JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on May 25, 2026, 04:14:55 AM
-
Oswald’s one fatal mistake was going to Beckley to get his revolver. Had he not been carrying it, he probably could have talked his way out of the encounter with Tippit since he was rooming in the vicinity.
He could have carried it into the TSBD in a lunch sack on the morning of the 21st and had it waiting for him on the 22nd. I’ve seen it suggested at the Ed Forum that he was concerned about being frisked as he exited the TSBD on the 22nd.
I really don’t think that works. He obviously ran the risk of being frisked when he went to Beckley and got it. Indeed, that’s probably why he shot Tippit. Even if that were his thought process, he could have hidden it nearer the TSBD.
Why did he go get it? Without that move, he could’ve been long gone. Without that move, he would’ve had a much greater chance of talking his way out of any police encounter.
The fact that he didn’t have the revolver in the TSBD suggests to me what a truly last-minute, morning-of-the-22nd decision the JFKA was. My guess would be that he was completely surprised to find himself outside the TSBD and that going after the revolver was a panicked, knee-jerk reaction.
It’s hard for me to picture any CT scenario where going to Beckley and getting his revolver would have been part of the plan.
-
Oswald’s one fatal mistake was going to Beckley to get his revolver. Had he not been carrying it, he probably could have talked his way out of the encounter with Tippit since he was rooming in the vicinity.
He could have carried it into the TSBD in a lunch sack on the morning of the 21st and had it waiting for him on the 22nd. I’ve seen it suggested at the Ed Forum that he was concerned about being frisked as he exited the TSBD on the 22nd.
I really don’t think that works. He obviously ran the risk of being frisked when he went to Beckley and got it. Indeed, that’s probably why he shot Tippit. Even if that were his thought process, he could have hidden it nearer the TSBD.
Why did he go get it? Without that move, he could’ve been long gone. Without that move, he would’ve had a much greater chance of talking his way out of any police encounter.
The fact that he didn’t have the revolver in the TSBD suggests to me what a truly last-minute, morning-of-the-22nd decision the JFKA was. My guess would be that he was completely surprised to find himself outside the TSBD and that going after the revolver was a panicked, knee-jerk reaction.
It’s hard for me to picture any CT scenario where going to Beckley and getting his revolver would have been part of the plan.
Anytime we ask ourselves what Oswald was thinking at any given time, we are speculating because he was the only one who knew and he took those secrets to his grave. If you believe in a hereafter and you go to the hot place, maybe you can ask him.
Obviously his decision to kill JFK was not done on the spur of the moment. That took planning and preparation. He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest. His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle. Had the case gone to trial, those facts would have been used to establish premeditation.
His actions post assassination are another matter. We have no idea what he was thinking from that point on. He probably knew he would be the subject of a manhunt and his decision to get his gun might well have been to arm himself against a cop(s). The fact he killed the first cop who encountered him and tried to kill the second is a strong indication he didn't intend to be taken alive. The cops would have been legally justified in killing him in the theater but chose instead to act with restraint. Did he have a destination in mind? Who knows but with only $13 in his pocket, he wasn't likely to get far. Maybe he would have held up a bank or a liquor store to get more cash. Who knows but it's fun to speculate about, just as it is fun to speculate about his motive for killing JFK.
-
Anytime we ask ourselves what Oswald was thinking at any given time, we are speculating because he was the only one who knew and he took those secrets to his grave. If you believe in a hereafter and you go to the hot place, maybe you can ask him.
Obviously his decision to kill JFK was not done on the spur of the moment. That took planning and preparation. He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest. His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle.
His actions post assassination are another matter. We have no idea what he was thinking from that point on. He probably knew he would be the subject of a manhunt and his decision to get his gun might well have been to arm himself against a cop(s). The fact he killed the first cop who encountered him and tried to kill the second is a strong indication he didn't intend to be taken alive. The cops would have been legally justified in killing him in the theater but chose instead to act with restraint.
At least in my view, any explanation - LN or CT - is more plausible if one can articulate a rationale that at least makes sense. As I've stated repeatedly, this is the problem with most CT theories - they simply do not make real-world sense; quite the opposite in fact. Many LNers, on the other hand, posit an Oswald who was almost a madman - something that I believe to be far from true. Or alternatively a madman and an inexplicable riddle (e.g., at Irving the night before). Or alternatively they take the position that "It doesn't matter why he did it or what he was thinking - HE DID IT!" Well ...
"He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest." This is pure speculation. There is evidence that what Oswald was carrying on the morning of the 22nd was not the bag found in the TSBD at all. This is surely one of the weakest links in the LN narrative.
"His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle." But then you bump up against the behavior that suggests something quite different.
If I thought it was all as cut-and-dried as hardcore LNers make it, I'd have a hard time explaining to myself why I was wasting time at a forum such as this. Perhaps the LN narrative is some folks' version of a fundamentalist religion, and anyone who dares to raise questions is an infidel?
-
Oswald’s other most ridiculous mistakes include:
1. Ordering a rifle by using a fake name that he had used in letters sent home while he was living in the USSR.
2. Listing that same fake name as an alternate to receive mail at his own Oswald named P.O. Box.
3. Carrying the same fake ID on his person after leaving the boarding house carrying a revolver linked to the MC rifle mail order receipt.
4. Continuing to carry the revolver on his person after shooting Tippit and even while sitting down in the theater right up to pulling it out as the police officer McDonald approached.
5. Leaving his MC rifle unsecured in the Paines garage while Oswald lived 5 days a week at the boarding house. So how could he be able to practice shooting targets if he didn’t do so when he was visiting at the Paines residence on the weekends?
6. Getting his wife to take pictures of him holding an MC rifle and a revolver on his person while displaying 2 pro Marxist magazines.
7. Not using gloves while making the bag, transporting the rifle in the bag, moving boxes at the SN.
8. Having no plan how to dispose of the rifle so it would never have been found after the shooting.
9. If all the other mistakes above had not been made, it was still a huge mistake for Oswald to leave the TSBD so quickly thereby being absent when all other the TSBD employees remained and were rounded up eventually for roll call.
So even if Oswald had avoided that horrible ( and totally unnecessary.) choice to shoot Tippit execution style , all the OTHER stupid choices virtually guaranteed that he woukd be a prime suspect.
The CT general view seems to be that Oswald could not have been so stupid as to make so many ridiculous mistakes. And that perhaps all these pieces of physical evidence were due to some other reason(s) related to any number of CT theories that have been proposed in hundreds of books over 60 years.
-
At least in my view, any explanation - LN or CT - is more plausible if one can articulate a rationale that at least makes sense. As I've stated repeatedly, this is the problem with most CT theories - they simply do not make real-world sense; quite the opposite in fact. Many LNers, on the other hand, posit an Oswald who was almost a madman - something that I believe to be far from true. Or alternatively a madman and an inexplicable riddle (e.g., at Irving the night before). Or alternatively they take the position that "It doesn't matter why he did it or what he was thinking - HE DID IT!" Well ...
I think it is a mistake to look for sensible reasons why a mentally unbalanced person like Oswald did the things he did. These kinds of people don't think like normal people. Why try to make sense of a senseless act? If he was willing to throw his life away by killing JFK, why would we expect him to act rationally.
"He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest." This is pure speculation. There is evidence that what Oswald was carrying on the morning of the 22nd was not the bag found in the TSBD at all. This is surely one of the weakest links in the LN narrative.
The evidence that the bag found by the sniper's nest was the same bag Oswald carried into the TSBD so outweighs the evidence to the contrary that I am surprised you would even consider the possibility.
"His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle." But then you bump up against the behavior that suggests something quite different.
When you say we bump up against behavior that suggests something different, I'm guessing you are talking about his attempt to reconcile with Marina. Maybe if that had been successful, he wouldn't have carried out the assassination. We'll never know that. Two things can be true at the same time. He might have returned to Irving to try to patch things up with Marina and when that failed, he resorted to plan B, killing JFK. All speculation but speculation is all we have when we look for Oswald's motive. We don't need proof positive of what Oswald's motive is to know that he was the assassin. There is ample proof of that.
If I thought it was all as cut-and-dried as hardcore LNers make it, I'd have a hard time explaining to myself why I was wasting time at a forum such as this. Perhaps the LN narrative is some folks' version of a fundamentalist religion, and anyone who dares to raise questions is an infidel?
I have been convinced of Oswald's sole guilt for over 35 years and I still find the subject fascinating. There's no explaining why people are drawn to certain subjects. As with the question of Oswald's guilt, there is no need to answer the question of why.
-
The evidence that the bag found by the sniper's nest was the same bag Oswald carried into the TSBD so outweighs the evidence to the contrary that I am surprised you would even consider the possibility.
BS: Frazier refused to identify that bag as what he saw that morning.
That doesn't outweigh any bag evidence to the contrary
-
Oswald’s other most ridiculous mistakes include:
1. Ordering a rifle by using a fake name that he had used in letters sent home while he was living in the USSR.
2. Listing that same fake name as an alternate to receive mail at his own Oswald named P.O. Box.
3. Carrying the same fake ID on his person after leaving the boarding house carrying a revolver linked to the MC rifle mail order receipt.
4. Continuing to carry the revolver on his person after shooting Tippit and even while sitting down in the theater right up to pulling it out as the police officer McDonald approached.
5. Leaving his MC rifle unsecured in the Paines garage while Oswald lived 5 days a week at the boarding house. So how could he be able to practice shooting targets if he didn’t do so when he was visiting at the Paines residence on the weekends?
6. Getting his wife to take pictures of him holding an MC rifle and a revolver on his person while displaying 2 pro Marxist magazines.
7. Not using gloves while making the bag, transporting the rifle in the bag, moving boxes at the SN.
8. Having no plan how to dispose of the rifle so it would never have been found after the shooting.
9. If all the other mistakes above had not been made, it was still a huge mistake for Oswald to leave the TSBD so quickly thereby being absent when all other the TSBD employees remained and were rounded up eventually for roll call.
So even if Oswald had avoided that horrible ( and totally unnecessary.) choice to shoot Tippit execution style , all the OTHER stupid choices virtually guaranteed that he woukd be a prime suspect.
The CT general view seems to be that Oswald could not have been so stupid as to make so many ridiculous mistakes. And that perhaps all these pieces of physical evidence were due to some other reason(s) related to any number of CT theories that have been proposed in hundreds of books over 60 years.
Your whole premise assumes Oswald was hoping to get away with the crime. I think he was perfectly willing to trade his life for JFK's. If that was his mindset, none of the above items could be classified as mistakes.
-
BS: Frazier refused to identify that bag as what he saw that morning.
That doesn't outweigh any bag evidence to the contrary
So you think an estimate of the bag's length based on a casual glance outweighs the forensic evidence tying Oswald to the bag. His palm and fingerprint on the bottom of the bag. The fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. Isn't it rather odd that no other bag was found in the TSBD.
Forensic evidence should always outweigh eyewitness accounts which are notoriously inaccurate.
-
So you think an estimate of the bag's length based on a casual glance outweighs the forensic evidence tying Oswald to the bag. His palm and fingerprint on the bottom of the bag. The fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. Isn't it rather odd that no other bag was found in the TSBD.
Forensic evidence should always outweigh eyewitness accounts which are notoriously inaccurate.
:D lame
Frazier was sure of what he saw:
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
FBI conclusions on markings and fibers in the bag:
Mr. CADIGAN. "There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
DPD on the prints on the bag:
Mr. BALL. You say you dusted it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. With that magnetic powders.
Mr. BALL. Did you lift any prints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. There wasn't but just smudges on it - is all it was.
There was one little ole piece of a print and I'm sure I put a piece of tape on it preserve it.
Not very overwhelming. Is it?
-
Oswald’s other most ridiculous mistakes include:
1. Ordering a rifle by using a fake name that he had used in letters sent home while he was living in the USSR.
2. Listing that same fake name as an alternate to receive mail at his own Oswald named P.O. Box.
3. Carrying the same fake ID on his person after leaving the boarding house carrying a revolver linked to the MC rifle mail order receipt.
4. Continuing to carry the revolver on his person after shooting Tippit and even while sitting down in the theater right up to pulling it out as the police officer McDonald approached.
5. Leaving his MC rifle unsecured in the Paines garage while Oswald lived 5 days a week at the boarding house. So how could he be able to practice shooting targets if he didn’t do so when he was visiting at the Paines residence on the weekends?
6. Getting his wife to take pictures of him holding an MC rifle and a revolver on his person while displaying 2 pro Marxist magazines.
7. Not using gloves while making the bag, transporting the rifle in the bag, moving boxes at the SN.
8. Having no plan how to dispose of the rifle so it would never have been found after the shooting.
9. If all the other mistakes above had not been made, it was still a huge mistake for Oswald to leave the TSBD so quickly thereby being absent when all other the TSBD employees remained and were rounded up eventually for roll call.
So even if Oswald had avoided that horrible ( and totally unnecessary.) choice to shoot Tippit execution style , all the OTHER stupid choices virtually guaranteed that he woukd be a prime suspect.
The CT general view seems to be that Oswald could not have been so stupid as to make so many ridiculous mistakes. And that perhaps all these pieces of physical evidence were due to some other reason(s) related to any number of CT theories that have been proposed in hundreds of books over 60 years.
This is all well-stated. Much of it has to with choices long before the JFKA would have been in his mind. We do consistently see Oswald just being Oswald - lying and playing games when there is seemingly no reason. I have a relative like this - so "Oswald like" that before I knew him the family suspected he was a CIA agent when in fact he's just an ordinary clod with a paranoid streak who plays these games for some reason that makes sense only to him.
The events of 11-22 to me are best explained by "a guy at the end of his rope making a last minute decision to go out with a bang and not really caring if he died in the process." But yet ... his demeanor that morning really doesn't suggest this, nor does getting his revolver or shooting Tippit. So then I have to add "a guy who was astounded he survived and found himself outside the TSBD, realized he actually had at least some shot at getting away with the crime, and frantically started thinking on his feet as to what to do next." But yet ... going to his rooming house, getting his revolver and walking down the sidewalk doesn't really seem to fit that narrative. And why did he not have Whaley stop right in front of the rooming house - or perhaps even wait and take him far away?
Hence, it does lend itself to CT theories that he knew things and was doing things that don't fit the LN narrative.
-
:D lame
Frazier was sure of what he saw:
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
FBI conclusions on markings and fibers in the bag:
Mr. CADIGAN. "There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
DPD on the prints on the bag:
Mr. BALL. You say you dusted it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. With that magnetic powders.
Mr. BALL. Did you lift any prints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. There wasn't but just smudges on it - is all it was.
There was one little ole piece of a print and I'm sure I put a piece of tape on it preserve it.
Not very overwhelming. Is it?
And then you have the threshold "What sense does it make?" question. WHY make a "bag" at the TSBD wrapping station in the first place, with the risks that would entail - both at the time and including the risk of Frazier or Marina wondering why you have that big crinkly bag folded up inside your jacket? It's certainly possible he made it, but it seems to me an extremely odd and unlikely choice.
-
I am mainly interested in what happened in Dealey Plaza, & az u all know i am No1 in that area.
But the Tippet etc aftermath iz interesting.
Oswald might hav had a plane waiting. Very unlikely. He didnt hav that good a plan.
He might hav needed the handgun to get cash, to go to Mexico. Nope.
He might hav had a possible safe house in the area. In which case he fetched hiz handgun etc koz he woz a tightwad. Yes. Thats probly it.
-
I am mainly interested in what happened in Dealey Plaza, & az u all know i am No1 in that area.
But the Tippet etc aftermath iz interesting.
Oswald might hav had a plane waiting. Very unlikely. He didnt hav that good a plan.
He might hav needed the handgun to get cash, to go to Mexico. Nope.
He might hav had a possible safe house in the area. In which case he fetched hiz handgun etc koz he woz a tightwad. Yes. Thats probly it.
Can you please post in something t more akin to properly spelled English? How do you expect anybody to wade through your bizarre jargon?
-
I am mainly interested in what happened in Dealey Plaza, & az u all know i am No1 in that area.
But the Tippet etc aftermath iz interesting.
Oswald might hav had a plane waiting. Very unlikely. He didnt hav that good a plan.
He might hav needed the handgun to get cash, to go to Mexico. Nope.
He might hav had a possible safe house in the area. In which case he fetched hiz handgun etc koz he woz a tightwad. Yes. Thats probly it.
It seems to me that the only rational CT theories have to be along the lines of:
1. Oswald was a gunman in a conspiracy that had absolutely nothing resembling an escape plan. His odds of simply walking out of the TSBD were infinitesimal. If he bought into a conspiracy with the plan "Get your fanny out of there somehow, go home by public transportation and get your revolver, and meet us at the rendezvous point" - well, come on, Oswald was way smarter than that.
2. He was a patsy but knew his rifle was on the sixth floor and would be identified as the murder weapon, so he panicked instead of doing something rational like running to the nearest policeman. If he was a completely oblivious patsy, his post-JFKA actions make no sense.
No, wait a minute: In #2, his actions sort of would make sense. He realizes he's a patsy and that the only good patsy is a dead patsy. He figures they are going to kill him right then and there. So he hightails it out of the TSBD, has Whaley drop him off two blocks from the rooming house (because maybe they are waiting for him) and gets his revolver for protection. Not great, I'll admit, but better than #1.
Either of those is a tough sell.
-
Can you please post in something t more akin to properly spelled English? How do you expect anybody to wade through your bizarre jargon?
At the Ed Forum, Marjan defines his interests as:
Aether (& Gravity)(& Photons)(& Photaenos), Elekticity (& Elektons), English Billiards (12 ft table), Carnivore diet (zero carbs).
In my book, anyone that interesting can spell however he wants.
Like me, you're probably asking yourself, "So what are Photaenos anyway?" The answer, it would appear, is to be found at the Thunderbolts Forum, "for discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology." Photaenos are discussed at a thread titled "Photons & photaenos & praether & aether," https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=129606, in which Marjan may be one of the contributors for all I know.
