should have asked themselves but rarely if ever do.
-
That's a fair perspective - certainly more balanced than John's. But my God, there are at least 100 news stories every year involving multiple murders that are factually more ghastly than the JFKA. I read them, factor them into my perspective on human nature and what humans are capable of, and move on. I do think you grossly overstate the case in terms of Oswald letting a genie out of the bottle. There were surprisingly ghastly crimes long before Oswald, and the 1970's and 1980's looked nothing like today in terms of what you're describing. I think the near-hell we're living in today is due to factors much more recent than the JFKA. John's suggestion was that there is something illegitimate about anyone who is interested in the JFKA for any reason other than "JFK angst" and visceral hatred of Oswald. As stated, I'm very interested in Oswald the man and can have empathy for him without minimizing his actions. I can also be interested in the JFKA simply as a whodunnit and opportunity to exercise my brain, all of which I believe to be entirely legitimate. I actually think that the attitudes John expresses are an impediment to thinking critically about the case.
There has been a progression of decline since the JFK assassination that has made us numb to such acts. My point is that on 11.22.63 society felt that the president was safe to drive around in an open car on a preannounced route. Unthinkable today. His traumatic and brutal death changed all that in an instant. It also introduced the TV media spectacle that follows such events and often results in copycat crimes. The nuts learned they could make a big splash. I doubt any school or mass shooter of today has any idea who Oswald was. They are more likely familiar with the Columbine-type nuts but Oswald still influenced that cultural shift. If you are angry and blame others for your misfortunes, Oswald showed the way to get some payback. Prior to that there was societal concern with morality, shame, and reputation that made such acts unthinkable. There are certainly other factors in this decline but Oswald has a role.
-
There has been a progression of decline since the JFK assassination that has made us numb to such acts. My point is that on 11.22.63 society felt that the president was safe to drive around in an open car on a preannounced route. Unthinkable today. His traumatic and brutal death changed all that in an instant. It also introduced the TV media spectacle that follows such events and often results in copycat crimes. The nuts learned they could make a big splash. I doubt any school or mass shooter of today has any idea who Oswald was. They are more likely familiar with the Columbine-type nuts but Oswald still influenced that cultural shift. If you are angry and blame others for your misfortunes, Oswald showed the way to get some payback. Prior to that there was societal concern with morality, shame, and reputation that made such acts unthinkable. There are certainly other factors in this decline but Oswald has a role.
Certainly these Columbine style mass shootings were far more rare in the 20th century than they are now. It almost seems like each mass shooter is trying to out do the previous one. Even though rare, they did occur. Less than two years after the JFKA and just down I-35 from Dealey Plaza, Charles Whitman murdered over a dozen people and wounded a number more from the tower on the University of Texas campus. Interestingly, Whitman did his killing from a much higher perch than Oswald and his best score in the USMC was only two points better than Oswald's. The school massacre in US history took place in Bath, Michigan in 1927 when a maintenance man blew up two school houses, killing everyone inside. We've always had nutcases who were willing to commit mass murder but they are just many more of them now than there used to be.