JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on May 31, 2019, 12:29:13 PM
-
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0065b.jpg)
"I wonder what would happen if somebody was to stand up and say he was utterly opposed not only to the governments, but to the people, too the entire land and complete foundations of his socically." Lee Harvey Oswald - 1962 (CE 25, 16 H 106.)
(https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20131122__20131123_A1_CDXXBOBJACKSONp2.jpg?w=654)
-
Seriously?
"I have committed no act of violence!"
"I didn't shoot anyone, no sir"
Pretty cowardly if that was his motive.
PS - The motive was to kill JFK and blame it on Cuba/USSR resulting in an immediate invasion of Cuba.
-
Seriously?
"I have committed no act of violence!"
"I didn't shoot anyone, no sir"
Pretty cowardly if that was his motive.
PS - The motive was to kill JFK and blame it on Cuba/USSR resulting in an immediate invasion of Cuba.
According to Marina, he lied because he enjoyed it, not because he needed to.
And I don’t recall seeing any evidence of your idea of the motive.
-
Read more. Process data in a logical fashion. You'll understand. Post less in the meantime.
-
Oswald, as was his nature had a fundamental issue with the American government. He believed the government worked against the average American; the working class. As head of the government, the POTUS was responsible. Those who knew Oswald have said over the years that he, Oswald liked and admired Kennedy on a personal level. Didn’t matter in Oswald’s damaged psyche. He wasn’t shooting JFK. He was shooting the POTUS and all that position represented in the world. Chaos. He believed guns were made to change the world.
-
Read more. Process data in a logical fashion. You'll understand. Post less in the meantime.
Read more what? More conjecture and innuendo? I grew tired of that years ago.
Logic is good. Maybe you can use some to help you to determine the difference between conjecture and innuendo and credible evidence.
-
Oswald, as was his nature had a fundamental issue with the American government. He believed the government worked against the average American; the working class. As head of the government, the POTUS was responsible. Those who knew Oswald have said over the years that he, Oswald liked and admired Kennedy on a personal level. Didn’t matter in Oswald’s damaged psyche. He wasn’t shooting JFK. He was shooting the POTUS and all that position represented in the world. Chaos. He believed guns were made to change the world.
You may well be right Paul. Personally, I think you're giving Oswald too deep a motive. I believe Oswald was on the edge of losing it for years. The failure to reconcile with Marina pushed him over the edge and the nasty little bastard just went out and 'did it' out of pure spite. No plan, no thought of escape. The SOB just wanted to get even with the world, get 'famous'. Who really knows? You can't explain the motives of a nut job.
-
Oswald, as was his nature had a fundamental issue with the American government. He believed the government worked against the average American; the working class. As head of the government, the POTUS was responsible. Those who knew Oswald have said over the years that he, Oswald liked and admired Kennedy on a personal level. Didn’t matter in Oswald’s damaged psyche. He wasn’t shooting JFK. He was shooting the POTUS and all that position represented in the world. Chaos. He believed guns were made to change the world.
LHO was both neglected and spoiled as a child and desired a lot of attention. He also had a history of doing something dramatic whenever he didn't get his way. I believe that he hatched his plan to defect to the Soviet Union about the time he had to spend time in the Marine Corps brig in Japan. The typical treatment given the prisoners in the brig at that time was very harsh. I suspect that teen-aged LHO's resentment of the U.S. government was greatly hardened by that treatment. When life in the Soviet Union didn't turn out to be the utopia he dreamed of, his malcontent disposition (and some help from the government he resented so much) brought him back here. His frustrations apparently turned to attempted murder (Walker) in the spring of 1963. When he learned that the JFK motorcade was going to be coming by his place of work it presented a chance for him to try an assassination. And LHO's military training enabled him to devise a very good surprise ambush plan that worked.
-
You may well be right Paul. Personally, I think you're giving Oswald too deep a motive. I believe Oswald was on the edge of losing it for years. The failure to reconcile with Marina pushed him over the edge and the nasty little bastard just went out and 'did it' out of pure spite. No plan, no thought of escape. The SOB just wanted to get even with the world, get 'famous'. Who really knows? You can't explain the motives of a nut job.
I believe that LHO would have gone ahead with his plan regardless of how Marina responded to his request. The temptation was too great for him. And he tried to make her feel partially responsible by leaving his ring, money, etc.
-
LHO was both neglected and spoiled as a child and desired a lot of attention. He also had a history of doing something dramatic whenever he didn't get his way. I believe that he hatched his plan to defect to the Soviet Union about the time he had to spend time in the Marine Corps brig in Japan. The typical treatment given the prisoners in the brig at that time was very harsh. I suspect that teen-aged LHO's resentment of the U.S. government was greatly hardened by that treatment. When life in the Soviet Union didn't turn out to be the utopia he dreamed of, his malcontent disposition (and some help from the government he resented so much) brought him back here. His frustrations apparently turned to attempted murder (Walker) in the spring of 1963. When he learned that the JFK motorcade was going to be coming by his place of work it presented a chance for him to try an assassination. And LHO's military training enabled him to devise a very good surprise ambush plan that worked.
Hi Charles, I can certainly agree with your profile of Oswald. As you can tell from my previous post, I believe the assassination was more spontaneous than yourself but I'd be the first to admit that's only my opinion, your version may well be correct. What I can't agree with is your statement; "a very good surprise ambush plan that worked." Charles, Oswald walked into the TSBD the morning of the assassination carrying a rifle in a bag, he then 'hoped' the sixth floor would be empty, it nearly wasn't, Oswald then fires a rifle from a window...I'm sorry but I just see "a very good surprise ambush plan". In fact, I just can't see any real plan at all!
-
Hi Charles, I can certainly agree with your profile of Oswald. As you can tell from my previous post, I believe the assassination was more spontaneous than yourself but I'd be the first to admit that's only my opinion, your version may well be correct. What I can't agree with is your statement; "a very good surprise ambush plan that worked." Charles, Oswald walked into the TSBD the morning of the assassination carrying a rifle in a bag, he then 'hoped' the sixth floor would be empty, it nearly wasn't, Oswald then fires a rifle from a window...I'm sorry but I just see "a very good surprise ambush plan". In fact, I just can't see any real plan at all!