You're welcome.
-
Can you please post in something t more akin to properly spelled English? How do you expect anybody to wade through your bizarre jargon?
Respect.
But i am only extending the unfinished work of Teddy.
I say that i will spell is az is when u pronounce is az is.
Untill then it iz iz.
-
At the Ed Forum, Marjan defines his interests as:
Aether (& Gravity)(& Photons)(& Photaenos), Elekticity (& Elektons), English Billiards (12 ft table), Carnivore diet (zero carbs).
In my book, anyone that interesting can spell however he wants.
Like me, you're probably asking yourself, "So what are Photaenos anyway?" The answer, it would appear, is to be found at the Thunderbolts Forum, "for discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology." Photaenos are discussed at a thread titled "Photons & photaenos & praether & aether," https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=129606, in which Marjan may be one of the contributors for all I know.
You're welcome.
Yes, i am crawler or cushioncrawler or atheistaetherist or Marjan Rynkiewicz or madmac depending on the forum.
This week i am printing a book on English Billiards. It will cost me $6000.
This week i am writing a book on elekticity on a wire. I hope to print it in late 2026. It will cost me $2000.
I woz a Civil Engineer, not an Electrical Engineer. But i am No1 in the world re elekticity on a wire.
Today i finally worked out where Wolfgang G Gasser made hiz mistake when he measured the speed of electric radiation in the near field to be 5c.
This in my opinion makes me No1 in the world re Gasser.
And it now makes me No1 in the world in 8 realms, mostly physics stuff.
I retired from full time employment when i woz 52 years old. I am now 78. And i study something/anything 12 hours per day.
After the elekticity book i will write a book on the jfk saga. Hickey shot jfk.
Life iz too short.
-
:D lame
Frazier was sure of what he saw:
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
FBI conclusions on markings and fibers in the bag:
Mr. CADIGAN. "There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
DPD on the prints on the bag:
Mr. BALL. You say you dusted it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. With that magnetic powders.
Mr. BALL. Did you lift any prints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. There wasn't but just smudges on it - is all it was.
There was one little ole piece of a print and I'm sure I put a piece of tape on it preserve it.
Not very overwhelming. Is it?
Nice job of cherry picking the WC testimony. Is there a reason you left out this passage from Studebaker's testimony?
Mr. BALL. What sort of training did you have for the crime lab work that you are doing?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It's just on - the - job training - you go out with old officers and learn how to dust for prints and take pictures and fingerprints.
Mr. BALL. Have you had any special training in identification fingerprints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, sir; we don't classify prints too much where we are. We just compare them.
Why would you site a technician rather than an actual expert in fingerprint identification? Somebody like FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona?
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the prints themselves, you stated I believe that you found a palmprint and a fingerprint on this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any other prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; no other prints that we term of value in the sense that I felt that they could be identified or that a conclusion could be reached that they were not identical with the fingerprints or palmprints of some other person.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify the palmprint and fingerprint?
Mr. LATONA. The ones that I developed; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to identify these prints?
Mr. LATONA. I--the ones I developed, I did identify.
Mr. EISENBERG. Whose prints did you find them to be?
Mr. LATONA. They were identified as a fingerprint and a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
As for Frazier's testimony, assuming he was being truthful, established Oswald carried a long paper bag into the TSBD. It did not establish the length of the bag because Frazier never measured it. He guessed at its length from memory. The way he described Oswald carrying the bag is consistent with where the prints were found, on the bottom of the bag. Frazier thought the bag extended above Oswald's shoulder but by his own admission he wasn't paying close attention to it. Why would he? Why would he think the length had any significance AT THE TIME.
The fact is that a bag with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on the bottom of it was found by the sniper's nest which also contained fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. If you want to believe that wasn't the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD, that means Oswald would have carried the sniper's nest bag into the TSBD at some other unknown time and that the bag Frazier saw Oswald take into the building was never found. I don't have that problem. All I have to do is believe Frazier was just wrong about the length of the bag and that it protruded above Oswald's shoulder. That is very easy for me to believe.
-
Nice job of cherry picking the WC testimony. Is there a reason you left out this passage from Studebaker's testimony?
Mr. BALL. What sort of training did you have for the crime lab work that you are doing?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It's just on - the - job training - you go out with old officers and learn how to dust for prints and take pictures and fingerprints.
Mr. BALL. Have you had any special training in identification fingerprints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, sir; we don't classify prints too much where we are. We just compare them.
Why would you site a technician rather than an actual expert in fingerprint identification? Somebody like FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona?
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the prints themselves, you stated I believe that you found a palmprint and a fingerprint on this paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any other prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; no other prints that we term of value in the sense that I felt that they could be identified or that a conclusion could be reached that they were not identical with the fingerprints or palmprints of some other person.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify the palmprint and fingerprint?
Mr. LATONA. The ones that I developed; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to identify these prints?
Mr. LATONA. I--the ones I developed, I did identify.
Mr. EISENBERG. Whose prints did you find them to be?
Mr. LATONA. They were identified as a fingerprint and a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
As for Frazier's testimony, assuming he was being truthful, established Oswald carried a long paper bag into the TSBD. It did not establish the length of the bag because Frazier never measured it. He guessed at its length from memory. The way he described Oswald carrying the bag is consistent with where the prints were found, on the bottom of the bag. Frazier thought the bag extended above Oswald's shoulder but by his own admission he wasn't paying close attention to it. Why would he? Why would he think the length had any significance AT THE TIME.
The fact is that a bag with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on the bottom of it was found by the sniper's nest which also contained fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. If you want to believe that wasn't the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD, that means Oswald would have carried the sniper's nest bag into the TSBD at some other unknown time and that the bag Frazier saw Oswald take into the building was never found. I don't have that problem. All I have to do is believe Frazier was just wrong about the length of the bag and that it protruded above Oswald's shoulder. That is very easy for me to believe.
:D Once again, contracting statements that you cherry pick from the record is far from "overwhelming"
Representative BOGGS. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; I cannot certify to that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?
Mr. LATONA. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those
are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears
the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald.
Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon.
I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else.
And no latent prints of value were developed.
OMT: Mr. STUDEBAKER. There wasn't but just smudges on it - is all it was.
There was one little ole piece of a print and I'm sure I put a piece of tape on it preserve it.
-
And then you have the threshold "What sense does it make?" question. WHY make a "bag" at the TSBD wrapping station in the first place, with the risks that would entail - both at the time and including the risk of Frazier or Marina wondering why you have that big crinkly bag folded up inside your jacket? It's certainly possible he made it, but it seems to me an extremely odd and unlikely choice.
What risk would there be by making the bag at the wrapping station. That someone might find out he was using company materials for personal use?
That happens at most workplaces I've been employed at. I've done it myself. Many times. Compared to what Oswald was contemplating, I don't think Oswald was too concerned he might get reprimanded at work.
If Oswald was discovered with the bag, all he would have to do is cook up some lie like he made it so he could carry curtain rods in it.
I just don't think Oswald had any reason to fear being caught either making the bag or taking it back to Irving with him.
-
Yes, i am crawler or cushioncrawler or atheistaetherist or Marjan Rynkiewicz or madmac depending on the forum.
This week i am printing a book on English Billiards. It will cost me $6000.
This week i am writing a book on elekticity on a wire. I hope to print it in late 2026. It will cost me $2000.
I woz a Civil Engineer, not an Electrical Engineer. But i am No1 in the world re elekticity on a wire.
Today i finally worked out where Wolfgang G Gasser made hiz mistake when he measured the speed of electric radiation in the near field to be 5c.
This in my opinion makes me No1 in the world re Gasser.
And it now makes me No1 in the world in 8 realms, mostly physics stuff.
I retired from full time employment when i woz 52 years old. I am now 78. And i study something/anything 12 hours per day.
After the elekticity book i will write a book on the jfk saga. Hickey shot jfk.
Life iz too short.
Cool! No one will believe this, but I had an epiphany of sorts when I was only about 5 years old. I was fascinated by death, or perhaps "What is life?" I would hold little funerals for dead birds and lizards and whatnot and wonder "So what's the difference between this and what it was an hour ago?" Standing in my parents' gravel driveway, I had an epiphany out of nowhere: "Electricity! Life is fundamentally electrical, and what survives is electrical." 71 years later, and far more sophisticated in my thinking, I still think somewhat along those lines.
When I was maybe 55, I had a dream in which the name "Lynne McTaggert" kept appearing. I had no clue who LM was - she could have been an obscure WNBA basketball player for all I knew. So I Googled her name and discovered she is the author of The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, which is very much along the lines of my epiphany as a toddler!
-
It seems to me that the only rational CT theories have to be along the lines of:
1. Oswald was a gunman in a conspiracy that had absolutely nothing resembling an escape plan. His odds of simply walking out of the TSBD were infinitesimal. If he bought into a conspiracy with the plan "Get your fanny out of there somehow, go home by public transportation and get your revolver, and meet us at the rendezvous point" - well, come on, Oswald was way smarter than that.
2. He was a patsy but knew his rifle was on the sixth floor and would be identified as the murder weapon, so he panicked instead of doing something rational like running to the nearest policeman. If he was a completely oblivious patsy, his post-JFKA actions make no sense.
No, wait a minute: In #2, his actions sort of would make sense. He realizes he's a patsy and that the only good patsy is a dead patsy. He figures they are going to kill him right then and there. So he hightails it out of the TSBD, has Whaley drop him off two blocks from the rooming house (because maybe they are waiting for him) and gets his revolver for protection. Not great, I'll admit, but better than #1.
Either of those is a tough sell.
If Oswald was a patsy, there would have been a car waiting for him near the TSBD that would have driven him to his death. I doubt they would have found his body.
-
:D Once again, contracting statements that you cherry pick from the record is far from "overwhelming"
Representative BOGGS. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; I cannot certify to that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?
Mr. LATONA. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those
are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears
the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald.
Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon.
I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else.
And no latent prints of value were developed.
All Latona is saying is that since he was not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, he cannot say from his own knowledge that the prints on the bag were made by Oswald. All he can say is they prints on the bag matched the print on Oswald's fingerprint card which was taken by the DPD.
Latona did not find any identifiable prints on the rifle. That is because the palmprint on the underside of the barrel had been lifted off the rifle by Lt. Day of the DPD. The print was no longer on the rifle when the FBI received it from the DPD.
This was Latona's conclusion regarding the print that had been lifted off the rifle:
"On the basis of those points, the obvious conclusion to an experienced fingerprint man is simply that the same palm made both of these prints. Only one palm could have made it, and that palm is the one which is alleged to be of Lee Harvey Oswald, his right palm."
For the sake of brevity, I have posted only Latona's conclusion. His testimony regarding the palmprint from the rifle extends from page 22-27. If someone wants to read his entire testimony, it can be read here:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/latona.htm
I wouldn't bother looking for anything in Latona's testimony which exonerates Oswald. It doesn't exist.
-
If Oswald was a patsy, there would have been a car waiting for him near the TSBD that would have driven him to his death. I doubt they would have found his body.
Free your mind, dude! There WAS a car waiting. But when Oswald saw Vinny and Guido the Knife, instead of Shirley and Babs as he'd been promised, he smelled a rat. He realized no one would whack him on public transportation, so he hopped a bus and hailed a taxi. After making sure Big Louie wasn't parked in front of Beckley, he grabbed his revolver and started down the sidewalk. Yes, it falls apart just a bit at that "started down the sidewalk" part, but other than that it's rock-solid.
-
Cool! No one will believe this, but I had an epiphany of sorts when I was only about 5 years old. I was fascinated by death, or perhaps "What is life?" I would hold little funerals for dead birds and lizards and whatnot and wonder "So what's the difference between this and what it was an hour ago?" Standing in my parents' gravel driveway, I had an epiphany out of nowhere: "Electricity! Life is fundamentally electrical, and what survives is electrical." 71 years later, and far more sophisticated in my thinking, I still think somewhat along those lines.
When I was maybe 55, I had a dream in which the name "Lynne McTaggert" kept appearing. I had no clue who LM was - she could have been an obscure WNBA basketball player for all I knew. So I Googled her name and discovered she is the author of The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, which is very much along the lines of my epiphany as a toddler!
Me myself i looked more closely into the jfk saga say 4 years ago, koz i needed a holiday from silly Einsteinian faux science.
I am glad that i did senior education. Koz nowadays it givs me much satisfaction being able to cross swords with ignorant Einsteinists.
I did my fair share of trout fishing, tennis, billiards, hang gliding, gliding, golf, etc.
Instead of applying for a newly created senior position made just for me, i resigned, & i mooved to a junior position in a different field.
Jobs should not dictate your life. Other things are more important in the long run. Life iz short.
Today i hav kangaroos & wallabies & echidnas & blue tongued lizards & a dozen kinds of birds around my house.
A few years ago there were 2 sightings of a Tasmanian Tiger in the bush behind my place.
8 years ago i had 3 horses 3 dogs & my wife, now all gone.
Nowadays every day iz a gift.
-
Free your mind, dude! There WAS a car waiting. But when Oswald saw Vinny and Guido the Knife, instead of Shirley and Babs as he'd been promised, he smelled a rat. He realized no one would whack him on public transportation, so he hopped a bus and hailed a taxi. After making sure Big Louie wasn't parked in front of Beckley, he grabbed his revolver and started down the sidewalk. Yes, it falls apart just a bit at that "started down the sidewalk" part, but other than that it's rock-solid.
It's fun seeing what one can come up with when one frees himself from what the evidence allows.
-
One solid theory: Oswald get his pistol so he could take another shot at General Edwin Walker. He had committed one murder and was already facing the death penalty. He knew he would probably be caught soon and wanted to use his time left to kill Walker. He didn't take the most direct to Walker's house, but he had enough cash to use the bus system to get there.
-
Oswald’s one fatal mistake was going to Beckley to get his revolver. Had he not been carrying it, he probably could have talked his way out of the encounter with Tippit since he was rooming in the vicinity.
He could have carried it into the TSBD in a lunch sack on the morning of the 21st and had it waiting for him on the 22nd. I’ve seen it suggested at the Ed Forum that he was concerned about being frisked as he exited the TSBD on the 22nd.
I really don’t think that works. He obviously ran the risk of being frisked when he went to Beckley and got it. Indeed, that’s probably why he shot Tippit. Even if that were his thought process, he could have hidden it nearer the TSBD.
Why did he go get it? Without that move, he could’ve been long gone. Without that move, he would’ve had a much greater chance of talking his way out of any police encounter.
The fact that he didn’t have the revolver in the TSBD suggests to me what a truly last-minute, morning-of-the-22nd decision the JFKA was. My guess would be that he was completely surprised to find himself outside the TSBD and that going after the revolver was a panicked, knee-jerk reaction.
It’s hard for me to picture any CT scenario where going to Beckley and getting his revolver would have been part of the plan.
Unless something happened after the assassination we don't know about, and he got scared. His getaway ride never showed? Another mystery.
-
One solid theory: Oswald get his pistol so he could take another shot at General Edwin Walker. He had committed one murder and was already facing the death penalty. He knew he would probably be caught soon and wanted to use his time left to kill Walker. He didn't take the most direct to Walker's house, but he had enough cash to use the bus system to get there.
I suppose that is as valid a guess as to what Oswald had in mind as any. I have no idea where he was going or what he planned to do next.
-
Me myself i looked more closely into the jfk saga say 4 years ago, koz i needed a holiday from silly Einsteinian faux science.
I am glad that i did senior education. Koz nowadays it givs me much satisfaction being able to cross swords with ignorant Einsteinists.
I did my fair share of trout fishing, tennis, billiards, hang gliding, gliding, golf, etc.
Instead of applying for a newly created senior position made just for me, i resigned, & i mooved to a junior position in a different field.
Jobs should not dictate your life. Other things are more important in the long run. Life iz short.
Today i hav kangaroos & wallabies & echidnas & blue tongued lizards & a dozen kinds of birds around my house.
A few years ago there were 2 sightings of a Tasmanian Tiger in the bush behind my place.
8 years ago i had 3 horses 3 dogs & my wife, now all gone.
Nowadays every day iz a gift.
I will trade you two cats for an echidna! :D :D :D Just send it by FedEx. Despite looking like a porcupine, they are apparently cuddly as heck. My non-Einsteinian physics is idealism, the most current proponent of which is Bernardo Kastrup - basically the notion that mind or consciousness is the fundamental "stuff" of reality and that material reality as we experience it is actually a construct of a master consciousness. Kastrup, who is no lightweight, insists idealism meshes with science better than either materialism or dualism.
(https://scontent-phx1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/485310644_1200540031441969_1348221421481557948_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=dxA5F5HKjMgQ7kNvwGrCstT&_nc_oc=Adr9yHJMkBs28wOUt-jAN5fgsZwkUS-9TKZxF7Qpf7m7Oxr9ZB3wHvzd_eXLrIifj6Q&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-phx1-1.xx&_nc_gid=L6wKy8-gmFbQjMRW8BBgYA&_nc_ss=7b289&oh=00_Af6NW7pbwiS12z6FhNm1Fur1ru9VpCrg909hqNEEDPrjtQ&oe=6A1ACDC3)
-
On a hot summer day my big dark echidna flops into the birdbath next to my bathroom.
And i usually need to refill the birdbath if the kangaroos drink from it instead of the frogpond.
Kastrup will find it difficult to explain consciousness, i wouldnt be surprized if no-one ever does (or at least i would be surprized, ie if i woz still around in a thousand years).
I used to think that time woz in the same category as consciousness, ie impossible to explain, but then i realized that time woz a construct (a construct of our consciousness), & that time iz the prezent instant, & that the prezent instant iz universal, in our eternal infinite non-explainable universe.
But i disagree with Kastrup re religion, me myself i profoundly disrespect all godfull religions, but am ok with godless religions.
I wonder what Kastrup might think re my elekticity on a wire, which iz due to elektons (photons) hugging the surface of the Cu wire, whilst the elektons are propagating at the speed of light. Anyhow, he can read my elekticity book in late 2026.
-
Why did Oswald go get his revolver?
While searching my own website/blog for material pertaining to Oswald And His Revolver (and other interesting matters), I came across the two webpages below. (I have found that reading old, long-forgotten-about JFK-related posts and debates can be a very enjoyable and fruitful exercise.) 😀
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1220.html
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1329.html
Excerpt:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjywivcMCBXkmRj_7ONbn_X2XaV9rWFCYALz35s2nDyjVtmcQTwCJ-F33Wj9HAC1vfUQYD1S1uiAX-W8kIhHwIA6l4BGxKaB0jhKoeM-goAXG28VkVj6XosAy5okLWTrd-c4Nv_t5Hihh8hPp9izLcHNpCbgO9Yx7oO2ALCy-0Wf1PoSMlhtUS8UXsbqSg/s927/xxxxxxxx.png) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjywivcMCBXkmRj_7ONbn_X2XaV9rWFCYALz35s2nDyjVtmcQTwCJ-F33Wj9HAC1vfUQYD1S1uiAX-W8kIhHwIA6l4BGxKaB0jhKoeM-goAXG28VkVj6XosAy5okLWTrd-c4Nv_t5Hihh8hPp9izLcHNpCbgO9Yx7oO2ALCy-0Wf1PoSMlhtUS8UXsbqSg/s2000-h/xxxxxxxx.png)
-
On a hot summer day my big dark echidna flops into the birdbath next to my bathroom.
And i usually need to refill the birdbath if the kangaroos drink from it instead of the frogpond.
Kastrup will find it difficult to explain consciousness, i wouldnt be surprized if no-one ever does (or at least i would be surprized, ie if i woz still around in a thousand years).
I used to think that time woz in the same category as consciousness, ie impossible to explain, but then i realized that time woz a construct (a construct of our consciousness), & that time iz the prezent instant, & that the prezent instant iz universal, in our eternal infinite non-explainable universe.
But i disagree with Kastrup re religion, me myself i profoundly disrespect all godfull religions, but am ok with godless religions.
I wonder what Kastrup might think re my elekticity on a wire, which iz due to elektons (photons) hugging the surface of the Cu wire, whilst the elektons are propagating at the speed of light. Anyhow, he can read my elekticity book in late 2026.
FWIW, Kastrup really isn't religious at all. He has noted the affinity between his views and Buddhism, but that's about all. I actually think idealism can be incorporated into almost any belief system, secular or religious.
Now that I'm off in the ozone: His basic theory is that all of reality is a construct of the master consciousness. Within this construct, we are individual bubbles of consciousness that he calls "alters." Via our senses, we each experience external reality in the same way but also have our internal consciousnesses that are available only to us (and presumably the master consciousness). I happen to have an extremely active and weird dream life, and I think that dreams are a pretty big clue to what a non-material reality might be like.
OK, people, admit it: None of you read Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" This is your last chance - Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A Straightforward Summary of the 21st Century's Only Plausible Metaphysics, https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Idealism-Nutshell-straightforward-metaphysics/dp/1803416696. There will be a quiz on Friday.
-
Oswald’s one fatal mistake was going to Beckley to get his revolver. Had he not been carrying it, he probably could have talked his way out of the encounter with Tippit since he was rooming in the vicinity.
He could have carried it into the TSBD in a lunch sack on the morning of the 21st and had it waiting for him on the 22nd. I’ve seen it suggested at the Ed Forum that he was concerned about being frisked as he exited the TSBD on the 22nd.
I really don’t think that works. He obviously ran the risk of being frisked when he went to Beckley and got it. Indeed, that’s probably why he shot Tippit. Even if that were his thought process, he could have hidden it nearer the TSBD.
Why did he go get it? Without that move, he could’ve been long gone. Without that move, he would’ve had a much greater chance of talking his way out of any police encounter.
The fact that he didn’t have the revolver in the TSBD suggests to me what a truly last-minute, morning-of-the-22nd decision the JFKA was. My guess would be that he was completely surprised to find himself outside the TSBD and that going after the revolver was a panicked, knee-jerk reaction.
It’s hard for me to picture any CT scenario where going to Beckley and getting his revolver would have been part of the plan.
Dear FPR,
Maybe, like a lot of other gun nuts, he just wanted to fondle it while watching "War is Hell" and "Cry of Battle."
-- Tom
-
Where I believe these little thought exercises are useful is not that we're going to figure out exactly what Oswald was thinking but that they do tend to eliminate some possibilities.
One of the more popular theories is that Oswald was heading to a rendezvous - at Jack Ruby's, at a safe house in Oak Cliff, at the Texas Theater, at the Redbird Airport. To me, it is inconceivable that "a pit stop at Beckley to grab his revolver" would have been part of any such plan. It simply makes no sense. Those who favor rendezvous theories are stuck with this scenario, but it simply makes no sense.
He realized he was a patsy and went home to get his gun for protection: OK. Far-fetched for a host of reasons, but at least not irrational.
He was astounded to find himself outside the TSBD, had no plan at all, his mind was racing, and he went home to get his revolver because it might come in handy for whatever the hell might happen next: Yes, fits pretty well, it seems to me.
-
Where I believe these little thought exercises are useful is not that we're going to figure out exactly what Oswald was thinking but that they do tend to eliminate some possibilities.
One of the more popular theories is that Oswald was heading to a rendezvous - at Jack Ruby's, at a safe house in Oak Cliff, at the Texas Theater, at the Redbird Airport. To me, it is inconceivable that "a pit stop at Beckley to grab his revolver" would have been part of any such plan. It simply makes no sense. Those who favor rendezvous theories are stuck with this scenario, but it simply makes no sense.
He realized he was a patsy and went home to get his gun for protection: OK. Far-fetched for a host of reasons, but at least not irrational.
He was astounded to find himself outside the TSBD, had no plan at all, his mind was racing, and he went home to get his revolver because it might come in handy for whatever the hell might happen next: Yes, fits pretty well, it seems to me.
The first two paragraphs imply he had accomplices for which the is zero credible evidence. The third paragraph makes perfect sense. It involves no one else.
-
He realized he had been framed. He feared that his life was in danger.
-
He realized he had been framed. He feared that his life was in danger.
Easy to say, but start thinking about exactly HOW he was framed and how he KNEW he'd been framed and things start to get very complicated very fast. Why would he go home and get his revolver, as opposed to running to law enforcement for protection - he didn't think he could trust anyone in authority? He seriously thought his .38 would be protection against conspirators capable of killing a President? Once in custody, why wasn't he completely cooperative? It's really hard to articulate a scenario where "he hurried home and got his revolver, shot Tippit, resisted arrest in the theater, and remained completely uncooperative after his arrest" because "he realized he'd been framed."
-
He realized he had been framed. He feared that his life was in danger.
If Oswald had been in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time of the shooting as most deniers of his guilt seem to believe, why would he think he had been framed. He wouldn't even have known JFK had been shot until Mrs. Reid told him shots had been fired but she wasn't even sure he had been hit. He had been confronted by a cop with his gun drawn but wasn't detained after Truly vouched for him. If Oswald had been innocently eating his lunch when the shots were fired, what reason would he have to believe he was being framed for the shooting? Do CTs ever bother to think things through before they dream up these wild ideas?
-
If Oswald had been in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time of the shooting as most deniers of his guilt seem to believe, why would he think he had been framed. He wouldn't even have known JFK had been shot until Mrs. Reid told him shots had been fired but she wasn't even sure he had been hit. He had been confronted by a cop with his gun drawn but wasn't detained after Truly vouched for him. If Oswald had been innocently eating his lunch when the shots were fired, what reason would he have to believe he was being framed for the shooting? Do CTs ever bother to think things through before they dream up these wild ideas?
It's a question that can not be answered since we don't know the details of what Oswald had been doing in the days, weeks or even months prior to the assassination. Who did he meet? Did he do somebody a favor? Oswald is and always will be a mystery, regardless of the opinion of some LNs who seem to believe that they know every detail about the man and the case.
I have never heard anybody claim that Oswald could or would instantly understand that he had been framed (if that's what happened) while in the lunchroom. At least not until Baker pointed a gun at him. After that, he may well have been able to put two and two (whatever those two's are) together, without actually knowing all the details.
A similar question that can not be answered is, if he was the shooter, why did Oswald even go into the 2nd floor lunchroom, after allegedly coming down the stairs, when he could have go through the hallway and directly to the front door of the building?
-
Oswald gets to the 2nd floor after 48 sec. He stops. What to do next?
Should he continue down to the first floor?
Should he go to the first floor via the front stairs?
Should he lay low in the lunch room?
His jacket is in the Domino Room.
Uh Oh -- He hears Adams & Styles klomping down the stairs in a real hurry on a mission.
Best to visit the coke machine & hope that whoever it is goes clean past.
They pass. He comes back out. What to do next?
He can't decide. He will be less conspicuous if he takes the front stairs, but he would then have to walk back into & throo the storage area to get his jacket in the Domino Room.
He decides to continue down the back stairs.
He makes a start but then Truly hollers up the elevator shaft, so he goes back up.
Then he hears Baker & Truly galloping up the stairs, & he retreats to the coke machine a second time.
He walks slow & cool.
He would have been better off diving into the lunchroom in a hurry, & laying low, he knows there is no-one in there, but he knows that if seen rushing (by Truly & Co) it will be a sure sign that he is guilty of something.
He nearly makes it, another couple of slow steps & he will be out of sight.
But damn, Baker spots a bit of him throo the glass of the door & says to come back.
Truly says that Oswald works here, & Baker & Truly gallop off.
They get to the 5th floor & take the east elevator to the 7th floor.
Oswald gets a coke to look less guilty & more cool if confronted again. And assassinations go better with coke.
The back stairs are now dangerous. He heads for the front stairs, either forgetting about his jacket or deciding that his jacket is a dead duck.
But just in case more dumb cops are entering along the corridor he goes via the office.
Damn, he meets Jeraldean Reid as she returns to her desk. Mrs Hine is also in the office but she doesn't notice Oswald, or forgets.
Reid in 3 re-enactments took exactly 120 sec to get to her desk, which is about right (ie to meet Oswald).
She says something as they pass & he mumbles something back. Its not a good look. He has no business in the office, unless wanting change for the coke machine. Its not even a short cut to the stairs. Damn. Anyhow no big deal.
He goes down the front stairs & mixes with the growing throng in the lobby near the front door without raising any suspicion.
Someone asks him about a phone.
Ok, things aint so bad, praps he can take a chance & get his jacket from the Domino Room anyhow.
Hmmm – he can get his jacket by going out the front door & down the steps & around & entering via the Houston dock (like he does each morning), & walking 16 paces to the jacket.
Getting caught walking in shouldn’t result in getting bitten by a cop.
So, off he goes, but he gets a little ways up Houston & he sees Officer Barnett on sentry duty at the dock, & Barnett looks vicious.
So, a quick U-turn & back down Houston. Buell Frazier sees him walking south along Houston.
No, the jacket is a dead duck. He decides to get out of there asap, he crosses Houston & then crosses Elm.
Tippit is waiting.
-
If Oswald had been in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time of the shooting as most deniers of his guilt seem to believe, why would he think he had been framed. He wouldn't even have known JFK had been shot until Mrs. Reid told him shots had been fired but she wasn't even sure he had been hit. He had been confronted by a cop with his gun drawn but wasn't detained after Truly vouched for him. If Oswald had been innocently eating his lunch when the shots were fired, what reason would he have to believe he was being framed for the shooting? Do CTs ever bother to think things through before they dream up these wild ideas?
Very hard for me to see how Oswald "knows he's been framed" unless he at least knows his rifle is in the building. That's really the only thing that "frames" him. So how does he know it's in the building - does he think he's brought it for "show and tell" like we used to do in second grade? Unless he knew "Oh, my God, they have framed me as the assassin of JFK!" his actions make no sense. The CT scenarios where the conspirators removed the rifle from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD, or Oswald was instructed to shoot and miss as part of a political message of some sort, are just desperate ad hoc efforts. I really can't think of any plausible "framing" scenario.
-
Very hard for me to see how Oswald "knows he's been framed" unless he at least knows his rifle is in the building. That's really the only thing that "frames" him. So how does he know it's in the building - does he think he's brought it for "show and tell" like we used to do in second grade? Unless he knew "Oh, my God, they have framed me as the assassin of JFK!" his actions make no sense. The CT scenarios where the conspirators removed the rifle from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD, or Oswald was instructed to shoot and miss as part of a political message of some sort, are just desperate ad hoc efforts. I really can't think of any plausible "framing" scenario.
This is exactly what I meant when I started the thread about people overthinking the assassination. Oswald wasn't stupid enough to bring his rifle to work for "show and tell" on a day the POTUS was going to ride past the building. Even sillier that he would fire shots out the window as a political message. The idea that the conspirators planted Oswald's rifle ignores the fact the fibers on the butt plate matched the shirt he was wearing. I don't know why any CT would jump through all these mental hoops when a very plausible explanation is available. Oswald brought the rifle to work to kill JFK which he succeeded in doing. I think it's terribly unfair to Oswald given that this was the first big thing Oswald ever succeeded at in his miserable little life and so many CTs refuse to give him credit for it.
-
Very hard for me to see how Oswald "knows he's been framed" unless he at least knows his rifle is in the building. That's really the only thing that "frames" him. So how does he know it's in the building - does he think he's brought it for "show and tell" like we used to do in second grade? Unless he knew "Oh, my God, they have framed me as the assassin of JFK!" his actions make no sense. The CT scenarios where the conspirators removed the rifle from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD, or Oswald was instructed to shoot and miss as part of a political message of some sort, are just desperate ad hoc efforts. I really can't think of any plausible "framing" scenario.
The CT scenarios where the conspirators removed the rifle from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD
What if that particular rifle, or any other rifle at all, wasn't in Ruth Paine's garage at all on 21 November 63?
There is the assumption that it was there, but the reality is that nobody has seen it in the garage for weeks prior to the assassination.
-
The CT scenarios where the conspirators removed the rifle from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD
What if that particular rifle, or any other rifle at all, wasn't in Ruth Paine's garage at all on 21 November 63?
There is the assumption that it was there, but the reality is that nobody has seen it in the garage for weeks prior to the assassination.
OK, fine, but doesn't that leave the same issue as to why Oswald thinks he's been framed? Say the rifle was removed from the garage two weeks previously, or a month, or whatever. Or it never was in the garage. I don't see any way that Oswald realizes he's been framed within minutes of the assassination unless the M-C actually was his rifle and he knew it was in the building. What other scenario is there where he realizes "I've been framed for the assassination of JFK and I need to hightail it out of here and get my revolver." Even if he'd been a knowing cog in some event he didn't think was an assassination (perhaps a protest of some sort), and then realized it was an assassination, it's hard for me to make sense of his subsequent actions on that basis - unless he knew his rifle was in the building.
-
OK, fine, but doesn't that leave the same issue as to why Oswald thinks he's been framed? Say the rifle was removed from the garage two weeks previously, or a month, or whatever. Or it never was in the garage. I don't see any way that Oswald realizes he's been framed within minutes of the assassination unless the M-C actually was his rifle and he knew it was in the building. What other scenario is there where he realizes "I've been framed for the assassination of JFK and I need to hightail it out of here and get my revolver." Even if he'd been a knowing cog in some event he didn't think was an assassination (perhaps a protest of some sort), and then realized it was an assassination, it's hard for me to make sense of his subsequent actions on that basis - unless he knew his rifle was in the building.
It's 2-3? minutes after the "event" that took place outside the building where he works. He's having lunch, hears this commotion outside, a police officer confronts him and lets him go, someone says the President was shot or maybe not. This is all he knows.
So he goes outside, sees this absolute chaos taking place, police running around with guns drawn, people yelling and screaming. Many people are going to the grassy knoll, the fence, the overpass. Some say the President was shot. Others say otherwise. It's all confusion.
From this limited information the innocent Oswald determines he's being framed? For what exactly? How can he be framed? He's having lunch. He doesn't know where the shots came from.
Moreover, during his journey from work to the rooming house he never inquires about what happened. He doesn't talk to any co-workers, he shows no interest in learning about what happened, he ignores the TV that is on as he goes to his room, he doesn't ask Roberts about any news. For a guy thinking he's being framed he sure doesn't want to find out anything that might help exonerate him. Not exactly Richard Kimble looking for a one armed man.
The very political Oswald shows no interest at all in what happened. In this world, none of this makes sense. In Oswald defender world it's all assumptions and suppositions.
-
If Oswald was a patsy, there would have been a car waiting for him near the TSBD that would have driven him to his death. I doubt they would have found his body.
If Oswald was a patsy, and the plan was to kill him to keep him from talking, then he is killed in the TSBD or Texas Theatre. The last thing that the conspirators could allow is for him to be arrested and given a chance to speak to law enforcement, a lawyer, and a room full of reporters. There was ample opportunity to the DPD or someone in law enforcement to kill him. Particularly at the TT when he was resisting arrest while trying to pull out a gun after just having killed another police officer. A Jack Ruby scenario which requires him to commit murder on national TV and spend the rest of his life in jail on behalf of the conspirators to silence Oswald is ludicrous as a plan.
-
Sadly, JD Tippit found out the hard way why LHO retrieved his revolver.…. LHO simply intended to resist any attempts of his capture. He didn’t want to “go quietly”. Ironically, LHO never uttered another word after Ruby discharged HIS revolver into LHO’s abdomen.
-
It's 2-3? minutes after the "event" that took place outside the building where he works. He's having lunch, hears this commotion outside, a police officer confronts him and lets him go, someone says the President was shot or maybe not. This is all he knows.