He didn’t just fire from a window. He apparently: planned to go get his rifle, planned to get the rifle into the building discretely (the bag), planned the timing and direction of fire (from behind and with the target moving almost directly away) this is known as a killing zone in the military, planned his sniper’s nest location such that he had good cover from being observed during the shooting (from inside or outside the building), planned the support for steadying the rifle (boxes), and planned to blend in as best he could during his exit from the scene. I think that anyone familiar with military tactics for ambushing would likely recognize the apparent planning. Similar tactics are taught to Marine Corps soldiers and can be found in their manuals. LHO studied a USMC manual before he joined because he wanted to learn what his brother Robert was already learning.
-
I believe that LHO would have gone ahead with his plan regardless of how Marina responded to his request. The temptation was too great for him. And he tried to make her feel partially responsible by leaving his ring, money, etc.
Where did he normally leave his savings?
-
Where did he normally leave his savings?
Colin, where would Oswald keep his life savings?
JohnM
-
Where did he normally leave his savings?
He normally kept whatever he had on his person according to Marina.
-
Colin, where would Oswald keep his life savings?
JohnM
I figure, he could keep on his person. He could keep at the rooming house. He could keep in a bank account. He could keep at the Paine's in Marina'a room.
Given he was paid weekly in cash and had not seen Marina for two pay periods he was relatively "cashed up" that Thursday. Given he did not go back to the rooming house before visiting Marina he obviously did not keep it at that location. I don’t believe he had a bank account. So, to take his total saving to work on the Friday seems risky. Safer to leave all but what he needed with Marina. Then again if he was going to shoot the Pres with no escape plan no need for $15. If he planned to escape, take the lot. If he had planned by Thursday morning, why not take the pistol too?
-
He normally kept whatever he had on his person according to Marina.
Any testimony to support Charles?
-
Safer to leave all but what he needed with Marina.
With his estranged wife, in an unsecured location?
JohnM
-
With his estranged wife, in an unsecured location?
JohnM
As opposed to which secured location?
-
As opposed to which secured location?
In Oswald's everyday wallet.
JohnM
-
In Oswald's everyday wallet.
JohnM
I don’t know if he felt that a secure location. No doubt he trusted Marina and Ruth and we know he was happy to spend his money on Marina and the kids. Not so sure he would trust his rooming mates at North Beckley.
The fact that he took so little money with him when he left Irving in the morning indicates that he did not expect to go far from Dallas that day.
-
I don’t know if he felt that a secure location. No doubt he trusted Marina and Ruth and we know he was happy to spend his money on Marina and the kids. Not so sure he would trust his rooming mates at North Beckley.
The fact that he took so little money with him when he left Irving in the morning indicates that he did not expect to go far from Dallas that day.
I don’t know if he felt that a secure location. No doubt he trusted Marina and Ruth and we know he was happy to spend his money on Marina and the kids. Not so sure he would trust his rooming mates at North Beckley.
What has his Beckley roommates have to do with anything, when Oswald left the premises so did his wallet.
The fact that he took so little money with him when he left Irving in the morning indicates that he did not expect to go far from Dallas that day
$13 in 1963 was worth a lot more than it is today.
JohnM
-
What has his Beckley roommates have to do with anything, when Oswald left the premises so did his wallet.
$13 in 1963 was worth a lot more than it is today.
JohnM
So you think he took his wallet with him to the shower and toilet? Slept with it under his pillow maybe.
Likely last him about a weeks living expenses, you think?
-
So you think he took his wallet with him to the shower and toilet? Slept with it under his pillow maybe.
Likely last him about a weeks living expenses, you think?
So you think he took his wallet with him to the shower and toilet?
Wow, what an unrelated diversion, I said when Oswald left the premises not while he was there because realistically the chances of someone going through his room while he was there would be practically nil and it's an odd argument to make?
Slept with it under his pillow maybe.
We go from ridiculous the to the absurd, try again ffs?
Likely last him about a weeks living expenses, you think?
Depends where he went but in the Walker note which was a similar situation but nowhere near as dangerous, he didn't seem like he expected to live "If I am alive...."?
Btw in the Walker note Oswald mentions that he is going to leave her as much money as he could, does that seem like Marina had equal access to Oswald's money?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGnBqC8X/ce-1-b1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Wow, what an unrelated diversion, I said when Oswald left the premises not while he was there because realistically the chances of someone going through his room while he was there would be practically nil and it's an odd argument to make?
We go from ridiculous the to the absurd, try again ffs?
Depends where he went but in the Walker note which was a similar situation but nowhere near as dangerous, he didn't seem like he expected to live "If I am alive...."?
Btw in the Walker note Oswald mentions that he is going to leave her as much money as he could, does that seem like Marina had equal access to Oswald's money?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGnBqC8X/ce-1-b1.jpg)
JohnM
Happy to wait for the testimony from Marina that confirms Oswald normally kept about $200 on his person. The rest is speculation ffs.
-
Happy to wait for the testimony from Marina that confirms Oswald normally kept about $200 on his person.
How the heck would Marina know what Oswald normally kept on his person?, a more reasonable piece of testimony from Marina would be what money she personally had access to, and when did Marina say that Oswald kept as much of his money with Marina?
I think the Walker note sums it up perfectly, if Marina had an equal access marriage then there would be no need for Oswald to say that he will leave her as much as he could.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGnBqC8X/ce-1-b1.jpg)
JohnM
-
How the heck would Marina know what Oswald normally kept on his person?, a more reasonable piece of testimony from Marina would be what money she personally had access to, and when did Marina say that Oswald kept as much of his money with Marina?
I think the Walker note sums it up perfectly, if Marina had an equal access marriage then there would be no need for Oswald to say that he will leave her as much as he could.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGnBqC8X/ce-1-b1.jpg)
JohnM
It was Charles who claimed she did. Happy to wait for the quotes. Clearly Oswald didn’t leave as much money as he could for Marina that day. He took $15 that morning. If he decided to shoot that day, no need for dough. If nothing happened, he merely get a lift back with Buell.
-
The rest is speculation ffs.
Before he leaves the bedroom, Lee kisses the children, as he always does, then walks to the bedroom door. He stops and returns to the side of the bed. He has always kissed his wife good-bye and Marina assumes he will do so now. But this time, she only hears his voice. “I’ve left some money on the bureau,” he says in his odd, if fluent, Russian. “Take it and buy everything you and Junie and Rachel need.
In the dark he has left $170 in bills, and something else—his wedding ring, quietly placed in a little china teacup that had belonged to Marina’s grandmother. She won’t find it until later that day.