So he goes outside, sees this absolute chaos taking place, police running around with guns drawn, people yelling and screaming. Many people are going to the grassy knoll, the fence, the overpass. Some say the President was shot. Others say otherwise. It's all confusion.
From this limited information the innocent Oswald determines he's being framed? For what exactly? How can he be framed? He's having lunch. He doesn't know where the shots came from.
Moreover, during his journey from work to the rooming house he never inquires about what happened. He doesn't talk to any co-workers, he shows no interest in learning about what happened, he ignores the TV that is on as he goes to his room, he doesn't ask Roberts about any news. For a guy thinking he's being framed he sure doesn't want to find out anything that might help exonerate him. Not exactly a Richard Kimble here looking for a one armed shooter.
The very political Oswald shows no interest at all in what happened. In this world, none of this makes sense. In Oswald defender world it's all assumptions and suppositions.
As in the lunchroom encounter with Baker, Oswald seems to have been in a weird dissociative state. With Baker, Whaley and Roberts, it would seem that feigned astonishment would have served his interests: "What? The President was shot? What happened? I was eating lunch and missed the whole thing." With Roberts and Whaley, he might even have asked questions that would have aided his escape: "Do they know who did it? Have they captured anyone?" Instead, literally nothing. But then in the theater and in custody, he snaps out of it and is the typical Oswald. Very odd, or at least it seems so to me.
The Baker encounter is really bizarre. Baker rushes into the building in search of a suspect. He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach. Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect. That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
-
If Oswald was a patsy, and the plan was to kill him to keep him from talking, then he is killed in the TSBD or Texas Theatre. The last thing that the conspirators could allow is for him to be arrested and given a chance to speak to law enforcement, a lawyer, and a room full of reporters. There was ample opportunity to the DPD or someone in law enforcement to kill him. Particularly at the TT when he was resisting arrest while trying to pull out a gun after just having killed another police officer. A Jack Ruby scenario which requires him to commit murder on national TV and spend the rest of his life in jail on behalf of the conspirators to silence Oswald is ludicrous as a plan.
CT hat on: What you say is true if the conspirators in fact wanted the patsy dead. If the patsy thinks he's involved in a pro-Castro operation when he in fact is involved in something entirely different, his survival might serve the conspirators' purpose. All he can do is spout his pro-Castro rhetoric and point the finger exactly where they want it to be pointed. It really makes no difference if he lives or dies because he really doesn't know anything. His murder by Ruby would not be part of the plan, but just an unanticipated event that is largey irrelevant to the conspirators. This to me is the most plausible conspiracy theory: conspirators who wanted the JFKA to point to Castro and who recruited pro-Castro Oswald for what was actually an anti-Castro plot. This would not have Oswald as an innocent or unknowing patsy, but simply one who thought he was involved in a conspiracy that was 180 degrees different from what it actually was.
-
As in the lunchroom encounter with Baker, Oswald seems to have been in a weird dissociative state. With Baker, Whaley and Roberts, it would seem that feigned astonishment would have served his interests: "What? The President was shot? What happened? I was eating lunch and missed the whole thing." With Roberts and Whaley, he might even have asked questions that would have aided his escape: "Do they know who did it? Have they captured anyone?" Instead, literally nothing. But then in the theater and in custody, he snaps out of it and is the typical Oswald. Very odd, or at least it seems so to me.
The Baker encounter is really bizarre. Baker rushes into the building in search of a suspect. He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach. Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect. That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach.
How do you know that Oswald didn't ask that or a similar question?
Secondly, do you agree that not everybody reacts to situations in the same way?
Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect.
So, now we have Baker and Oswald who did not react in the way you expect them to do?
That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
This is just one of many bizarre things when it comes to Oswald.
For example, isn't it the LN narrative that Oswald decided to kill Kennedy after Marina refused to live with him again? If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?
And does it even make sense to make a paper bag, when it is alleged that Oswald took the rifle (unseen) to New Orleans on public transport. Duffel bags were found in Ruth Paine's garage and they apparently belonged to Oswald. So, why not simply use a duffel bag to bring the rifle into the TSBD? And while we're on the subject, if Oswald transported to rifle to New Orleans in a duffel bag, why not use the same bag to place it in Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. Why use a blanket instead and risk the rifle being seen by Ruth?
-
Anytime we ask ourselves what Oswald was thinking at any given time, we are speculating because he was the only one who knew and he took those secrets to his grave. If you believe in a hereafter and you go to the hot place, maybe you can ask him.
Obviously his decision to kill JFK was not done on the spur of the moment. That took planning and preparation. He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest. His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle. Had the case gone to trial, those facts would have been used to establish premeditation.
His actions post assassination are another matter. We have no idea what he was thinking from that point on. He probably knew he would be the subject of a manhunt and his decision to get his gun might well have been to arm himself against a cop(s). The fact he killed the first cop who encountered him and tried to kill the second is a strong indication he didn't intend to be taken alive. The cops would have been legally justified in killing him in the theater but chose instead to act with restraint. Did he have a destination in mind? Who knows but with only $13 in his pocket, he wasn't likely to get far. Maybe he would have held up a bank or a liquor store to get more cash. Who knows but it's fun to speculate about, just as it is fun to speculate about his motive for killing JFK.
$13 in 1963 was quite a bit of money, the equivalent of $141 today.
As for your other comments, I recommend you read two articles:
Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing
-
As in the lunchroom encounter with Baker, Oswald seems to have been in a weird dissociative state. With Baker, Whaley and Roberts, it would seem that feigned astonishment would have served his interests: "What? The President was shot? What happened? I was eating lunch and missed the whole thing." With Roberts and Whaley, he might even have asked questions that would have aided his escape: "Do they know who did it? Have they captured anyone?" Instead, literally nothing. But then in the theater and in custody, he snaps out of it and is the typical Oswald. Very odd, or at least it seems so to me.
The Baker encounter is really bizarre. Baker rushes into the building in search of a suspect. He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach. Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect. That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
This is a classic example of what I wrote in another thread. You're overthinking this. You are making assumptions about what you think Oswald's demeanor should have been had he shot JFK. Perhaps you are imagining how you would have acted had you been in Oswald's shoes. That approach only makes sense if you assume Oswald would think like you in the same circumstances. I am going to assume you are not a wannabe presidential assassin so I see no reason to believe Oswald demeanor would mimic yours under the same circumstances.
I see no reason to think Oswald would have been surprised by being confronted by a cop with his gun drawn given that he knew what he had just done. Acting innocent when we have done something wrong is a life skill most of us learn when we are very young. "I don't know who knocked over the flower pot". That skill has served me well over the years. I even pulled it on my boss once. And it worked. That was many years ago. I hope he's not reading this.
-
He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach.
How do you know that Oswald didn't ask that or a similar question?
I obviously don't KNOW that. However, both Baker's and Truly's descriptions of the encounter are sufficiently "pro-Oswald" that I see no compelling reason they would have omitted a statement along those lines.
Secondly, do you agree that not everybody reacts to situations in the same way?
Obviously they don't. But there is certainly a range of "normal" or "expected" behaviors when one has assassinated a President two minutes previously and now has a police officer sticking a gun in his stomach. Oswald's behavior seems to me outside that range, which is why I have described it as seeming like a dissociative state. On this thread or another one, I quoted an article to the effect that killers sometimes do exhibit a weird dissociative sort of calm.
Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect.
So, now we have Baker and Oswald who did not react in the way you expect them to do?
I would have no expectations for Truly. Baker actions don't strike me as very solid police work, but he may not have been thinking clearly under the circumstances.
That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.
This is just one of many bizarre things when it comes to Oswald.
For example, isn't it the LN narrative that Oswald decided to kill Kennedy after Marina refused to live with him again? If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?
And does it even make sense to make a paper bag, when it is alleged that Oswald took the rifle (unseen) to New Orleans on public transport. Duffel bags were found in Ruth Paine's garage and they apparently belonged to Oswald. So, why not simply use a duffel bag to bring the rifle into the TSBD? And while we're on the subject, if Oswald transported to rifle to New Orleans in a duffel bag, why not use the same bag to place it in Ruth Paine's car when she picked up Marina. Why use a blanket instead and risk the rifle being seen by Ruth?
I think you're confusing me with John Corbett. I started an entire thread not long ago about the seeming disconnect between Oswald's behavior in Irving on 11-21 and his assassination of JFK: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4977.0.html.
I have also stated in just the last day or so that the paper bag strikes me as one of the weak links in the LN narrative. I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.
If Oswald constructed and used a paper bag, I assume he did so because it would make his excuse to Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods more plausible. One would think that a paper-wrapped package described as curtain rods would be likely to raise fewer questions than a duffle bag. I don't know what size duffle bags Oswald had, but that might have seemed like an odd and extreme way to carry curtain rods. It may also have had something to do with the way the disassembled rifle was packaged inside the blanket, which Michael Paine described as seeming as though it were tied together.
You seem to have shifted the focus away from what you were suggesting in the post to which I responded: What "framing" scenario explains Oswald's actions if the M-C rifle was not in fact his and if he didn't know it was in the building?
-
This is a classic example of what I wrote in another thread. You're overthinking this. You are making assumptions about what you think Oswald's demeanor should have been had he shot JFK. Perhaps you are imagining how you would have acted had you been in Oswald's shoes. That approach only makes sense if you assume Oswald would think like you in the same circumstances. I am going to assume you are not a wannabe presidential assassin so I see no reason to believe Oswald demeanor would mimic yours under the same circumstances.
I see no reason to think Oswald would have been surprised by being confronted by a cop with his gun drawn given that he knew what he had just done. Acting innocent when we have done something wrong is a life skill most of us learn when we are very young. "I don't know who knocked over the flower pot". That skill has served me well over the years. I even pulled it on my boss once. And it worked. That was many years ago. I hope he's not reading this.
No, I don't believe I'm overthinking it. I am simply noting Oswald's behavior as described by Baker and Truly and finding it exceedingly odd. If I jumped to "and that behavior is impossible for someone who just assassinated JFK," that would indeed be overthinking it. I simply note that this is a guy who shot the President of the United States something like two minutes previously, stashed his rifle, started down the stairs, heard someone coming up, ducked into the lunchroom - and was cooler than the proverbial cucumber when confronted by an officer who stuck a gun in his stomach. By any standard, that is remarkable - and suggestive to me of a dissociative state of some sort. We are allowed to at least think in LN Land, aren't we? It's a certainty that Baker and Truly would have been star witnesses for the defense if there had been a trial.
-
$13 in 1963 was quite a bit of money, the equivalent of $141 today.
As for your other comments, I recommend you read two articles:
Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing
$141 isn't going to get you very far today. I just looked up the Greyhound bus fare from Dallas to El Paso. it's $62.99. Roughly 45% of your cash. $13 might have allowed Oswald to eat some meals and take a short trip somewhere in 1963, but it would be gone in a few days. Complicating this is his face would be in every newspaper and TV news program not just in this country but neighboring countries as well.
I read your article about the problems with the case against Oswald. You should have quit after the second paragraph. You immediately started to go downhill from there. You demonstrate something I wrote recently in another thread. CTs will invent one lame excuse after another to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. Just taking your imagined problems regarding the Carcano rifle. You claim the money order Oswald used to purchase the rifle was bought at a time Oswald was at work. You cited Summers as a source. I'm assuming that's Anthony Summers, longtime conspiracy author. Do you have another source for that. My research tells me the claim is based on the postmark of the letter to Klein's which contained the money order. The post office doesn't postmark letters when they are mailed. They have collection times for mailboxes and the time stamps are made when those collected letters are processed. There's no telling when Oswald mailed the letter to Klein's.
You also pointed out that nobody at the post office remembered handing Oswald a long package. Seriously? There's no telling which postal employee handed the package to Oswald and do you really think whoever it was that handed Oswald the package would have remembered doing so 8 months prior to the assassination.
You make an issue of the fact that Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle but received a 40 inch rifle. Gee, whoever heard of a mail order house making a substitution like that? Even today I occasionally have to send something back to Amazon because what I received was not what I ordered. The serial number C2766 was unique to that rifle and that is the one Klein's sent to Oswald. He was photographed with the rifle and his palmprint was on the underside of the barrel.
Furthermore, the purchaser was listed as A. Hidell. How did these conspirators know 8 months in advance that one day Oswald would be working at a building overlooking a motorcade that was part of a presidential visit toe Dallas that wasn't even in the planning stages. How could they have known their patsy would have been carrying a fake ID with the name Alex Hidell. Do you guys ever bother to think these things out before you make these outrageous claims.
Then you suggest that all the documents with Oswald's handwriting on them could have been forged. I sat on a jury in a forgery case once and it was explained to us that most forgeries do not involve the forger copying somebody else's handwriting but disguising their own. Again, the suggestion that the conspirators were already trying to frame Oswald 8 months before the assassination are ludicrous.
The rest of your perceived problems with the evidence regarding the Carcano fall into the coulda, wouldna, shoulda category with zero evidence to support any of them.
The above are just the logical fallacies you committed in the first three pages of your article. Had I continued pointing out the logical fallacies in the rest of your 39 page diatribe, I might be here until next week. I wonder how much of your time you wasted on that article but I wasn't going to waste my time pointing out your silliness. I've told you before your material hasn't improved one bit since I first came across it on the old Prodigy service 35 years ago. If anything, you have just become more verbose.
-
I obviously don't KNOW that. However, both Baker's and Truly's descriptions of the encounter are sufficiently "pro-Oswald" that I see no compelling reason they would have omitted a statement along those lines.
Obviously they don't. But there is certainly a range of "normal" or "expected" behaviors when one has assassinated a President two minutes previously and now has a police officer sticking a gun in his stomach. Oswald's behavior seems to me outside that range, which is why I have described it as seeming like a dissociative state. On this thread or another one, I quoted an article to the effect that killers sometimes do exhibit a weird dissociative sort of calm.
I would have no expectations for Truly. Baker actions don't strike me as very solid police work, but he may not have been thinking clearly under the circumstances.
I think you're confusing me with John Corbett. I started an entire thread not long ago about the seeming disconnect between Oswald's behavior in Irving on 11-21 and his assassination of JFK: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4977.0.html.
I have also stated in just the last day or so that the paper bag strikes me as one of the weak links in the LN narrative. I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.
If Oswald constructed and used a paper bag, I assume he did so because it would make his excuse to Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods more plausible. One would think that a paper-wrapped package described as curtain rods would be likely to raise fewer questions than a duffle bag. I don't know what size duffle bags Oswald had, but that might have seemed like an odd and extreme way to carry curtain rods. It may also have had something to do with the way the disassembled rifle was packaged inside the blanket, which Michael Paine described as seeming as though it were tied together.
You seem to have shifted the focus away from what you were suggesting in the post to which I responded: What "framing" scenario explains Oswald's actions if the M-C rifle was not in fact his and if he didn't know it was in the building?
You seem to have shifted the focus away from what you were suggesting in the post to which I responded: What "framing" scenario explains Oswald's actions if the M-C rifle was not in fact his and if he didn't know it was in the building?
I actually did respond to that, but strangely I can not find the post I have written. I have no idea what happened, Anyway, I'll gladly try to recall what I wrote.
If the position is that Oswald understood he had been framed, after his encounter with Baker, I agree that there must be a reason for him to come to that conclusion and that could indeed be that he knew the rifle he had purchased at Klein's was in fact in the building. But I think Oswald's actions can also be explained with the instant framing scenario you've referenced. In my mind it could be possible that Oswald's encounter with Baker only told him that something had happened. People not only react differently to different situations but they also deal with events differently. Personally, I have never had any dealings with law enforcement, except for a traffic stop or two. Yet, when a cop pulls me over, I instantly start to feel guilty even though I have done nothing wrong.
As I have said before, we don't know what exactly happened in the days, weeks and even months prior to the assassination, so there is no way of telling what went through Oswald's mind when Baker pointed a gun at him. We don't know who Oswald met and talked to, if he did somebody a favor or anything like that, so could it be that somebody manipulated him and then instantly disappeared after the killing? Much like a man dating older women to get access to their money and when he has what he wanted he's instantly gone. Is there any evidence for any of that? No of course not, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!
So, perhaps Oswald put two and two together (whatever those two's were) when Baker pointed his gun at him and he simply got a hunch and wanted to clear it up, by leaving the TSBD as fast as he could and go to that person. In such a scenario it would be surprising that he first went to pick up his revolver, just to be on the safe side.
I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.
I don't think I've said that you did.
If Oswald constructed and used a paper bag, I assume he did so because it would make his excuse to Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods more plausible. One would think that a paper-wrapped package described as curtain rods would be likely to raise fewer questions than a duffle bag. I don't know what size duffle bags Oswald had, but that might have seemed like an odd and extreme way to carry curtain rods.
To a certain extend, I do agree. Frazier confirmed to me and others that the curtain rods story did in fact happen, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. Personally, I think it is possible that Oswald used to curtain rods story as an excuse in order to avoid telling a 19 year old co-worker that he was really going to try and safe his marriage. But that still doesn't explain why he would use TSBD materials and make a bag at the wrapping table, when he could have used a flimsy bag that Frazier described when DPD subjected him to a polygraph on Friday evening. I can't really figure out why anybody would come up with the idea to construct a bag when there were all sorts of other options available. I don't really see why a duffel bag would raise more questions as Oswald could simply say it was the only bag he could find to carry the rods.
It may also have had something to do with the way the disassembled rifle was packaged inside the blanket, which Michael Paine described as seeming as though it were tied together.
I'm not sure that the rifle (if it was a rifle) was disassembled inside the blanket, but it seems nearly impossible to conceal a broken down rifle in a blanket which is tied closed by a piece of rope.
If there was a rifle in that blanket when it was placed in Ruth's car, I think it would have to have fully assembled. As for Michael Paine, I don't really know what to make of him.
You may recall that Paine admitted in a television interview, years later, that an FBI or Secret Service agent has shown him one of the BY photos on Friday evening, when in fact those photos were allegedly found during the second search (with a warrant) on Saturday afternoon. In Captain Fritz's testimony we find corroboration to some extend, as he tells us that when he interviewed Oswald on Saturday he already had a blown up version of one of the BY photos and that he also knew the photo was taken at Neely Street. Now, why would Michael Paine deny for many years that he knew Oswald had a rifle, when he years later said that he had seen a rifle in Oswald's appartment around the time the BY photos were taken?
-
So, perhaps Oswald put two and two together (whatever those two's were) when Baker pointed his gun at him and he simply got a hunch and wanted to clear it up, by leaving the TSBD as fast as he could and go to that person. In such a scenario it would be surprising that he first went to pick up his revolver, just to be on the safe side.
But then we bump up against the Tippit murder, which is presumably why Belin called it the Rosetta Stone of the JFKA. The Tippit murder seemingly flies in the face of any theory that Oswald was an escaping patsy who got his revolver for protection. The two CT gambits here are, of course, either that Oswald didn't kill Tippit at all or that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy that had framed him and shot Tippit before Tippit shot him.
But then we bump up against the Texas Theater. Here, the CT gambit is that what supposedly took place inside the theater is not what actually took place. (I do find Oswald's protests about "I'm not resisting arrest!" kind of odd if he had actually pulled his gun on McDonald.)
I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.
I don't think I've said that you did
No big deal, but you did say "If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?"
Personally, I think it is possible that Oswald used to curtain rods story as an excuse in order to avoid telling a 19 year old co-worker that he was really going to try and safe his marriage.
Yes, that has occurred to me.
I can't really figure out why anybody would come up with the idea to construct a bag when there were all sorts of other options available.
I've repeatedly said the same thing. It's not impossible, but it's certainly odd.
In further response to John's complaint that I'm overthinking things, I would again point out that Oswald's behavior is evidence, regardless of what he was thinking. Every lawyer knows you need some "theory of the case" to give context to what you present to the jury. I believe Oswald's behavior would be the foundation of a defense theory of the case and might go a long way toward creating reasonable doubt.
Did he ever say or write anything suggesting animosity toward JFK? No.
In the days leading up to the JFKA, and particularly the night before in Irving, did he act like a man who was planning a Presidential assassination or give any clue that he was? No.
The morning of the JFKA, did he exhibit unusual behavior? No.
Two minutes after the JFKA, did he act like a man who had just shot the President? No.
Was this demeanor consistent with the way Oswald acted in other stressful situations? No.
In that context, the various holes that CTers try to poke in the Dealey Plaza evidence would likely carry more weight toward convincing a jury he was a mere patsy than they would without such context. Even to me, Oswald's behavior is the most troubling aspect of the LN narrative.
But then, alas for Oswald, we bump up against Tippit, the Texas Theater and his behavior in custody - and the innocent patsy argument becomes a tough sell.
-
LP--
That LHO had high IQ seems established, but he also may have been mentally ill.
Hard to estimate what such a man would do or plan, in such unusual circumstances.
Possibly, LHO expected a ride away from the TSBD, a ride that did not materialize, for many reasons, including traffic.
LHO's immediate escape plan from the TSBD seemed good enough and actually worked. He ran down the back stairs quickly and feigned innocence.
An interesting question is why LHO hid the M-C carbine or short rifle rather than leave it in situ. Maybe LHO thought that would buy him time in terms of minutes or hours, but not much longer than that. That indicates he expected to be able to escape the country, possibly on 11.22 or 11.23. But again, LHO was mentally troubled, in may layman's assessment, so who knows what he was thinking.
The JFKAC was likely a shoestring, ad hoc op. Like the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot up the US Capitol, or who tried to assassinate Truman, the JFKA perps may have seen Job 1 as the act, and Job 2 as escaping. They may have had little money, and few, in any, institutional resources. But they were zealots.
I am confident the JFKA, including the GK smoke-and-bang show, required more than a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt action rifle. The "bang...bang-bang" cadence alone makes the SBT LNT theorizing...well, those theories require a suspension of disbelief.
-
LP--
That LHO had high IQ seems established, but he also may have been mentally ill.
Hard to estimate what such a man would do or plan, in such unusual circumstances.
Possibly, LHO expected a ride away from the TSBD, a ride that did not materialize, for many reasons, including traffic.
LHO's immediate escape plan from the TSBD seemed good enough and actually worked. He ran down the back stairs quickly and feigned innocence.
An interesting question is why LHO hid the M-C carbine or short rifle rather than leave it in situ. Maybe LHO thought that would buy him time in terms of minutes or hours, but not much longer than that. That indicates he expected to be able to escape the country, possibly on 11.22 or 11.23. But again, LHO was mentally troubled, in may layman's assessment, so who knows what he was thinking.
The JFKAC was likely a shoestring, ad hoc op. Like the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot up the US Capitol, or who tried to assassinate Truman, the JFKA perps may have seen Job 1 as the act, and Job 2 as escaping. They may have had little money, and few, in any, institutional resources. But they were zealots.
I am confident the JFKA, including the GK smoke-and-bang show, required more than a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt action rifle. The "bang...bang-bang" cadence alone makes the SBT LNT theorizing...well, those theories require a suspension of disbelief.
There was one live round left in the rifle. LHO could have used that live round on anyone who might have shown up and tried to stop him from leaving the sixth floor. However, LHO should have realized that he couldn’t try to leave the building with that rifle in his hands. He would have known that there was a plethora of law enforcement officers just outside the building. If they had seen someone trying to escape the building while holding a rifle, they would have tried to stop him. Stashing the rifle near the stairway on the sixth floor makes the most sense to me. It also is consistent with how he apparently escaped the scene of the Walker home after a shot was fired. I think that trying to blend-in with others was LHO’s best chance for an escape from the TSBD area. And that is what apparently worked for him.
I wouldn’t be surprised if LHO had stashed the rifle in that same area near the stairway on the sixth floor that morning when he arrived. It would have given him options to quietly retrieve it and go to the fifth or seventh floor (if other co-workers had decided to watch from the sixth floor instead of the fifth floor). Based on what we know of the Walker incident, LHO was apparently a planner that tried to have contingency plans if needed. And yes, I believe LHO also probably thought hiding the rifle would tend to buy him some additional time to try to get away.
-
CC:
Mostly ditto your comments, with the proviso LHO and confederates had but a few days to make plans, given the Nov. 19 publication of the actual motorcade route. LHO could take his time planning the Walker shooting.
-
$13 in 1963 was quite a bit of money, the equivalent of $141 today.
Just to follow up on this point, in 1963 a bus ticket from Dallas to Houston cost about $6; a bus ticket from Dallas to Tulsa, Oklahoma, cost about $9.50; and a bus ticket from Dallas to San Antonio cost about $10.50. In 1963, you could buy a hamburger or a hot dog for about 30 cents, a movie ticket for about 85 cents, a new shirt for about $4.00, etc., etc.
The fact that Oswald had $13 in his pocket is just one fact that casts serious doubt on the specious tale that he snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying. Credible evidence places Oswald in the theater at right around 1:07, which rules him out as Tippit's killer.
Why did Oswald go get his revolver? A better question is, Why didn't Oswald take his revolver to work if he planned on shooting JFK?
Oswald grabbed his revolver after he returned to his room because he realized something had gone terribly wrong in Dealey Plaza and that may have been set up. Once in police custody, he had no doubt that he had been framed, which is why he told journalists he was a patsy. Voice-stress analysis of Oswald's statements to newsmen while in police custody shows he was telling the truth when he said he had not shot anyone, and NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek proves he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
Even the uber-cautious Pat Speer, who is loathe to accept any evidence of planted or faked evidence, has demolished the curtain-rod myth cited by WC apologists to explain how Oswald allegedly got the rifle inside the TSBD.
-
Just to follow up on this point, in 1963 a bus ticket from Dallas to Houston cost about $6; a bus ticket from Dallas to Tulsa, Oklahoma, cost about $9.50; and a bus ticket from Dallas to San Antonio cost about $10.50. In 1963, you could buy a hamburger or a hot dog for about 30 cents, a movie ticket for about 85 cents, a new shirt for about $4.00, etc., etc.
The fact that Oswald had $13 in his pocket is just one fact that casts serious doubt on the specious tale that he snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying. Credible evidence places Oswald in the theater at right around 1:07, which rules him out as Tippit's killer.
Did you just make that up? Oswald was arrested with the Tippit murder weapon his possession as well as the same two brands of bullets found in Tippit's body. That rules him in as Tippit's murderer.
Why did Oswald go get his revolver? A better question is, Why didn't Oswald take his revolver to work if he planned on shooting JFK?
Since he didn't plan on returning to his rooming house on Thursday night, he would have had to bring his revolver with him on Thursday morning and kept it concealed all day. He would have to have done the same on Friday morning. Did you really need this explained to you?
Oswald grabbed his revolver after he returned to his room because he realized something had gone terribly wrong in Dealey Plaza and that may have been set up. Once in police custody, he had no doubt that he had been framed, which is why he told journalists he was a patsy. Voice-stress analysis of Oswald's statements to newsmen while in police custody shows he was telling the truth when he said he had not shot anyone, and NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek proves he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
Funny how none of the other TSBD employees who didn't shoot the President felt they needed to leave work and get their revolver. Why would Oswald need to do so if he hadn't shot the President? Why would Oswald think he was being framed?
Even the uber-cautious Pat Speer, who is loathe to accept any evidence of planted or faked evidence, has demolished the curtain-rod myth cited by WC apologists to explain how Oswald allegedly got the rifle inside the TSBD.
I'll bet he demolished it <chuckle>
-
Did you just make that up? Oswald was arrested with the Tippit murder weapon his possession as well as the same two brands of bullets found in Tippit's body. That rules him in as Tippit's murderer.
Since he didn't plan on returning to his rooming house on Thursday night, he would have had to bring his revolver with him on Thursday morning and kept it concealed all day. He would have to have done the same on Friday morning. Did you really need this explained to you?
Funny how none of the other TSBD employees who didn't shoot the President felt they needed to leave work and get their revolver. Why would Oswald need to do so if he hadn't shot the President? Why would Oswald think he was being framed?
I'll bet he demolished it <chuckle>
Michael Griffith says it's a "myth" that Oswald shot JFK. There is no basis for the idea, no evidence to support that claim. He waves it away.
But he says "we cannot dismiss the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera."
Consider those two claims: he believes there is more evidence that Babushka Lady shot JFK than there is evidence (none he says) that Oswald shot JFK.
You will have greater success reasoning with a parakeet than with him.
-
But then we bump up against the Tippit murder, which is presumably why Belin called it the Rosetta Stone of the JFKA. The Tippit murder seemingly flies in the face of any theory that Oswald was an escaping patsy who got his revolver for protection. The two CT gambits here are, of course, either that Oswald didn't kill Tippit at all or that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy that had framed him and shot Tippit before Tippit shot him.
But then we bump up against the Texas Theater. Here, the CT gambit is that what supposedly took place inside the theater is not what actually took place. (I do find Oswald's protests about "I'm not resisting arrest!" kind of odd if he had actually pulled his gun on McDonald.)
No big deal, but you did say "If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?"
Yes, that has occurred to me.
I've repeatedly said the same thing. It's not impossible, but it's certainly odd.
In further response to John's complaint that I'm overthinking things, I would again point out that Oswald's behavior is evidence, regardless of what he was thinking. Every lawyer knows you need some "theory of the case" to give context to what you present to the jury. I believe Oswald's behavior would be the foundation of a defense theory of the case and might go a long way toward creating reasonable doubt.
Did he ever say or write anything suggesting animosity toward JFK? No.
In the days leading up to the JFKA, and particularly the night before in Irving, did he act like a man who was planning a Presidential assassination or give any clue that he was? No.
The morning of the JFKA, did he exhibit unusual behavior? No.
Two minutes after the JFKA, did he act like a man who had just shot the President? No.
Was this demeanor consistent with the way Oswald acted in other stressful situations? No.
In that context, the various holes that CTers try to poke in the Dealey Plaza evidence would likely carry more weight toward convincing a jury he was a mere patsy than they would without such context. Even to me, Oswald's behavior is the most troubling aspect of the LN narrative.
But then, alas for Oswald, we bump up against Tippit, the Texas Theater and his behavior in custody - and the innocent patsy argument becomes a tough sell.
But then we bump up against the Tippit murder, which is presumably why Belin called it the Rosetta Stone of the JFKA. The Tippit murder seemingly flies in the face of any theory that Oswald was an escaping patsy who got his revolver for protection.
I'm not so sure about that. You can also turn that around and ask just how likely it would be for Oswald thinking he was a patsy to kill a cop and thus destroy any patsy defense?
Wouldn't it have been enough for Oswald to just understand or even just believe that he might well be involved in some sort of conspiracy, to decide to get his revolver for protection?
The two CT gambits here are, of course, either that Oswald didn't kill Tippit at all or that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy that had framed him and shot Tippit before Tippit shot him.
There is a wide gap between those two options. It seems to me there are a few more possibilities. Unfortunately we can only speculate which will not get us very far.
In further response to John's complaint that I'm overthinking things, I would again point out that Oswald's behavior is evidence, regardless of what he was thinking. Every lawyer knows you need some "theory of the case" to give context to what you present to the jury. I believe Oswald's behavior would be the foundation of a defense theory of the case and might go a long way toward creating reasonable doubt.
In that context, the various holes that CTers try to poke in the Dealey Plaza evidence would likely carry more weight toward convincing a jury he was a mere patsy than they would without such context. Even to me, Oswald's behavior is the most troubling aspect of the LN narrative.
Agreed
But then, alas for Oswald, we bump up against Tippit, the Texas Theater and his behavior in custody - and the innocent patsy argument becomes a tough sell.
Which is exactly why I don't understand that he would kill a cop. There are all sorts of theories about the killing of Tippit and they all leave questions unanswered.
Let's take the possibility that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy. That would imply that both men knew each other, which I don't think is true. But if it is true, and Tippit was indeed searching for Oswald to kill him, then why did he talk to him first and then leave his car with his revolver still in it's holster? Also, why would Tippit look for Oswald in a suburban area like 10th street? It doesn't make sense, but that also applies to Oswald "fleeing" to 10th street! What in the world was he doing there?
The way Tippit was shot also leads to unanswered questions. According to the narrative, Tippit got out of his car, clearly not sensing danger and then the killer instantly fired several shots at him. That, to me, is more likely a cold blooded act than a panic reaction. What would have motivated Oswald to kill a cop and actually go back for a final shot to ensure he was dead when the two men just had a conversation and Tippit didn't behave in a way that made it clear he either wanted to arrest or kill Oswald? In what universe does that make sense?
-
The way Tippit was shot also leads to unanswered questions. According to the narrative, Tippit got out of his car, clearly not sensing danger and then the killer instantly fired several shots at him. That, to me, is more likely a cold blooded act than a panic reaction. What would have motivated Oswald to kill a cop and actually go back for a final shot to ensure he was dead when the two men just had a conversation and Tippit didn't behave in a way that made it clear he either wanted to arrest or kill Oswald? In what universe does that make sense?
All I can speculate is that Oswald knew he was carrying a concealed revolver and would likely be arrested if Tippit discovered it, whereupon all the dominoes would fall, so he took the extremely preemptive step of immediately gunning down Tippit. This does seem wildly at variance with the Oswald of the Baker encounter - who, of course, wasn't carrying a concealed revolver. If he actually did administer a close-range coup de grace, that would be truly bizarre and might suggest some personal animosity that would be hard to explain. Ya got me! At the Ed Forum, they are discussing the Oswald who supposedly took a whiz into the bushes along the sidewalk in full view of passers-by, so let's figure THAT into our alternate universe as well.
-
All I can speculate is that Oswald knew he was carrying a concealed revolver and would likely be arrested if Tippit discovered it, whereupon all the dominoes would fall, so he took the extremely preemptive step of immediately gunning down Tippit. This does seem wildly at variance with the Oswald of the Baker encounter - who, of course, wasn't carrying a concealed revolver. If he actually did administer a close-range coup de grace, that would be truly bizarre and might suggest some personal animosity that would be hard to explain. Ya got me! At the Ed Forum, they are discussing the Oswald who supposedly took a whiz into the bushes along the sidewalk in full view of passers-by, so let's figure THAT into our alternate universe as well.
We'll never know exactly how it went down but it seems to be the consensus that Oswald ambushed Tippit as he got out of the car. That's what I have always thought but a few days ago I began to question that. What made Tippit get out of his car? Did Oswald draw his gun in reaction to Tippit getting out of the car? I'm wondering if Tippit got out of the car in reaction to Oswald drawing his gun while being questioned. I believe the eyewitness accounts said Tippit drew his gun after Oswald started firing but you know how much faith I have in eyewitness accounts. I'm not saying I think that is how it went down but I think we should recognize it as a possibility.
It's a moot point. Either way, Oswald drew first which made it an act of murder. Oswald got his two days later thanks to Jack Ruby.
-
We'll never know exactly how it went down but it seems to be the consensus that Oswald ambushed Tippit as he got out of the car. That's what I have always thought but a few days ago I began to question that. What made Tippit get out of his car? Did Oswald draw his gun in reaction to Tippit getting out of the car? I'm wondering if Tippit got out of the car in reaction to Oswald drawing his gun while being questioned. I believe the eyewitness accounts said Tippit drew his gun after Oswald started firing but you know how much faith I have in eyewitness accounts. I'm not saying I think that is how it went down but I think we should recognize it as a possibility.
It's a moot point. Either way, Oswald drew first which made it an act of murder. Oswald got his two days later thanks to Jack Ruby.