RHVB
JohnM
-
Before he leaves the bedroom, Lee kisses the children, as he always does, then walks to the bedroom door. He stops and returns to the side of the bed. He has always kissed his wife good-bye and Marina assumes he will do so now. But this time, she only hears his voice. “I’ve left some money on the bureau,” he says in his odd, if fluent, Russian. “Take it and buy everything you and Junie and Rachel need.
In the dark he has left $170 in bills, and something else—his wedding ring, quietly placed in a little china teacup that had belonged to Marina’s grandmother. She won’t find it until later that day.
RHVB
JohnM
The
I can hear the violins playing.......any quotes from Marina?
Apparently he only left notes for her when his assassination attempts were unsuccessful.
-
I can hear the violins playing.......any quotes from Marina?
Vincent talked with Marina on a number of occasions but I don't know if this was specifically discussed but this "4 days in November" section of Reclaiming History was thoroughly researched and let's be honest anyone who lives in the real world would know Oswald would hold on to his own money it's a friggin no brainer.
Btw can your ideas be supported with anything besides illogical speculation?
JohnM
-
Apparently he only left notes for her when his assassination attempts were unsuccessful.
She knew the drill from the first note and in addition she was living with someone in a safe ongoing environment. Try again.
JohnM
-
Vincent talked with Marina on a number of occasions but I don't know if this was specifically discussed but this "4 days in November" section of Reclaiming History was thoroughly researched and let's be honest anyone who lives in the real world would know Oswald would hold on to his own money it's a friggin no brainer.
Btw can your ideas be supported with anything besides illogical speculation?
JohnM
Can you provide evidence of an occasion Oswald took all his money with him after visiting Marina at Ruth's? If not, your argument is nothing but self serving speculation. Why did he take $15 that day? Leave it all for Marina and the kids. No need if he shoots. No need if he doesn’t.
-
Can you provide evidence of an occasion Oswald took all his money with him after visiting Marina at Ruth's? If not, your argument is nothing but self serving speculation. Why did he take $15 that day? Leave it all for Marina and the kids. No need if he shoots. No need if he doesn’t.
Why did he take $15 that day?
If Oswald decides to not kill Kennedy then Oswald needs a weeks worth of money for the bus, for lunch and for dinner and perhaps to pay for his room.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPCVf2M2/oswald-s-financwes.jpg)
Leave it all for Marina and the kids.
See above.
Marina unhelpfully testifies that she never counted the money in the wallet in the wardrobe but she does say that Oswald did put money that he didn't need in the wallet, which could be anything and is equally unhelpful.
The main point from the following testimony is that Oswald was acting in a way that was unusual for him which while not conclusive is powerful evidence that he was considering an assassination.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine’s there was a black wallet in a
wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never
counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was
the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me
whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and I said no, that I hadn’t had
any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy
everything that I needed for myself and for June-and for the children.
This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the
rest in the wallet.
JohnM
-
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the
rest in the wallet.
JohnM
After all this......Marina answers the question.
Seems the potential assassin, after preparing the rifle for transport, felt the need to take $15.
-
If Oswald decides to not kill Kennedy then Oswald
If Oswald is not the assassin he "needs a weeks worth of money for the bus, for lunch and for dinner and perhaps to pay for his room."
If Oswald decides not to assassinate he "needs a weeks worth of money for the bus, for lunch and for dinner and perhaps to pay for his room" or he asks Buell for a lift back to Ruth's for the weekend.
-
After all this......Marina answers the question.
Seems the potential assassin, after preparing the rifle for transport, felt the need to take $15.
After all this......Marina answers the question.
How is that an answer, she testifies that she doesn't know how much money was in the wallet and we don't know how much money Oswald thought he needed each week.
Seems the potential assassin, after preparing the rifle for transport, felt the need to take $15.
Again as above, how the heck would Oswald know how much money he needed, if he can't complete the assassination for whatever reason how was he supposed to eat and travel with no money and don't forget that he already told Frazier that he wasn't going back to Ruth's place because presumably this weekend Oswald was going to be fitting curtain rods in his "rented" room which already happened to have curtain rods.
JohnM
-
Can you provide evidence of an occasion Oswald took all his money with him after visiting Marina at Ruth's? If not, your argument is nothing but self serving speculation. Why did he take $15 that day? Leave it all for Marina and the kids. No need if he shoots. No need if he doesn’t.
Hi Colin, the fact Oswald took $13.87 (to be exact) with him that morning indicates to me that Oswald's 'plan' was so haphazard and dependent on luck, that Oswald was far from sure it would happen. If he got the chance great, if not.... If it didn't happen the $14 would be about right, Marina testified; "that when he was living by himself in a rooming house, he would spend about a dollar, $1.30 for dinner and have a sandwich and soft drink for lunch." So allowing for travel expenses, miscellaneous expenses the sums about right.
-
How is that an answer, she testifies that she doesn't know how much money was in the wallet and we don't know how much money Oswald thought he needed each week.
Again as above, how the heck would Oswald know how much money he needed, if he can't complete the assassination for whatever reason how was he supposed to eat and travel with no money and don't forget that he already told Frazier that he wasn't going back to Ruth's place because presumably this weekend Oswald was going to be fitting curtain rods in his "rented" room which already happened to have curtain rods.
JohnM
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
Comprehension a problem John. You argued earlier that Oswald would keep all his savings on his person. Clearly his method was to take what he felt he needed, then left the balance with Marina in the security or the Paine house.
He "felt he needed" $15 on the Friday morning.
As for getting a ride back with Buell, seriously, you want us to believe Oswald just could not say he changed his mind and Frazier would refuse him?
-
Hi Colin, the fact Oswald took $13.87 (to be exact) with him that morning indicates to me that Oswald's 'plan' was so haphazard and dependent on luck, that Oswald was far from sure it would happen. If he got the chance great, if not.... If it didn't happen the $14 would be about right, Marina testified; "that when he was living by himself in a rooming house, he would spend about a dollar, $1.30 for dinner and have a sandwich and soft drink for lunch." So allowing for travel expenses, miscellaneous expenses the sums about right.
Hi Dennis, I seem to remember he bought a bus ticket and paid for a cab ride.....do we need to add that to the $13.87? In any event the amount does not allow a for a reasonable "escape plan"....agree?
Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10. He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt.
-
Perhaps the guys that know everything can inform us when Oswald first decided to assassinate JFK?
-
He normally kept whatever he had on his person according to Marina.
Any quotes to prove your assertion yet Charles?
-
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
Comprehension a problem John. You argued earlier that Oswald would keep all his savings on his person. Clearly his method was to take what he felt he needed, then left the balance with Marina in the security or the Paine house.