I think that there is a good possibility that Tippit saw either a bulge in LHO’s waist band area and suspected that LHO had a weapon there. Or perhaps Tippit even saw the gun when LHO bent over to speak through the open vent window on the passenger side. If so, I think that Tippit should have been extremely cautious and defensive minded. Apparently he was not…
-
I think that there is a good possibility that Tippit saw either a bulge in LHO’s waist band area and suspected that LHO had a weapon there. Or perhaps Tippit even saw the gun when LHO bent over to speak through the open vent window on the passenger side. If so, I think that Tippit should have been extremely cautious and defensive minded. Apparently he was not…
That's why my first question was why did Tippit get out of the car? Did he know Oswald had a gun and was drawing his when Oswald opened fire. On the other hand, Tippit might have gotten out of the car because Oswald was sassing him which would have been perfectly in character for Oswald given his defiance before the cameras after his arrest. I forget where I heard this but Tippit's fellow officers said he had a bad habit of turning his head and avoiding making eye contact with someone he was about to confront. I can't imagine he would have done that if he knew Oswald was armed. I think it could have happened either way. Maybe Oswald ambushed Tippit. Maybe he beat him to the draw. One more thing we'll never have a definitive answer for.
-
That's why my first question was why did Tippit get out of the car? Did he know Oswald had a gun and was drawing his when Oswald opened fire. On the other hand, Tippit might have gotten out of the car because Oswald was sassing him which would have been perfectly in character for Oswald given his defiance before the cameras after his arrest. I forget where I heard this but Tippit's fellow officers said he had a bad habit of turning his head and avoiding making eye contact with someone he was about to confront. I can't imagine he would have done that if he knew Oswald was armed. I think it could have happened either way. Maybe Oswald ambushed Tippit. Maybe he beat him to the draw. One more thing we'll never have a definitive answer for.
Another possibility that has crossed my mind is this:
If Dale Myers’ theory is correct about which direction LHO was walking on 10th Street, the taxi parked on the corner would have been prominent in his view. If he saw the taxi driver getting into the taxi, he might have raised his arm to hail the taxi before it could drive away. Perhaps LHO didn’t see Tippit’s car approaching until just after he tried to hail the taxi. And perhaps Tippit might have seen LHO first and thought LHO was signaling for Tippit to stop. Just a thought…
-
If Tippit had seen that Oswald had a revolver, he IMO wouldn't have gotten out of his car without first having taken his revolver out of it's holster.
The entire encounter is strange.
Oswald had no obvious reason for being at a suburban area like 10th street if he was on the run after killing Kennedy. Unless of course (and here comes the tin foil hat) in case he was told to go there, if whatever he was involved in went wrong. I somehow find that highly speculative possibility more plausible than the theory that a killer on the run takes a taxi (after offering one to a lady) to his rooming house, getting his revolver and then stand at the bus stop in front of the building, before deciding that he would go, of all places, to 10th street instead of walking to Jefferson and get on the first bus.
On the other hand, Tippit had no obvious reason to stop a civilian walking on the sidewalk, but he nevertheless initiated contact (without telling the operator) by calling Oswald to the side of the car to have a conversation with him. They didn't talk long, so what would have caused the massive escalation?
And if we assume that Oswald was the assassin on the run, why would he be so stupid to draw instant attention to himself and his location by killing a cop in front of witnesses? It seems to me this can't be explained by simply claiming he just panicked.
Does this mean Oswald didn't kill Tippit? No, of course not. It just means that none of it makes a great deal of sense, if you really think about it.
-
If Tippit had seen that Oswald had a revolver, he IMO wouldn't have gotten out of his car without first having taken his revolver out of it's holster.
The entire encounter is strange.
Oswald had no obvious reason for being at a suburban area like 10th street if he was on the run after killing Kennedy. Unless of course (and here comes the tin foil hat) in case he was told to go there, if whatever he was involved in went wrong. I somehow find that highly speculative possibility more plausible than the theory that a killer on the run takes a taxi (after offering one to a lady) to his rooming house, getting his revolver and then stand at the bus stop in front of the building, before deciding that he would go, of all places, to 10th street instead of walking to Jefferson and get on the first bus.
On the other hand, Tippit had no obvious reason to stop a civilian walking on the sidewalk, but he nevertheless initiated contact (without telling the operator) by calling Oswald to the side of the car to have a conversation with him. They didn't talk long, so what would have caused the massive escalation?
And if we assume that Oswald was the assassin on the run, why would he be so stupid to draw instant attention to himself and his location by killing a cop in front of witnesses? It seems to me this can't be explained by simply claiming he just panicked.
Does this mean Oswald didn't kill Tippit? No, of course not. It just means that none of it makes a great deal of sense, if you really think about it.
Yes, almost every aspect of the JFKA seems to have come from the pen of some crazed whodunnit author who was cackling "They'll NEVER figure this out!" Literally nothing is neat and clean. It just isn't.
Up to the Tippit killing, everything has gone unbelievably smoothly for Oswald. He survives the Baker encounter - near miracle. He exits the TSBD and walks away - near miracle. He gets to Beckley without incident and pockets his revolver - perfect. AND THEN HE STARTS WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK in full view of the world (perhaps even pausing to pee into the bushes!) - WHY? And then he encounters Tippit in full view of umpteen witnesses and PROCEEDS TO BLOW HIM AWAY, including a close-up kill shot to the head, thereby destroying in an instant any hope of a clean escape - WHY? Why did Oswald the previously cool cucumber morph so quickly into Oswald the crazed murderer? And, then, for whatever they are worth, we have the accounts of Tippit's morning activities that suggest he was up to "something" before the Oswald encounter. Anyone is certainly entitled to conclude "I'm 100% confident the LN narrative is fundamentally correct" - but the mysteries don't just go away. Hence my sleep-inducing exercise of trying to picture exactly, in detail, what the key players were doing and why.
"OK, Oswald sneaks into the Paine garage before 9 AM and wraps the rifle ... Ruth finds the light on at 9 ... Oswald goes back into the garage at 4 AM ... no, wait, that won't work because ..."
(https://static.wikitide.net/allthetropeswiki/5/5c/Counting_sheep.jpg)
-
Yes, almost every aspect of the JFKA seems to have come from the pen of some crazed whodunnit author who was cackling "They'll NEVER figure this out!" Literally nothing is neat and clean. It just isn't.
Up to the Tippit killing, everything has gone unbelievably smoothly for Oswald. He survives the Baker encounter - near miracle. He exits the TSBD and walks away - near miracle. He gets to Beckley without incident and pockets his revolver - perfect. AND THEN HE STARTS WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK in full view of the world (perhaps even pausing to pee into the bushes!) - WHY? And then he encounters Tippit in full view of umpteen witnesses and PROCEEDS TO BLOW HIM AWAY, including a close-up kill shot to the head, thereby destroying in an instant any hope of a clean escape - WHY? Why did Oswald the previously cool cucumber morph so quickly into Oswald the crazed murderer? And, then, for whatever they are worth, we have the accounts of Tippit's morning activities that suggest he was up to "something" before the Oswald encounter. Anyone is certainly entitled to conclude "I'm 100% confident the LN narrative is fundamentally correct" - but the mysteries don't just go away. Hence my sleep-inducing exercise of trying to picture exactly, in detail, what the key players were doing and why.
"OK, Oswald sneaks into the Paine garage before 9 AM and wraps the rifle ... Ruth finds the light on at 9 ... Oswald goes back into the garage at 4 AM ... no, wait, that won't work because ..."
(https://static.wikitide.net/allthetropeswiki/5/5c/Counting_sheep.jpg)
Yes, almost every aspect of the JFKA seems to have come from the pen of some crazed whodunnit author who was cackling "They'll NEVER figure this out!" Literally nothing is neat and clean. It just isn't.
A classic disinformation strategy; keep them guessing.....
But why? When this is a cut and dried killing?
-
Yes, almost every aspect of the JFKA seems to have come from the pen of some crazed whodunnit author who was cackling "They'll NEVER figure this out!" Literally nothing is neat and clean. It just isn't.
A classic disinformation strategy; keep them guessing.....
But why? When this is a cut and dried killing?
Even the PEOPLE. Oswald couldn't just be an everyday angry punk. Ruth Paine couldn't just be an ordinary housewife. Jack Ruby couldn't just be an ordinary businessman. And right up and down the line - almost EVERYBODY is quirky and invites speculation. And the weird connections are seemingly endless.
I have mentioned before my friend who is internationally known in UFO circles and who thinks we live in a virtual reality. He believes that certain events are "programmed" and have a significance far beyond the event itself. He has no interest at all in the JFKA, but it is one of those events he thinks has a deeper significance. Pretty far out, but sometimes it almost seems to make sense: the JFKA actually is a cosmically programmed whodunnit!
-
There is no great mystery about the Tippit encounter. Tippit was an experienced police officer. Oswald had just assassinated the president. He was the most sought-after criminal in the world. For all Oswald knew, by the time he sees Tippit's car he has already been identified as a potential suspect. He knows the FBI has been keeping track of him. A police officer has already pulled a gun on him. He is missing from the scene. Witnesses may have seen him fire the shot etc. He has good cause to be paranoid. Enter Tippit in a random encounter. Oswald does something that makes him suspicious. Maybe he does a sudden about face when he sees Tippit's car. Whatever it is it draws Tippit's attention to him. So he stops to check it out. Oswald won't identify himself to Tippit because he might already be a wanted man. He tries to bullshit his way out of this but that doesn't satisfy Tippit. When he gets out of the car, Oswald thinks it is now or never. So he kills him while he has the chance and makes a run for it.
-
There is no great mystery about the Tippit encounter. Tippit was an experienced police officer. Oswald had just assassinated the president. He was the most sought-after criminal in the world. For all Oswald knew, by the time he sees Tippit's car he has already been identified as a potential suspect. He knows the FBI has been keeping track of him. A police officer has already pulled a gun on him. He is missing from the scene. Witnesses may have seen him fire the shot etc. He has good cause to be paranoid. Enter Tippit in a random encounter. Oswald does something that makes him suspicious. Maybe he does a sudden about face when he sees Tippit's car. Whatever it is it draws Tippit's attention to him. So he stops to check it out. Oswald won't identify himself to Tippit because he might already be a wanted man. He tries to bullshit his way out of this but that doesn't satisfy Tippit. When he gets out of the car, Oswald thinks it is now or never. So he kills him while he has the chance and makes a run for it.
But the most sought-after criminal in the world is casually walking down the sidewalk ...
-
There is no great mystery about the Tippit encounter. Tippit was an experienced police officer. Oswald had just assassinated the president. He was the most sought-after criminal in the world. For all Oswald knew, by the time he sees Tippit's car he has already been identified as a potential suspect. He knows the FBI has been keeping track of him. A police officer has already pulled a gun on him. He is missing from the scene. Witnesses may have seen him fire the shot etc. He has good cause to be paranoid. Enter Tippit in a random encounter. Oswald does something that makes him suspicious. Maybe he does a sudden about face when he sees Tippit's car. Whatever it is it draws Tippit's attention to him. So he stops to check it out. Oswald won't identify himself to Tippit because he might already be a wanted man. He tries to bullshit his way out of this but that doesn't satisfy Tippit. When he gets out of the car, Oswald thinks it is now or never. So he kills him while he has the chance and makes a run for it.
The recent posts in this thread perfectly illustrate what I pointed out in another thread. So many people want to overthink this case. They make if far more complicated than it actually is. Instead of simply looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, they introduce red herring arguments that lead nowhere. They make presumptions about what the various characters should have been thinking at any given time. They expect mentally unbalanced people like Oswald and Ruby to make rational decisions and question their motivations at every turn. My question to them is, "Why ask why". We don't need to know why somebody committed a particular act when we have ample evidence they did commit the act.
Now I'm going to play amateur psychologist. I think the reason so many people delve into the motivations of the people involved is the JFKA is a hobby for them. A whodunnit. Who wants to read a murder mystery if the perpetrator is revealed in chapter one. They want a more interesting story than the one the WC fed them. They invent twists and turns where none exist. The evidence is crystal clear. Oswald killed JFK and JDT. Ruby killed Oswald. We can have fun guessing why but they are questions that don't need to be answered with certainty.
-
The recent posts in this thread perfectly illustrate what I pointed out in another thread. So many people want to overthink this case. They make if far more complicated than it actually is. Instead of simply looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, they introduce red herring arguments that lead nowhere. They make presumptions about what the various characters should have been thinking at any given time. They expect mentally unbalanced people like Oswald and Ruby to make rational decisions and question their motivations at every turn. My question to them is, "Why ask why". We don't need to know why somebody committed a particular act when we have ample evidence they did commit the act.
Now I'm going to play amateur psychologist. I think the reason so many people delve into the motivations of the people involved is the JFKA is a hobby for them. A whodunnit. Who wants to read a murder mystery if the perpetrator is revealed in chapter one. They want a more interesting story than the one the WC fed them. They invent twists and turns where none exist. The evidence is crystal clear. Oswald killed JFK and JDT. Ruby killed Oswald. We can have fun guessing why but they are questions that don't need to be answered with certainty.
There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.
1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?
Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate. "Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed? Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.
I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater. I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.
I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer. Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.
Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit - probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit. At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.
-
But the most sought-after criminal in the world is casually walking down the sidewalk ...
Where do you think LHO should have tried to hide? (The Texas Theater didn’t work out very well.)
I think that quickly changing clothes and grabbing his revolver and some ammo makes perfect sense. Having the taxi drop him off a little way from the rooming house makes sense if he was trying to make it more difficult to track him. And walking down the sidewalk in order to catch a bus that could help get him out of town the quickest and cheapest also makes perfect sense to me.
Some very famous and easily recognizable people (including John Lennon and Jackie Kennedy) tried to hide from the paparazzi by blending with others in on the very crowded sidewalks in NYC. Apparently that works to a certain extent.
-
Where do you think LHO should have tried to hide? (The Texas Theater didn’t work out very well.)
I think that quickly changing clothes and grabbing his revolver and some ammo makes perfect sense. Having the taxi drop him off a little way from the rooming house makes sense if he was trying to make it more difficult to track him. And walking down the sidewalk in order to catch a bus that could help get him out of town the quickest and cheapest also makes perfect sense to me.
Some very famous and easily recognizable people (including John Lennon and Jackie Kennedy) tried to hide from the paparazzi by blending with others in on the very crowded sidewalks in NYC. Apparently that works to a certain extent.
I'd be guessing with everybody else, but "blending into a crowd" or "finding the nearest bus stop" would be two likely choices. Earlene Roberts said she saw him initially walk north toward a bus stop, then apparently change his mind and walk south. I don't recall what the various bus stops around Oak Cliff were, or which buses stopped at which stops, but perhaps the direction he was walking would have been a plausible direction to a plausible bus stop that would have got him out of town faster than the stop to which he initially headed. Even telling Whaley to "wait a minute while I run inside and grab a couple of things" might have been less risky than walking down the sidewalk. I would have thought "getting way out of the area fast" would have been a more logical thought process as soon as he exited the TSBD than "going home and getting my revolver." It's all just "kinda odd."
-
There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.
1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?
Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate. "Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed? Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.
I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater. I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.
I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer. Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.
Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit - probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit. At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.
1) Oswald didn't own a car or apparently even know how to drive. Walking was about his only option to quickly put distance between himself and his boarding house until he could find a bus or cab. He is not going to wait around for a cab or bus.
2) No reason to believe that Tippit singled out Oswald because he met the description of the shooter. The police that day would, however, have been alert to any suspicious behavior considering that the president had just been assassinated and the killer was on the loose. What exactly Oswald might have done is unknown but Tippit's behavior is consistent with that of a police officer who sees something that draws his interest.
3) Tippit's intelligence isn't a factor. He would have been familiar through his experience with suspicious behavior of individuals.
4) Not sure what odd behavior is being reference. Many witness reports are unconfirmed, mistaken, or subjective.
5) I'm sure it was not Oswald's intent to draw attention to himself. He would have been under intense stress having just murdered the president and being sought by every law enforcement member in the world. That would make him paranoid upon seeing a police car. He didn't bolt for it but likely did something like an abrupt change in direction when Tippit noticed him.
6) We can never know with certainty why Tippit paused to speak with Oswald. Given that he was a police officer with all that entails, it is most likely that did do something that Tippit found odd enough to ask him a few questions. And Oswald did not satisfy his curiosity which is why he got out of the car.
7) No DPD officer was murdered in a range of years before or after Tippit. He likely had no thought that he would be gunned down by Oswald on a public street in the middle of the day. He was getting out of the car because his brief discussion with Oswald apparently didn't satisfy him.
8) At the time of the Tippit encounter, Oswald has to assume he is already a suspect in the assassination. He can't identify himself to Tippit for that reason. When Tippit gets out of the car, Oswald has a limited opportunity to ambush him before he risk being arrested.
9) Witness descriptions of sudden traumatic events are always suspect. The basic fact is that Oswald was the person who they saw kill Tippit or at the scene with a gun.
-
There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.
Theoretically. Not plausibly.
1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
What was he supposed to do? Fly?
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
Obviously something about Oswald aroused J. D. Tippit's suspiscion. Why do you need to know what that was?
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
So what?4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
Tell us why that matters to you.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
Why do you find it odd that Oswald would act different from how you imagine you would act if you were in his situation?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
Why do you assume Oswald did not?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
You'd have to ask him that.
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
Tell us why it is important for you to know that.
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?
That's typical whenever multiple witnesses observe the same event. I would find it more suspicious if they all gave the same account. It would be an indication of collusion.
Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate.
It's legitimate to ask. Just don't expect the answers to be knowable. Just because we don't know why somebody did what they did is no reason to dismiss the evidence that they did what they did. It's not important to establish motives when we have clear evidence of what did happen.
"Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed?
Oswald wasn't convicted but he was executed in a delicious irony. I shed no tears for the little SOB. I know what he did and I shed no tears for him.
A murderer got murdered. I don't give a {bleep}. I was even happy when I learned OJ had died. Better late than never.
OJ and Oswald had something in common. Both committed a double murder for which neither was convicted.
Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.
People have been looking at the evidence for 62 years. It is the most investigated crime in the history of the world. No one has found any evidence that negates the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt or provided any evidence he had even a single accomplice. You are free to continue with the snipe hunt. Just don't expect me to follow you down the snipe holes.
I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater.
You think?
I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.
About a dozen witnesses IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene and he was apprehended a short time later and a short distance away with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two brand of bullets used to kill Tippit. If that isn't enough to erase your doubts that Oswald was a cop killer, what the hell would it take?
I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer.
Whether he is or isn't doesn't change the fact he got the story right. I have to wonder why you are having such a tough time with it.
Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.
I would. I would even bet my house. What do I stand to gain by winning that bet?
Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit
Some of us already know whodunnit. I've known for 62 years. I even knew that when I was a CT. I just didn't always know Oswald did it by himself. The JFKA was solved in the first 12 hours.
probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit.
If it was a whodunnit, it would be the worst one ever written. The murderer was revealed at the bottom of page one.
At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.
The questions have been asked and answered countless times. The one big unanswered question is what was Oswald's motive. That is unknowable and not necessary to know. The CTs have been spinning their wheels for the 35 years I have engaged off and on in this hobby and for a lot longer than that. They have gotten nowhere with their efforts and never will. If they can't make the case for conspiracy with what they have now, what makes you think there is even a chance they ever will?
-
People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.
Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?
-
People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.
Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?
I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.
Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.
Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?
-
There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.
1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?
Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate. "Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed? Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.
I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater. I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.
I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer. Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.
Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit - probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit. At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.
There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.
Agreed.
This is also why the die hard LNs, who think they "know" everything about Oswald and the case and also "know" that they are always right, do not want critical questions being asked, as most of the time they can't or don't want to answer them. They prefer a superficial look at the evidence, so that they can ignore discrepancies, make up their own narrative and jump to flawed conclusions.
All those complaints about people "overthinking" the case tell us all we need to know. They are basically saying that their superficial approach to the evidence is enough for them to reach conclusions and they simply do not want anybody to look any further than they have looked. They are constantly going on about the need to look at the evidence as a whole, but forget or ignore that evidence needs to be authenticated and actually support their conclusions. They completely ignore that not everything that is presented as evidence is proof of something. In criminal cases it frequently happens that first impressions are subsequently proven incorrect by a closer examination of the evidence. Things are not always as they appear to be, but you can't tell that to a die hard LN because he will dismiss it and stick to his first impression conclusions. And in order to fill the gaps in the evidence they will add assumptions to speculation and misrepresent the facts where they need to.
-
People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.
Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?
People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.
Exactly right. In my mind the apparent fear of a die hard LN is that he gets involved in a conversation that could force him to reconsider his opinion about an aspect of the case, simply because he doesn't want to do that.
I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.
Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.
Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?
I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.
This says it all. It's absolute paranoia. John is basically saying that if you don't share his belief that you must be an Oswald defender who desperately wants to exonerate him.
Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.
And here he is saying; no matter what you say, I am and will always be right. My belief that Oswald did it is supreme and if you disagree (or even question it) you are committing blasphemy.
The hilarious part is of course that John doesn't understand that his "Oswald did it" belief is actually also similar to religious dogma.
Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?
And here is the classic LN claim that they are right unless you can prove them wrong, which of course is impossible as they will never accept any evidence you present as valid.
This "guilty unless proven innocent" nonsense is the basis for the entire LN position.
-
I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.
Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.
Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?
Ah, epistemology - my favorite topic! Religious beliefs cannot be proven in any ultimate ontologiacal sense because they by definition deal with matters beyond our reality. Ditto for atheistic beliefs - the nonexistence of a deity cannot be proven (and some 20% of atheists do hold beliefs that are amazingly "supernatural"). However, there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that bears on the religious questions, as well as reasonable inferences from that evidence, and philosophical reasoning. By diligent study and reflection, one can arrive at a high level of conviction. If someone has done the work and holds a 95% level of conviction in materialistic atheism, Catholicism, Islam or Scientology, I can only explain why I think differently but I can't screech "You're wrong, the truth is obvious!" We see again and again and again on religious forums and many others that a very large percentage of people simply cannot abide doubt or ambiguity. They cannot admit, to themselves or others, "Yes, I hold a high degree of confidence in my convictions, but they are just convictions and I have to acknowledge they could be partially or wholly wrong." Hence, most "discussions" sound a great deal like this forum: "What is the matter with you? Why can you not see how right I am? It's so obvious!"
Atheists also play a game that seems to underlie your posts: "Hey, it's your religious claims that are extraordinary. You have the burden of satisfying me, and it's a damn high bar because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Materialistic atheism is the default position for any intelligent, rational person." This is, of course, completely false. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a deity than the nonexistence of one. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a higher level of reality than the nonexistence of one. This is a game internet atheists play because they are as mindless about their beliefs as most religious believers and this game frees them from the obligation to justify their position. It's all just "Hey, you gotta convince me." No, I don't have to convince anyone but myself. If I were trying to convert an atheist, or vice versa, then indeed the burden would be on he who was trying to do the converting - and the standard still wouldn't be whether I had met some imaginary standard of extraordinariness, but simply whether I had convinced my listener.
Ditto with the JFKA: There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about a logical and internally consistent conspircy theory than about the LN narrative.
Who killed JFK and why is a real-world question and thus differs from religious ones in that respect - but the epistemological principles are largely the same. The fact is, the WC was an agenda-driven inquiry that intentionally avoided some critical questions. The HSCA was staffed largely by conspiracy enthusiasts, had an organized crime orientation, and bought into dubious acoustical evidence. Some 62 years of inquiry and debate has generated lots of new information. Just as with religion, the field is polluted by folks who can't think clearly. (A key epistemological principle is that for beliefs to have epistemic justification - not to be true, but just to be justified - the believer must have "cognitive faculties properly operating in an environment in which they were intended to operate." IMHO, an awful lot of people on a forum such as this would not make it past the "cognitive faculties" threshold.) The LN narrative is a compelling and evidence-based one, but it hasn't eliminated all doubt by any means. If someone is an LN fundamentalist or a CT fundamentalist who can't acknowledge the doubt and uncertainty inherent in his convictions, then the discussion is just like a religious one in which "doubt-free" Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses just screech at each other.
It's not my burden to present "just what evidence" makes me believe what I believe, and that exercise is futile with a fundamentalist anyway. My modicum of doubt about the LN narrative is based on a host of factors, some of which I've explained here. One is just that a Mafia hit in many ways just "makes more sense" and is inherently more believable to me than the LN narrative. Did Carlos Marcello actually confess to Jack Van Laningham? Did Santo Trafficante actually confess to Frank Ragano? I'm not saying absolutely yes to either, but the accounts are evidence that demands to be considered and evaluated. This is true of virtually every aspect of the JFKA. If someone has done his homework and decided the WC narrative is true, that's fine - but the mistake is thinking that one's convictions equate to ontological truth, that it is heresy even to challenge them, and that anyone who holds different convictions is ipso facto wrong.
-
Ah, epistemology - my favorite topic! Religious beliefs cannot be proven in any ultimate ontologiacal sense because they by definition deal with matters beyond our reality. Ditto for atheistic beliefs - the nonexistence of a deity cannot be proven (and some 20% of atheists do hold beliefs that are amazingly "supernatural"). However, there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that bears on the religious questions, as well as reasonable inferences from that evidence, and philosophical reasoning. By diligent study and reflection, one can arrive at a high level of conviction. If someone has done the work and holds a 95% level of conviction in materialistic atheism, Catholicism, Islam or Scientology, I can only explain why I think differently but I can't screech "You're wrong, the truth is obvious!" We see again and again and again on religious forums and many others that a very large percentage of people simply cannot abide doubt or ambiguity. They cannot admit, to themselves or others, "Yes, I hold a high degree of confidence in my convictions, but they are just convictions and I have to acknowledge they could be partially or wholly wrong." Hence, most "discussions" sound a great deal like this forum: "What is the matter with you? Why can you not see how right I am? It's so obvious!".
It's a binary question. Either there is a Supreme Being or there is not. Billy Graham and Madalyn Murray O'Hair both died completely convinced that their answer to that question was the correct one even though one of them had to be wrong. One thing I can say for sure. Only one of them might have been rudely surprised to learn the answer.
Atheists also play a game that seems to underlie your posts: "Hey, it's your religious claims that are extraordinary. You have the burden of satisfying me, and it's a damn high bar because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Materialistic atheism is the default position for any intelligent, rational person." This is, of course, completely false. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a deity than the nonexistence of one. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a higher level of reality than the nonexistence of one. This is a game internet atheists play because they are as mindless about their beliefs as most religious believers and this game frees them from the obligation to justify their position. It's all just "Hey, you gotta convince me." No, I don't have to convince anyone but myself. If I were trying to convert an atheist, or vice versa, then indeed the burden would be on he who was trying to do the converting - and the standard still wouldn't be whether I had met some imaginary standard of extraordinariness, but simply whether I had convinced my listener.
This is why I don't argue about religion with people. There is simply no way of proving one POV or the other. That is not true of the JFKA. We do have evidence that tells us unambiguously who killed JFK. I saw without hesitation that in 62 years no one has produced credible evidence that person had any accomplices. I accept the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald had one or more accomplices in his crime. Given how thoroughly the JFKA has been researched and the passage of 62 years, I find the chances of any such evidence surfacing to be extremely remote.
Ditto with the JFKA: There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about a logical and internally consistent conspircy theory than about the LN narrative.
All I can say is there is ample evidence of the latter and none for the former.
Who killed JFK and why is a real-world question and thus differs from religious ones in that respect - but the epistemological principles are largely the same. The fact is, the WC was an agenda-driven inquiry that intentionally avoided some critical questions.
Such as?
The HSCA was staffed largely by conspiracy enthusiasts, had an organized crime orientation, and bought into dubious acoustical evidence. Some 62 years of inquiry and debate has generated lots of new information. Just as with religion, the field is polluted by folks who can't think clearly. (A key epistemological principle is that for beliefs to have epistemic justification - not to be true, but just to be justified - the believer must have "cognitive faculties properly operating in an environment in which they were intended to operate." IMHO, an awful lot of people on a forum such as this would not make it past the "cognitive faculties" threshold.) The LN narrative is a compelling and evidence-based one, but it hasn't eliminated all doubt by any means. If someone is an LN fundamentalist or a CT fundamentalist who can't acknowledge the doubt and uncertainty inherent in his convictions, then the discussion is just like a religious one in which "doubt-free" Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses just screech at each other.
I say without hesitation that there is zero doubt that Oswald killed JFK and I will generously concede the theoretical possibility the had accomplices. I would put the chances of that being the case around 0.01%. The only question in my mind is how many zeros belong to the right of the decimal point.
It's not my burden to present "just what evidence" makes me believe what I believe, and that exercise is futile with a fundamentalist anyway. My modicum of doubt about the LN narrative is based on a host of factors, some of which I've explained here. One is just that a Mafia hit in many ways just "makes more sense" and is inherently more believable to me than the LN narrative. Did Carlos Marcello actually confess to Jack Van Laningham? Did Santo Trafficante actually confess to Frank Ragano? I'm not saying absolutely yes to either, but the accounts are evidence that demands to be considered and evaluated. This is true of virtually every aspect of the JFKA. If someone has done his homework and decided the WC narrative is true, that's fine - but the mistake is thinking that one's convictions equate to ontological truth, that it is heresy even to challenge them, and that anyone who holds different convictions is ipso facto wrong.
In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, you give me no reason to reconsider my absolute belief that Oswald killed two men on 11/22/1963. As the late Carl Sagan once said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". I know Oswald was a double murderer. If you choose to base your beliefs on something other than evidence, that is your right. I choose not to go down that road and I wonder why anybody would.
-
Your whole premise assumes Oswald was hoping to get away with the crime. I think he was perfectly willing to trade his life for JFK's. If that was his mindset, none of the above items could be classified as mistakes.
You think Oswald had already contemplated shooting JFK before Oswald ( or whomever ) ordered a rifle by mail?
-
You think Oswald had already contemplated shooting JFK before Oswald ( or whomever ) ordered a rifle by mail?
If Oswald had a specific purpose in mind when he ordered the rifle, it was probably General Walker. Killing JFK was a crime of opportunity. I doubt the thought even crossed his mind until he read JFK's motorcade was going to pass right in front of his workplace.
-
People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.
Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?
If you don't want responses, maybe don't ask questions. There is nothing "quasi-religious" about this. It is the application of the evidence and common sense along with the facts. It is strange to take issues with such things while implying that there is something strange about Oswald walking down the street. A guy who didn't own a car and was in flight from a crime.
-
If Oswald had a specific purpose in mind when he ordered the rifle, it was probably General Walker. Killing JFK was a crime of opportunity. I doubt the thought even crossed his mind until he read JFK's motorcade was going to pass right in front of his workplace.
So Oswald using a fake alias name he had used in the USSR and listing that name as an alternate for his own real name P.O. Box and mail ordering a rifle using that fake name and listing that P.O. Box as the address to send the rifle…was because …
A.He was naturally as Stupid as a box of rocks
B.He was aware of how stupid he was acting but he did not care because he was having marriage problems with Marina even before he became fixated on Walker. It was Oswald’s attempt to shock Marina into paying attention to him.
C. He was mentally disturbed from all the way back to his childhood and so it’s not unexpected that he could be this stupid.
D. He was a schizophrenic and Alek Hidell was his other personality.
There, I think that about covers the LN possible reasons for what appears to be incredibly stupid decisions made by Oswald.
Now any CTs still on this forum, please feel free to criticize those above listed reasons and list some alternative possibilities that are more plausible.
-
So Oswald using a fake alias name he had used in the USSR and listing that name as an alternate for his own real name P.O. Box and mail ordering a rifle using that fake name and listing that P.O. Box as the address to send the rifle…was because …
A.He was naturally as Stupid as a box of rocks
B.He was aware of how stupid he was acting but he did not care because he was having marriage problems with Marina even before he became fixated on Walker. It was Oswald’s attempt to shock Marina into paying attention to him.
C. He was mentally disturbed from all the way back to his childhood and so it’s not unexpected that he could be this stupid.
D. He was a schizophrenic and Alek Hidell was his other personality.
There, I think that about covers the LN possible reasons for what appears to be incredibly stupid decisions made by Oswald.
Now any CTs still on this forum, please feel free to criticize those above listed reasons and list some alternative possibilities that are more plausible.
All I know is that in Arizona, and I'm sure in Texas, half the ads in the sporting goods classifeid section of the newspaper were for guns. Buying a gun was no more complex than having the cash and meeting the seller at a mutually convenient location. Almost 15 years after the JFKA, I bought a pristine Remington 30-06 with a very nice 4X Weaver scope for $75. I had no idea who the seller was, he had no idea who I was, no questions asked. In the space of 24 hours before the assassination, Oswald could have had his hands on a far more plausible assassination rifle, completely untraceable to him. It would be interesting to look at the classified sections of the Dallas newspapers for the couple of days before the JFKA.
-
All I know is that in Arizona, and I'm sure in Texas, half the ads in the sporting goods classifeid section of the newspaper were for guns. Buying a gun was no more complex than having the cash and meeting the seller at a mutually convenient location. Almost 15 years after the JFKA, I bought a pristine Remington 30-06 with a very nice 4X Weaver scope for $75. I had no idea who the seller was, he had no idea who I was, no questions asked. In the space of 24 hours before the assassination, Oswald could have had his hands on a far more plausible assassination rifle, completely untraceable to him. It would be interesting to look at the classified sections of the Dallas newspapers for the couple of days before the JFKA.
Yes this is probably what a reasonably intelligent person who is not under the influence of drugs,and/ or MK ultra hypnosis, would do if he wanted an untraceable rifle.
-
So Oswald using a fake alias name he had used in the USSR and listing that name as an alternate for his own real name P.O. Box and mail ordering a rifle using that fake name and listing that P.O. Box as the address to send the rifle…was because …
A.He was naturally as Stupid as a box of rocks
B.He was aware of how stupid he was acting but he did not care because he was having marriage problems with Marina even before he became fixated on Walker. It was Oswald’s attempt to shock Marina into paying attention to him.
C. He was mentally disturbed from all the way back to his childhood and so it’s not unexpected that he could be this stupid.
D. He was a schizophrenic and Alek Hidell was his other personality.
There, I think that about covers the LN possible reasons for what appears to be incredibly stupid decisions made by Oswald.
Now any CTs still on this forum, please feel free to criticize those above listed reasons and list some alternative possibilities that are more plausible.
You haven't even begun to scratch the surface for possible reasons Oswald used an alias to order the rifle. It might be a reason neither you nor I have even thought of. Oswald's mind was a lock box which nobody has the key for. It we knew Oswald's reasons for what he did, it might make perfect sense to us or it might make no sense at all. That's why I think it is a futile exercise trying to figure out why Oswald did anything. My focus is on what I know he did. That's a fairly straight forward exercise. I never will understand why some people think it is necessary to figure out why Oswald did something in order to know that he did something.
-
All I know is that in Arizona, and I'm sure in Texas, half the ads in the sporting goods classifeid section of the newspaper were for guns. Buying a gun was no more complex than having the cash and meeting the seller at a mutually convenient location. Almost 15 years after the JFKA, I bought a pristine Remington 30-06 with a very nice 4X Weaver scope for $75. I had no idea who the seller was, he had no idea who I was, no questions asked. In the space of 24 hours before the assassination, Oswald could have had his hands on a far more plausible assassination rifle, completely untraceable to him. It would be interesting to look at the classified sections of the Dallas newspapers for the couple of days before the JFKA.