He "felt he needed" $15 on the Friday morning.
As for getting a ride back with Buell, seriously, you want us to believe Oswald just could not say he changed his mind and Frazier would refuse him?
Comprehension a problem John.
No, do you? Marina never counted the money so how could she possibly know how much Oswald put in the wallet?
But Marina does say that she was under the impression that they thought that the money wasn't Oswald's and I reckon she just wanted the money back so tried to convince them that it was Lee's. Also note how she said it was Lee's money, she knew who was boss.
I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not
Lee’s money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned.
You argued earlier that Oswald would keep all his savings on his person.
I still see no reason to believe that Oswald would keep all his money in a wardrobe with his wife who was living miles away, but I do believe that he left her pocket money for shoes and emergencies.
Clearly his method was to take what he felt he needed, then left the balance with Marina in the security or the Paine house.
Yeah clear as mud.
He "felt he needed" $15 on the Friday morning.
Give it up, it's obvious why he needed some money and all he kept was a 5er, a stack of ones and some loose change, about 5% of his entire wealth BFD!!
As for getting a ride back with Buell, seriously, you want us to believe Oswald just could not say he changed his mind and Frazier would refuse him?
Ok, Ruth and Marina are out the front when Oswald gets to the Paine residence, sure Oswald could probably talk his way out of it but it would be a hassle and I think he sensed that Ruth was not happy with the unusual mid week visit so probably wouldn't want to create any trouble for him or Marina. But anyway Oswald got lucky and there's no need to speculate what coulda shoulda happened.
JohnM
-
Perhaps the guys that know everything can inform us when Oswald first decided to assassinate JFK?
The Unanswered Questions
No one will ever know what passed through Oswald's mind during the week before November 22, 1963. Instead of returning to Irving on November 15 for his customary weekend visit, he remained in Dallas at his wife's suggestion because of the birthday party. He had argued with her over the use of an alias and had not called her after that argument, although he usually telephoned once or twice a day. Then on Thursday morning, November 21, he asked Frazier for a ride to Irving that night, stating falsely that he wanted to pick up some curtain rods to put in an apartment.474
He must have planned his attack at the very latest prior to Thursday morning when he spoke to Frazier. There is, of course, no way to determine the degree to which he was committed to his plan at that time. While there is no way to tell when he first began to think specifically of assassinating the President it should be noted that mention of the Trade Mart as the expected site of the Presidential luncheon appeared in The Dallas Times Herald on November 15, 1963.475 The next day that paper announced the final approval of the Trade Mart as the luncheon site and stated that the motorcade "apparently will loop through the downtown area, probably on Main Street, en route from Dallas Love Field" on its way to the Trade Mart on Stemmons Freeway. 476 Anyone who was familiar with that area of Dallas would have known that the motorcade would probably pass the Texas School Book Depository to get from Main Street onto the Stemmons Freeway. That fact was made precisely clear in subsequent news stories on November 19, 20, and 22. 477
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-7.html#unanswered
JohnM
-
Hi Dennis, I seem to remember he bought a bus ticket and paid for a cab ride.....do we need to add that to the $13.87? In any event the amount does not allow a for a reasonable "escape plan"....agree?
Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10. He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt.
I've never believed Oswald expected to escape, so no, $14 does not allow for an escape plan. As for "Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10." Colin, neither you nor I know if Oswald had a couple of $ back at the rooming house or in another pair of pants. We really gonna quibble over $1.23? As for "He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt"....Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
-
Hi Colin, the fact Oswald took $13.87 (to be exact) with him that morning indicates to me that Oswald's 'plan' was so haphazard and dependent on luck, that Oswald was far from sure it would happen. If he got the chance great, if not.... If it didn't happen the $14 would be about right, Marina testified; "that when he was living by himself in a rooming house, he would spend about a dollar, $1.30 for dinner and have a sandwich and soft drink for lunch." So allowing for travel expenses, miscellaneous expenses the sums about right.
the fact Oswald took $13.87 (to be exact) with him that morning
Hi Denis, wouldn't that be $13.87 + bus + taxi + possible morning tea truck + coke.
Btw I just realized this myself, after all this time and I never did the math or maybe I did and just forgot, it's been a long time.
Edit I just read your above post where Oswald could have grabbed some spare change and a few bucks from his rooming house which is something I never thought of.
JohnM
-
I've never believed Oswald expected to escape, so no, $14 does not allow for an escape plan. As for "Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10." Colin, neither you nor I know if Oswald had a couple of $ back at the rooming house or in another pair of pants. We really gonna quibble over $1.23? As for "He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt"....Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
My recollection was the $13.87. Confirmed by John's pic. Also in that doc is the total of fares. We all agree that no effective escape plan without external assistance or robbing a bank after the event perhaps. We don’t know for sure what other funds he had access to.
As for the dime comment.......was meant more of a wink joke......apologies if you took offence. Do you think all my posts are nasty? Would be disappointed if that was the case.
-
Ok, Ruth and Marina are out the front when Oswald gets to the Paine residence, sure Oswald could probably talk his way out of it but it would be a hassle and I think he sensed that Ruth was not happy with the unusual mid week visit so probably wouldn't want to create any trouble for him or Marina.
JohnM
I sure wouldn’t want to get on Ruth's bad side either,......fortunately Jack Ruby eased his suffering.
-
I sure wouldn’t want to get on Ruth's bad side either,......fortunately Jack Ruby eased his suffering.
I sure wouldn’t want to get on Ruth's bad side either,
She would definitely be the Man in the relationship. Am I allowed to say that?
....fortunately Jack Ruby eased his suffering.
Jack Ruby was judge, jury and executioner "American Justice", I would have preferred a trial but in the end the Dallas Police, the FBI and the WC did a pretty good job.
JohnM
-
Any quotes to prove your assertion yet Charles?
Others have already posted it in this thread. I might add that it appears to me that LHO typically didn’t have much money anyway. And the fact that he left a large (for him) sum of money that day indicates that he had kept most of what he had on his person.
-
Others have already posted it in this thread. I might add that it appears to me that LHO typically didn’t have much money anyway. And the fact that he left a large (for him) sum of money that day indicates that he had kept most of what he had on his person.
"He normally kept whatever he had on his person according to Marina."
Charles Collins
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine’s there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. ...
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I would suggest that Oswald's actions were not out of the ordinary, except he had not visited for two pay periods. It seems he needed about $15. According to John that would cover him until the next Friday should he decide to bail on his attempt.