Since Oswald bought the rifle in March, wouldn't it make more sense to check the ads back then. If Oswald was comparison shopping, that's what he would have looked at. I've always said that when we try to figure out why Oswald did the things he did, we are reduced to guessing because there is no real evidence of that. My guess is that he bought the Carcano because it was cheap and convenient, at least as compared to what other rifles would have been selling for at the time. $21 for the scope and rifle would be about $224 in today's dollars. No an insignificant amount, but within Oswald's means. Mail order purchases was the equivalent of Amazon today. You might get something two weeks later as opposed to the next day, but for somebody like Oswald who didn't drive getting something delivered to his PO box would have been quite convenient.
-
Yes this is probably what a reasonably intelligent person who is not under the influence of drugs,and/ or MK ultra hypnosis, would do if he wanted an untraceable rifle.
Why do you assume Oswald wanted an untraceable rifle?
-
So Oswald using a fake alias name he had used in the USSR and listing that name as an alternate for his own real name P.O. Box and mail ordering a rifle using that fake name and listing that P.O. Box as the address to send the rifle…was because …
A.He was naturally as Stupid as a box of rocks
B.He was aware of how stupid he was acting but he did not care because he was having marriage problems with Marina even before he became fixated on Walker. It was Oswald’s attempt to shock Marina into paying attention to him.
C. He was mentally disturbed from all the way back to his childhood and so it’s not unexpected that he could be this stupid.
D. He was a schizophrenic and Alek Hidell was his other personality.
There, I think that about covers the LN possible reasons for what appears to be incredibly stupid decisions made by Oswald.
Now any CTs still on this forum, please feel free to criticize those above listed reasons and list some alternative possibilities that are more plausible.
LHO’s employment at that point in time allowed him to learn some basic professional photograph processing techniques that he then apparently used to create a fake ID or two. LHO apparently used his newly fabricated fake ID name to order two very inexpensive firearms. He ordered the revolver first, on January 27th, 1963, then later he ordered the rifle on March 12, 1963.
Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that LHO enjoyed trying to “trick” the authorities. It appears to me that LHO was simply enjoying using his fake ID name to try to “trick” the gun sellers (and the shippers) into providing the guns to a fake person. LHO might have also thought that the fake name might make it harder for the authorities to trace the guns to LHO. However I will say that using his own P.O. Box as the shipping address does seem to me to be incredibly stupid.
-
LHO’s employment at that point in time allowed him to learn some basic professional photograph processing techniques that he then apparently used to create a fake ID or two. LHO apparently used his newly fabricated fake ID name to order two very inexpensive firearms. He ordered the revolver first, on January 27th, 1963, then later he ordered the rifle on March 12, 1963.
Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that LHO enjoyed trying to “trick” the authorities. It appears to me that LHO was simply enjoying using his fake ID name to try to “trick” the gun sellers (and the shippers) into providing the guns to a fake person. LHO might have also thought that the fake name might make it harder for the authorities to trace the guns to LHO. However I will say that using his own P.O. Box as the shipping address does seem to me to be incredibly stupid.
Where else could he have it sent?
-
Since Oswald bought the rifle in March, wouldn't it make more sense to check the ads back then.
Uh, no. Probably it would have made more sense right before the JFKA to ask himself "Shall I go to Irving and get the clunker rifle that is traceable to me out of Ruth Paine's garage, with all the risks that will entail, or should I check the classified ads for a better rifle that isn't traceable to me?" Indeed, in 1963 you could buy a gun in Texas or Arizona from a GUN DEALER with no ID at all.
-
Where else could he have it sent?
I think opening up a separate P.O. Box for Alek Hidell would have been much more prudent. However, one needs to keep LHO’s extreme frugality in mind….
Per Google AI:
“in 1963, the Post Office Department (the predecessor to the USPS) did not require a verifiable previous address or a street address to open a P.O. box. During this era, applicants simply needed to fill out an application and prove their identity to rent a box.The requirement for a physical street address and two forms of identification (one to verify the applicant's identity and one to verify their physical residence) was introduced much later, primarily as a security and anti-fraud measure.”
-
I think opening up a separate P.O. Box for Alek Hidell would have been much more prudent. However, one needs to keep LHO’s extreme frugality in mind….
Per Google AI:
“in 1963, the Post Office Department (the predecessor to the USPS) did not require a verifiable previous address or a street address to open a P.O. box. During this era, applicants simply needed to fill out an application and prove their identity to rent a box.The requirement for a physical street address and two forms of identification (one to verify the applicant's identity and one to verify their physical residence) was introduced much later, primarily as a security and anti-fraud measure.”
That would seem out of character for a frugal Oswald. Why pay for two PO boxes? Oswald wasn't planning to assassinate JFK when he ordered the rifle. He may or may not have ordered it with the intent to kill Walker. If it was to kill Walker, it doesn't seem he was expecting to get away with it. If that was the case, why would he be concerned about whether the PO Box could be traced to him?
-
That would seem out of character for a frugal Oswald. Why pay for two PO boxes? Oswald wasn't planning to assassinate JFK when he ordered the rifle. He may or may not have ordered it with the intent to kill Walker. If it was to kill Walker, it doesn't seem he was expecting to get away with it. If that was the case, why would he be concerned about whether the PO Box could be traced to him?
Let’s consider the revolver since he ordered it about six weeks before he ordered the rifle. It does seem reasonable that if he intended to use the revolver to shoot Walker, he most likely wouldn’t expect to get away with it because using a revolver would typically need to be at a relatively close range with other people being present. Under those conditions using a separate P.O. Box makes less sense.
However, it seems to me that by March 12, 1963 LHO had probably devised his plan to shoot at Walker with the rifle at night from behind the backyard fence and his expectations of getting away with it would have been more reasonable. In fact it appears that he planned to do just that (get away with it). And he apparently delighted in learning from the news accounts that the DPD apparently didn’t even consider that anyone would try to make an escape from the scene via public transportation. Under these conditions, using a separate P.O. Box would seem to me to make more sense. He wouldn’t need to maintain the P.O. Box any longer than it took to obtain his rifle. So the expense would have been minimal and prudent in my opinion.
-
Let’s consider the revolver since he ordered it about six weeks before he ordered the rifle. It does seem reasonable that if he intended to use the revolver to shoot Walker, he most likely wouldn’t expect to get away with it because using a revolver would typically need to be at a relatively close range with other people being present. Under those conditions using a separate P.O. Box makes less sense.
However, it seems to me that by March 12, 1963 LHO had probably devised his plan to shoot at Walker with the rifle at night from behind the backyard fence and his expectations of getting away with it would have been more reasonable. In fact it appears that he planned to do just that (get away with it). And he apparently delighted in learning from the news accounts that the DPD apparently didn’t even consider that anyone would try to make an escape from the scene via public transportation. Under these conditions, using a separate P.O. Box would seem to me to make more sense. He wouldn’t need to maintain the P.O. Box any longer than it took to obtain his rifle. So the expense would have been minimal and prudent in my opinion.
Let's try to make sense of the Walker shooting.
First of all, I've always wondered how it came to be that reporters started asking questions about the Walker shooting so quickly after Oswald's arrest. What was it that linked Oswald to that shooting that reporters could have know so quickly?
But beyond that, if we assume that Oswald did order the revolver later used to kill Tippit instead of, as he claimed, buying one in Fort Worth, and if we assume that he also ordered the rifle with the intention to try and kill Walker, how in the world does that compute with him being photographed with a revolver and a rifle prior to the attempt?
I mean, this is somebody who wasn't known to own weapons, who allegedly orders a revolver and a rifle, in a traceable manner, when he easily could have bought untraceable weapons. Even worse, he then shows George de Mohrenschildt and Micheal Paine the rifle at the Neeley Street address and he has his picture taken with them. Seems a weird way to prepare for an attempt to murder somebody.
But it gets worse, he carries a rifle allegedly used in an attempted murder to New Orleans on public transport and when Marina was picked up by Ruth Paine he decided to wrap that rifle in a blanket, with a piece of string around it, and risk that it could be easily discovered only to leave it stored in a garage for two months where it was moved several times.
How does any of this make any sense?
-
duplicate
-
Uh, no. Probably it would have made more sense right before the JFKA to ask himself "Shall I go to Irving and get the clunker rifle that is traceable to me out of Ruth Paine's garage, with all the risks that will entail, or should I check the classified ads for a better rifle that isn't traceable to me?" Indeed, in 1963 you could buy a gun in Texas or Arizona from a GUN DEALER with no ID at all.
There you go again. Trying to guess what Oswald's thought process would have been instead of just following the tangible evidence that tell us unambiguously he killed two guys that day.
I don't know why you would second guess Oswald's decisions given that he succeeded in doing what he set out to do, maybe for the first time in his life. Usually the Monday morning quarterbacks choose to second guess the losing team.
-
There you go again. Trying to guess what Oswald's thought process would have been instead of just following the tangible evidence that tell us unambiguously he killed two guys that day.
I don't know why you would second guess Oswald's decisions given that he succeeded in doing what he set out to do, maybe for the first time in his life. Usually the Monday morning quarterbacks choose to second guess the losing team.
Hello? I was responding to YOUR speculation that it would have "made more sense" for Oswald to check the classifieds back in March.
Short memory?
-
Hello? I was responding to YOUR speculation that it would have "made more sense" for Oswald to check the classifieds back in March.
Short memory?
And I was responding to your suggestion Oswald could have checked the classifieds in November. This was your red herring issue, not mine. I try to focus on important stuff, like the evidence. I don't get sidetracked on the silly stuff.
-
Let’s consider the revolver since he ordered it about six weeks before he ordered the rifle. It does seem reasonable that if he intended to use the revolver to shoot Walker, he most likely wouldn’t expect to get away with it because using a revolver would typically need to be at a relatively close range with other people being present. Under those conditions using a separate P.O. Box makes less sense.
However, it seems to me that by March 12, 1963 LHO had probably devised his plan to shoot at Walker with the rifle at night from behind the backyard fence and his expectations of getting away with it would have been more reasonable. In fact it appears that he planned to do just that (get away with it). And he apparently delighted in learning from the news accounts that the DPD apparently didn’t even consider that anyone would try to make an escape from the scene via public transportation. Under these conditions, using a separate P.O. Box would seem to me to make more sense. He wouldn’t need to maintain the P.O. Box any longer than it took to obtain his rifle. So the expense would have been minimal and prudent in my opinion.
Whether or not it would have made sense for him to get a second PO box to receive the rifle, the fact is he didn't so that becomes a moot point. There is ample evidence he ordered the rifle from Klein's, ample evidence he received it, ample evidence he fired it at Walker, and ample evidence he used it to kill JFK.
Oswald's note to Marina indicated he thought there was a real possibility he would not be coming back after killing Walker. He gave her specific instructions as to what to do if he did not.
The curious thing is why he missed Walker at such short range. I've read the suggestion Walker might have leaned over just as Oswald fired, ala The Day of the Jackal. I think the answer might lie in the fact it was such a short shot. The Carcano's fixed sights are zeroed for 200 meters which means at that range it would shoot high if Oswald didn't make an adjustment in his aim point. The scope was adjustable but if Oswald didn't adjust it, the same problem would have occurred. It's all academic. Oswald missed and likely would never have been identified as the assailant had he not killed JFK.
-
Whether or not it would have made sense for him to get a second PO box to receive the rifle, the fact is he didn't so that becomes a moot point. There is ample evidence he ordered the rifle from Klein's, ample evidence he received it, ample evidence he fired it at Walker, and ample evidence he used it to kill JFK.
Oswald's note to Marina indicated he thought there was a real possibility he would not be coming back after killing Walker. He gave her specific instructions as to what to do if he did not.
The curious thing is why he missed Walker at such short range. I've read the suggestion Walker might have leaned over just as Oswald fired, ala The Day of the Jackal. I think the answer might lie in the fact it was such a short shot. The Carcano's fixed sights are zeroed for 200 meters which means at that range it would shoot high if Oswald didn't make an adjustment in his aim point. The scope was adjustable but if Oswald didn't adjust it, the same problem would have occurred. It's all academic. Oswald missed and likely would never have been identified as the assailant had he not killed JFK.
I thought it deflected off the window frame?
-
Whether or not it would have made sense for him to get a second PO box to receive the rifle, the fact is he didn't so that becomes a moot point. There is ample evidence he ordered the rifle from Klein's, ample evidence he received it, ample evidence he fired it at Walker, and ample evidence he used it to kill JFK.
Oswald's note to Marina indicated he thought there was a real possibility he would not be coming back after killing Walker. He gave her specific instructions as to what to do if he did not.
The curious thing is why he missed Walker at such short range. I've read the suggestion Walker might have leaned over just as Oswald fired, ala The Day of the Jackal. I think the answer might lie in the fact it was such a short shot. The Carcano's fixed sights are zeroed for 200 meters which means at that range it would shoot high if Oswald didn't make an adjustment in his aim point. The scope was adjustable but if Oswald didn't adjust it, the same problem would have occurred. It's all academic. Oswald missed and likely would never have been identified as the assailant had he not killed JFK.
Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that he thought his brother Lee had no previous experience with rifle scopes. But it seems to me that LHO would have known to zero the scope at the distance he intended to shoot at Walker. However according to FBI agent Frazier, it took the shocks of several shots for the scope reticle to settle into a stable position. If LHO didn’t realize this and relied on just one shot for his zero adjustment, then the scope’s reticle could have still been unstable. This could have resulted in it being slightly off when he shot at Walker.
-
Talk about "overthinking," I give you Exhibit A. ::)
-
I thought it deflected off the window frame?
AI explanation:
"Deflection by the window frame: The bullet struck the wooden frame of the window Walker was sitting near, changing its trajectory. This is a common factor in missed shots when a projectile hits a solid object before reaching the target Kennedys and King.
Walker’s quick reaction: Witnesses say Walker lowered his head just before the shot was fired, reducing the chance of a direct hit LSU Press.
Bullet fragmentation: After hitting the frame, the bullet broke apart, scattering fragments that caused only minor cuts to Walker’s lower right arm."
If it deflected off the window frame that would be an indication his aim was high unless he trying to aim at the window frame.
-
LHO’s employment at that point in time allowed him to learn some basic professional photograph processing techniques that he then apparently used to create a fake ID or two. LHO apparently used his newly fabricated fake ID name to order two very inexpensive firearms. He ordered the revolver first, on January 27th, 1963, then later he ordered the rifle on March 12, 1963.
Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that LHO enjoyed trying to “trick” the authorities. It appears to me that LHO was simply enjoying using his fake ID name to try to “trick” the gun sellers (and the shippers) into providing the guns to a fake person. LHO might have also thought that the fake name might make it harder for the authorities to trace the guns to LHO. However I will say that using his own P.O. Box as the shipping address does seem to me to be incredibly stupid.
alternatives:
A. Oswald was CIA and he had to keep using the same fake name used in USSR for some reason.
B. Some other person found out about Oswald’s use of the fake name Alek Hidell from reading his letters and figured they could order a revolver and rifle using that name and create an Oswald name P.O. Box to send the rifle and revolver.
C. The “other” person was a conspirator with plan to shoot JFK and frame Oswald. Why he (or they) wanted to do that is another rabbit hole discussion.
D. The “other” person was Alek Hidell, the other personality of a schizophrenic Oswald.
E. Oswald was an MK Ultra experiment in company with Thomas Arthur Vallee and a few other USMC trained riflemen who either attempted to shoot or actually did shoot and kill people for no apparent reason. Sirhan Sirhan may have been in this group.
-
alternatives:
A. Oswald was CIA and he had to keep using the same fake name used in USSR for some reason.
B. Some other person found out about Oswald’s use of the fake name Alek Hidell from reading his letters and figured they could order a revolver and rifle using that name and create an Oswald name P.O. Box to send the rifle and revolver.
C. The “other” person was a conspirator with plan to shoot JFK and frame Oswald. Why he (or they) wanted to do that is another rabbit hole discussion.
D. The “other” person was Alek Hidell, the other personality of a schizophrenic Oswald.
E. Oswald was an MK Ultra experiment in company with Thomas Arthur Vallee and a few other USMC trained riflemen who either attempted to shoot or actually did shoot and kill people for no apparent reason. Sirhan Sirhan may have been in this group.
Robert Oswald confirmed that that was the same P.O. Box that LHO and he used to communicate in letters with each other. So, it seems that if “someone else” created an LHO name P.O. Box, then Robert Oswald and LHO used that same P.O. Box also.
-
alternatives:
A. Oswald was CIA and he had to keep using the same fake name used in USSR for some reason.
B. Some other person found out about Oswald’s use of the fake name Alek Hidell from reading his letters and figured they could order a revolver and rifle using that name and create an Oswald name P.O. Box to send the rifle and revolver.
C. The “other” person was a conspirator with plan to shoot JFK and frame Oswald. Why he (or they) wanted to do that is another rabbit hole discussion.
D. The “other” person was Alek Hidell, the other personality of a schizophrenic Oswald.
E. Oswald was an MK Ultra experiment in company with Thomas Arthur Vallee and a few other USMC trained riflemen who either attempted to shoot or actually did shoot and kill people for no apparent reason. Sirhan Sirhan may have been in this group.
Why do people keep looking for alternatives when there is an obvious answer that conforms perfectly to the evidence? Oswald mail ordered a rifle from Klein's in March of 1963 and received it at his PO Pox. He might or might not have had a specific purpose in mind when he ordered it. He used the rifle in a failed assassination attempt of General Walker. 8 months later he learned that the POTUS was going to pass by his workplace in a slow moving open top car. He smuggled the rifle into his workplace and at the scheduled time, found a secluded spot on the 6th floor of the TSBD with a perfect line of fire down Elm St. He fired off three shots, striking JFK with two of them, the third striking JFK in the head and killing him. All of this is supported by solid evidence and it is the only scenario ever presented that conforms to the evidence.
Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. There is only one truth and we are not entitled to one of our liking. We can either accept the truth that the evidence dictates to us or we can choose to delude ourselves into believing a fantasy that doesn't conform to the evidence. For 62 years the CTs have been searching for an alternative truth that simply doesn't exist.