-
My recollection was the $13.87. Confirmed by John's pic. Also in that doc is the total of fares. We all agree that no effective escape plan without external assistance or robbing a bank after the event perhaps. We don’t know for sure what other funds he had access to.
As for the dime comment.......was meant more of a wink joke......apologies if you took offence. Do you think all my posts are nasty? Would be disappointed if that was the case.
Apologies Colin, I'm a bit of a grouch this morning. Seriously, there are very few members left whom I debate with these days. I've never seen such a high level of nastiness on the forum, from both 'sides'. You, on the other hand, have always been an absolute pleasure to debate with....so when I saw what I mistakenly took for sarcasm from you...I guess I flipped for a second. I'm sorry mate, it shouldn't have happened, I was wrong. Just having a row with the wife over "playing on the computer instead of decorating" probably didn't help. lol
-
"He normally kept whatever he had on his person according to Marina."
Charles Collins
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine’s there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. ...
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I would suggest that Oswald's actions were not out of the ordinary, except he had not visited for two pay periods. It seems he needed about $15. According to John that would cover him until the next Friday should he decide to bail on his attempt.
You brought up this topic to make your point if I remember correctly. Have you done the math? How long would it take for LHO to earn the amount that he left Marina on 11/22/63?
-
Apologies Colin, I'm a bit of a grouch this morning. Seriously, there are very few members left whom I debate with these days. I've never seen such a high level of nastiness on the forum, from both 'sides'. You, on the other hand, have always been an absolute pleasure to debate with....so when I saw what I mistakenly took for sarcasm from you...I guess I flipped for a second. I'm sorry mate, it shouldn't have happened, I was wrong. Just having a row with the wife over "playing on the computer instead of decorating" probably didn't help. lol
No worries Dennis......remember, happy wife, happy life. No apologies needed mate.
-
"He normally kept whatever he had on his person according to Marina."
Charles Collins
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine’s there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. ...
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I would suggest that Oswald's actions were not out of the ordinary, except he had not visited for two pay periods. It seems he needed about $15. According to John that would cover him until the next Friday should he decide to bail on his attempt.
There was a lot of his actions out of the ordinary. (By the way, his take home pay from the TSBD job was approximately $9.64 per day.)
Oswald woke up late. He told Marina there was money on the dresser. Without her noticing, he slipped off his wedding ring and left it in a cup. He did not kiss her goodbye. Marina went back to sleep.
(On the dresser, not in the wallet.)
-
I've never believed Oswald expected to escape, so no, $14 does not allow for an escape plan. As for "Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10." Colin, neither you nor I know if Oswald had a couple of $ back at the rooming house or in another pair of pants. We really gonna quibble over $1.23? As for "He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt"....Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
Conspiracy-mongers everywhere poison everything they touch
-
Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
Conspiracy-mongers poison everything they touch
Oh the irony.....
-
Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
Conspiracy-mongers poison everything they touch
Bill, I've apologised to Colin, he wasn't being sarcastic, I was mistaken. It was me that was completely at fault. BTW, my remark "does every post have to get nasty these days" was directed at both camps. It's certainly not every member but generally speaking, nastiness/rudeness is becoming the norm on the forum. So much so that I rarely post anymore and I wonder how many other long-standing members aren't posting either.
-
Assassinating the president is not the act of a rational person. Therefore, there cannot be a neat, tidy explanation of Oswald's motives that everyone can agree on. Even Oswald likely could not explain it in a way that makes any real sense. The best anyone can do is look at his life and make certain inferences. Oswald was a lifelong malcontent. Unhappy with his lot in life and blaming society for his grievances. Americans were just too stupid to recognize his merits. His political affiliations provided an opportunity to feel like a big shot. In his mind, he was attempting to cultivate an image of himself as some type of revolutionary fighter. I think his political motivations were important but shallow though. He used a fringe political cause to make himself feel important. He could be a person of note only within a fringe element like marxism. Shooting the president was, however, as much a personal as political act. Oswald's beef was with society in general. And what better way to express his anger than blowing the head off the most charismatic and powerful member of that society in broad daylight? And in that respect, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Thanks in large part to Zapruder's film Oswald let the genie out of bottle in the mass media age for every nut who wants his moment of fame. Rather than politics, Oswald's lasting legacy is as the destructive instrument of chaos. The angry nut who wants to go out in a blaze of glory doing as much harm as possible.
-
Oh the irony.....
'Fight fire with fire' goes the saying
;)
-
Bill, I've apologised to Colin, he wasn't being sarcastic, I was mistaken. It was me that was completely at fault. BTW, my remark "does every post have to get nasty these days" was directed at both camps. It's certainly not every member but generally speaking, nastiness/rudeness is becoming the norm on the forum. So much so that I rarely post anymore and I wonder how many other long-standing members aren't posting either.
"Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10. He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt." - Colin Crow
That's sarcasm, Denis.
Unless you think Colin a WC supporter.
And 3 dimes were found in Oswald's pocket.
Just sayin'
-
"Were the fares $1.23? He would have taken at least $15.10. He needed the dime to reassemble the rifle no doubt." - Colin Crow
That's sarcasm, Denis.
Unless you think Colin a WC supporter.
And 3 dimes were found in Oswald's pocket.
Just sayin'
That's sarcasm, Denis.
Unless you think Colin a WC supporter.
Of course, Colin's comment was dripping with sarcasm, if you don't reply to one of Colin's questions with his answer then you just get another question and on and on it goes, question after question till he funnels you down into his unique version of events which usually boils down to cherry picking the evidence. For instance, it doesn't matter how many cops saw and testified under oath that there was a long bag in the sniper's nest, because there isn't a photo it seems that the long bag was never there, Colin logic!
JohnM
-
Bill, I've apologised to Colin, he wasn't being sarcastic, I was mistaken. It was me that was completely at fault. BTW, my remark "does every post have to get nasty these days" was directed at both camps. It's certainly not every member but generally speaking, nastiness/rudeness is becoming the norm on the forum. So much so that I rarely post anymore and I wonder how many other long-standing members aren't posting either.
Since day 1 of my membership here(10 years ago in August) I have been continually insulted, had bucketloads of sarcasm thrown at me, had my name twisted every which way, my heritage bashed and to be honest I never remember a time where we all held hands and sang kumbaya? And this is to be expected, the subject matter is "Murder and Cover-up" and enthusiasts are all passionate but fortunately I reckon Duncan runs a pretty tight ship and doesn't let things get too out of hand.
JohnM
-
Assassinating the president is not the act of a rational person. Therefore, there cannot be a neat, tidy explanation of Oswald's motives that everyone can agree on. Even Oswald likely could not explain it in a way that makes any real sense. The best anyone can do is look at his life and make certain inferences. Oswald was a lifelong malcontent. Unhappy with his lot in life and blaming society for his grievances. Americans were just too stupid to recognize his merits. His political affiliations provided an opportunity to feel like a big shot. In his mind, he was attempting to cultivate an image of himself as some type of revolutionary fighter. I think his political motivations were important but shallow though. He used a fringe political cause to make himself feel important. He could be a person of note only within a fringe element like marxism. Shooting the president was, however, as much a personal as political act. Oswald's beef was with society in general. And what better way to express his anger than blowing the head off the most charismatic and powerful member of that society in broad daylight? And in that respect, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Thanks in large part to Zapruder's film Oswald let the genie out of bottle in the mass media age for every nut who wants his moment of fame. Rather than politics, Oswald's lasting legacy is as the destructive instrument of chaos. The angry nut who wants to go out in a blaze of glory doing as much harm as possible.
"his political motivations were important but shallow though"
It was either Michael Paine or George deM who remarked that during political 'discussions', Oswald seemed to be just talking by 'rote', and would get angry (and leave the room) when disagreed with.
-
Hi Denis, wouldn't that be $13.87 + bus + taxi + possible morning tea truck + coke.
Tea truck. LOL, you're so Australian.
-
What we see here in this thread is people assuming that the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true and then interpreting Oswald's history and behavior in hindsight in order to fit that narrative.
-
He was a nut...a loan nut.
A fantasist seeking notoriety. Couldn't obviously achieve fame or fortune (he was an order filler in a warehouse) through his own limited talents. The only way was an act of insanity. That's about the size of it.Fair enough you can add a psychological profile, a psychiatrist assessment, all the psychobabble you want..the guy was a nut.
That other idiot Ruby put the skids under Oswald and presented hundreds if not thousands with a "cause"...and in some cases..a living.
-
Tea truck. LOL, you're so Australian.
Tea truck.
Not quite, the Lunch truck would do their first rounds at Morning tea.
you're so Australian.
Thanks.
JohnM
-
Not quite, the Lunch truck would do their first rounds at Morning tea.
Thanks.
Who in America has morning tea?
-
Who in America has morning tea?
Australian immigrants
-
He was a nut...a loan nut.
A fantasist seeking notoriety. Couldn't obviously achieve fame or fortune (he was an order filler in a warehouse) through his own limited talents. The only way was an act of insanity. That's about the size of it.Fair enough you can add a psychological profile, a psychiatrist assessment, all the psychobabble you want..the guy was a nut.
That other idiot Ruby put the skids under Oswald and presented hundreds if not thousands with a "cause"...and in some cases..a living.
He was a nut...a loan nut
I doubt if Oswald could get a loan.
:D
-
What we see here in this thread is people assuming that the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true and then interpreting Oswald's history and behavior in hindsight in order to fit that narrative.
Until conspiracy-monger truth shows up, I guess us poor sheeple will just have to keep getting sheared (short back & sides, please) or following people off cliffs.
-
What we see here in this thread is people assuming that the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true and then interpreting Oswald's history and behavior in hindsight in order to fit that narrative.
What I see here is you, assuming that I'm assuming the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true. John, I've studied and researched this case for almost 30 years now. Over that time I gradually came to the same final conclusion as the WC, certainly not all of it, the reports far from perfect but yes, I do agree with the final conclusion. It's been hard work, it's cost me money and many a sleepless night. Please don't patronise me by "assuming" I've ever 'assumed' anything about this case. I'll admit my assessment of the facts regarding this case may well be wrong. But if they are it's because I've misinterpreted those facts NOT because I ever assumed anything incorrectly. I've said this before John, you're far too arrogant for your own good. Stop assuming that anyone who's reached a different conclusion than yourself is a total bloody idiot!
-
He was a nut...a loan nut
I doubt if Oswald could get a loan.
:D
But he did, and paid back. :)
-
The following interaction occurred between Dennis and myself in this thread. Dennis, is a member whom I highly respect and have had numerous discussions on this forum over many years. I do remember responding to him once or twice something that I immediately regretted and apologised. Certainly the dime comment is sarcastic in nature but was not directed at specifically at Dennis but more of a friendly jibe throwaway to the forum as a whole. When he was offended I apologised. Ironically, the prime focus of the post was to confirm that we were in agreement regarding a lack of evidence for any preconceived escape plan.
As for the dime comment.......was meant more of a wink joke......apologies if you took offence.
Apologies Colin, I'm a bit of a grouch this morning. Seriously, there are very few members left whom I debate with these days. I've never seen such a high level of nastiness on the forum, from both 'sides'. You, on the other hand, have always been an absolute pleasure to debate with....so when I saw what I mistakenly took for sarcasm from you...I guess I flipped for a second. I'm sorry mate, it shouldn't have happened, I was wrong. Just having a row with the wife over "playing on the computer instead of decorating" probably didn't help. lol
No worries Dennis......remember, happy wife, happy life. No apologies needed mate.
As a follow up to this……..we got…..
Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
Conspiracy-mongers everywhere poison everything they touch
And….then the following commentary…..
Of course, Colin's comment was dripping with sarcasm, if you don't reply to one of Colin's questions with his answer then you just get another question and on and on it goes, question after question till he funnels you down into his unique version of events which usually boils down to cherry picking the evidence. For instance, it doesn't matter how many cops saw and testified under oath that there was a long bag in the sniper's nest, because there isn't a photo it seems that the long bag was never there, Colin logic!
JohnM
As for my general modus operandi, one that involves cherry picking evidence, that was an interesting analysis. John then provides his interpretation of my understanding of the discovery of CE142. I have never claimed that the bag was “never there”. The bag was most certainly on the 6th floor. It was just not discovered when and where the official story claimed. I would argue that my interpretation does not reply on cherry picking but the totality of the evidence. The evidence suggests the bag was not “discovered” until after Studebaker returned to dust the pop bottle and lunch sack. It was also not originally discovered where Studebaker indicated with his outline.
If I wanted to cherry pick testimony to debate this fact I might try and use Sims’ testimony.
-
1. The following interaction occurred between Dennis and myself in this thread.
2. And….then the following commentary…..
Besides you desperately seeking some sort of positive reinforcement from Denis in 1, can you possibly explain how that is even remotely connected to the long bag in the 6th floor sniper's nest, you know the long bag as seen by six police officers?
JohnM
-
It was also not originally discovered where Studebaker indicated with his outline.
Anyway getting back on topic, do you think at any point on that afternoon did Studebaker see the bag where he drew it on the sniper's nest photograph?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
JohnM
-
Besides you desperately seeking some sort of positive reinforcement from Denis in 1, can you possibly explain how that is even remotely connected to the long bag in the 6th floor sniper's nest, you know the long bag as seen by six police officers?
JohnM
I need no positive reinforcement from Denis. He accepted my apology as genuine as I did his.
I am about wondering your need to attempt to discredit my posting on the forum in general by misrepresenting my explanation of the discovery of CE142 so inaccurately. Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious? Only you know of your true motivation.
-
Anyway getting back on topic, do you think at any point on that afternoon did Studebaker see the bag where he drew it on the sniper's nest photograph?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
JohnM
It is possible that someone placed it there, in some folded fashion. When was that photo taken?
-
I need no positive reinforcement from Denis. He accepted my apology as genuine as I did his.
I am about wondering your need to attempt to discredit my posting on the forum in general by misrepresenting my explanation of the discovery of CE142 so inaccurately. Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious? Only you know of your true motivation.
I need no positive reinforcement from Denis. He accepted my apology as genuine as I did his.
Nice, but I still don't understand what any of that had to do with Oswald's bag in the sniper's nest?
I am about wondering your need to attempt to discredit my posting on the forum in general by misrepresenting my explanation of the discovery of CE142 so inaccurately
So my post about what I believe your comments on CE142 in the sniper's nest leads to, is an attempt to discredit your posts on the forum in general, seriously? Get a grip, this sort of gross exaggeration is of the same type of nonsense that Fratini used to pull and led to him leaving.
Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious?
Yeah, can you.
Here's a quick summary of the evidence.
Frazier saw a long bag that he didn't particularly pay attention to.
Frazier said that Oswald told him that the bag contained curtain rods.
Oswald said the bag contained his lunch.
Frazier said the bag was put on the back seat.
Oswald said that his package was on his lap because even Oswald realizes that putting his lunch on the back seat is not that believable.
The folded, crumpled and stained bag that is discovered neatly fits Oswald's broken down rifle.
The bag has multiple prints from Oswald.
The bag was seen in the sniper's nest by multiple police officers.
Only you know of your true motivation.
You just have to look at my history of posting and see that I exclusively use the evidence or make logical inferences based on the evidence whereas others here seem to have an agenda.
JohnM
-
It is possible that someone placed it there, in some folded fashion.
If it wasn't Oswald, then who and why?
And if their purpose was to deceive then taking a photo was a no brainer, why no photo?
JohnM
-
If it wasn't Oswald, then who and why?
And if their purpose was to deceive then taking a photo was a no brainer, why no photo?
JohnM
You seem to have missed my question. When was that photo taken by Studebaker?
-
What I see here is you, assuming that I'm assuming the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true. John, I've studied and researched this case for almost 30 years now. Over that time I gradually came to the same final conclusion as the WC, certainly not all of it, the reports far from perfect but yes, I do agree with the final conclusion. It's been hard work, it's cost me money and many a sleepless night. Please don't patronise me by "assuming" I've ever 'assumed' anything about this case. I'll admit my assessment of the facts regarding this case may well be wrong. But if they are it's because I've misinterpreted those facts NOT because I ever assumed anything incorrectly. I've said this before John, you're far too arrogant for your own good. Stop assuming that anyone who's reached a different conclusion than yourself is a total bloody idiot!
Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
You simply cannot ascribe a motive to Oswald without pre-assuming that he committed the crime. Assumptions based on research and interpretation are still assumptions. It's not an insult to call them that.
-
Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
You simply cannot ascribe a motive to Oswald without pre-assuming that he committed the crime. Assumptions based on research and interpretation are still assumptions. It's not an insult to call them that.
Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
>>> Yeah, you prefer 'lemmings'
You simply cannot ascribe a motive to Oswald without pre-assuming that he committed the crime.
>>> Since when are suspects in a criminal investigation exempt from the 'Motive' check box?
-
Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
>>> Yeah, you prefer 'lemmings'
Denis is no lemming. That's reserved for people like you who only parrot the WC and Bugliosi like they are some kind of gospel.
Probably.
-
Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
>>> Yeah, you prefer 'lemmings'
Denis is no lemming. That's reserved for people like you who only parrot the WC and Bugliosi like they are some kind of gospel.
Probably.
OMG. Now I'm a parrot, alongside a lemming and a sheep. No biggee, though.. I can play my now-continuing role of a lemming by dint of simply flying off any given cliff with my brand-spanking new parrot's wings.
Can't remember the last time I mentioned Bug... catch me up.
-
You owe me an apology too, over Chapman
I have not seen the great Rob Caprio on in a while, maybe you caused him to leave due to your bigoted mouth, you talk about rudeness and nastiness when you are one of the biggest culprits, licking the yanks asses hoping to get a visa out of it.
Duncan is not keeping a tight ship on here, in spite of John Mytton thinking he is , he comes across as taking sides in some instances and ignores quite a bit of this behavior
Caprio broke forum rules and was suspended.
Duncan is more than fair in letting people get away with stuff that is officially a 'no-no' here; in effect leaving it up to individuals to lodge complaints.
In a way he indeed doesn't run a tight ship here... it's more a case of him giving people enough rope to hang themselves.
;)
-
What Oswald was trying to sum up, was about the special relationship, and how it caused society in America to be so cruel, because it was so aligned to British imperialism which had kept a massive foothold in America in spite of losing the war there, and Oswald wanted to stand up against it.
J.F.K stood to ruin this special relationship as well, because he had more allegiance to the Republic of Ireland than he did to royal Britain, so Oswald had no motive, to kill him as Kennedy was standing up against the U.S society from being British influenced, through bringing about good civil rights/foreign policies, and this suited Oswald as Marina said Lee liked Kennedy.
But those trying to protect the special relationship had the most motive and they were willing to kill the President to keep it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship
The Special Relationship was perhaps tested the most severely by the Skybolt crisis of 1962, when Kennedy cancelled a joint project without consultation. Skybolt was a nuclear air-to-ground missile that could penetrate Soviet airspace and would extend the life of Britain's deterrent, which consisted only of free-falling hydrogen bombs. London saw cancellation as a reduction in the British nuclear deterrent. The crisis was resolved during a series of compromises that led to the Royal Navy purchasing the American UGM-27 Polaris missile and construction of the Resolution-class submarines to launch them.[74][75][76][77] The debates over Skybolt were top secret, but tensions were exacerbated when Dean Acheson, a former Secretary of State, challenged publicly the Special Relationship and marginalised the British contribution to the Western alliance. Acheson said
(https://images.app.goo.gl/sC285hN4Tmr71Ptg6)
I do remember a lot of paranoia concerning the nuclear threat. Backyard bomb shelters and such. The final scene of the movie “Dr Strangelove” with Slim Pickens riding on the falling bomb was pretty scary to my younger cousin.
-
When considering motive, it must be considered where LHO received his financing from over the years. He made a trip to Russia and Mexico. The first trip paid for by saving money during the time of service as a US marine. There is no account of how he convinced the Russians to give him a factory worker job in Minsk and how he was able to live comfortably there and be repatriated later, especially after serving in the US Marine Corp.
Conveniently this dead man's tax records or bank accounts? are left hidden so you are unable to determine who was paying him for sure when he returned to his life in the US. His W-2s should have been proof for all the various jobs he held after coming back. Did he not pay taxes and have wages withheld by his employers? That proof has never been provided. He seemingly could never hold a job until he got the TSBD job where his boss Truly said he was "an above average employee"! Those short employments would have created tax liabilities and records which any sane investigator would have investigated.
The records such as his W-2s would prove/disprove who was bankrolling him on his endeavors. It is possible he kept all his money "in his pillow" but if he had a repatriation loan when he moved from Russia to the US for $435.71 on June 1, 1962, how did he pay it back or did it remain outstanding? This record may not have clarified whether or not he was on the CIA's "non-taxable" payroll but it certainly would have been looked at to confirm W-2s and tax records from his various places of employment to verify the accuracy of the statements made by his employers.
Furthermore, this US Marine achieved a 191 score as "marksman" in 1959 but yet failed to hit his stationary target Edwin Walker at 100 feet - so the story goes ,unconfirmed but presumed! This same gun was "assumed" to be the one to kill JFK, his shooting ability much improved by this time, able to land at least 2 shots from a bolt action rifle on a moving target in a few seconds at a much greater distance!
If his IQ was fairly low, he may have been convinced by his handlers to go along with the charade. Some people are gullible and can be led down a garden path, told they are the greatest double agents on the earth and follow orders in a spy/espionage game where they think themselves heroes and great patriots. Unbeknownst to them, they then find themselves tied into the plot and framed to become the patsy. Then it is too late to end the game and they are the pawn. Take out the pawn and the story never has to be revealed, case closed!
-
When considering motive, it must be considered where LHO received his financing from over the years. He made a trip to Russia and Mexico. The first trip paid for by saving money during the time of service as a US marine. There is no account of how he convinced the Russians to give him a factory worker job in Minsk and how he was able to live comfortably there and be repatriated later, especially after serving in the US Marine Corp.
Conveniently this dead man's tax records or bank accounts? are left hidden so you are unable to determine who was paying him for sure when he returned to his life in the US. His W-2s should have been proof for all the various jobs he held after coming back. Did he not pay taxes and have wages withheld by his employers? That proof has never been provided. He seemingly could never hold a job until he got the TSBD job where his boss Truly said he was "an above average employee"! Those short employments would have created tax liabilities and records which any sane investigator would have investigated.
The records such as his W-2s would prove/disprove who was bankrolling him on his endeavors. It is possible he kept all his money "in his pillow" but if he had a repatriation loan when he moved from Russia to the US for $435.71 on June 1, 1962, how did he pay it back or did it remain outstanding? This record may not have clarified whether or not he was on the CIA's "non-taxable" payroll but it certainly would have been looked at to confirm W-2s and tax records from his various places of employment to verify the accuracy of the statements made by his employers.
Furthermore, this US Marine achieved a 191 score as "marksman" in 1959 but yet failed to hit his stationary target Edwin Walker at 100 feet - so the story goes ,unconfirmed but presumed! This same gun was "assumed" to be the one to kill JFK, his shooting ability much improved by this time, able to land at least 2 shots from a bolt action rifle on a moving target in a few seconds at a much greater distance!
If his IQ was fairly low, he may have been convinced by his handlers to go along with the charade. Some people are gullible and can be led down a garden path, told they are the greatest double agents on the earth and follow orders in a spy/espionage game where they think themselves heroes and great patriots. Unbeknownst to them, they then find themselves tied into the plot and framed to become the patsy. Then it is too late to end the game and they are the pawn. Take out the pawn and the story never has to be revealed, case closed!
There is a full and complete accounting of Oswald's finances and how he got his job in Russia. Do you really believe that if Oswald was on someone's payroll to assassinate the president that this income would be reflected on his W-2s? Whew. Oswald only failed to hit Walker because his bullet deflected off of a window frame. Oswald was trained to shoot a rifle in the USMC.
-
(https://images.app.goo.gl/sC285hN4Tmr71Ptg6)
I do remember a lot of paranoia concerning the nuclear threat. Backyard bomb shelters and such. The final scene of the movie “Dr Strangelove” with Slim Pickens riding on the falling bomb was pretty scary to my younger cousin.
-
Yes, we were both accustomed to the typical happy endings of movies geared toward kids. And we had no idea what kind of movie we were going to see. Only that the title was intriguing. So that ending came as quite a shock!
-
Yes, we were both accustomed to the typical happy endings of movies geared toward kids. And we had no idea what kind of movie we were going to see. Only that the title was intriguing. So that ending came as quite a shock!
Great black humour in the movie, though
'You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!'
'Premier Kissoff' haha
-
You may well be right Paul. Personally, I think you're giving Oswald too deep a motive. I believe Oswald was on the edge of losing it for years. The failure to reconcile with Marina pushed him over the edge and the nasty little bastard just went out and 'did it' out of pure spite. No plan, no thought of escape. The SOB just wanted to get even with the world, get 'famous'. Who really knows? You can't explain the motives of a nut job.
You're right Denis. However, the language does not fit the location... Texas.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy out of "sheer cussedness".
CUSSEDNESS: meanspirited, disagreeable, contrariness.
-
According to Marina, he lied because he enjoyed it, not because he needed to.
And I don’t recall seeing any evidence of your idea of the motive.
You're comfortable in believing that the chump ( patsy) performed the impossible....Sweet Dreams.. Charlie.
-
Oswald, as was his nature had a fundamental issue with the American government. He believed the government worked against the average American; the working class. As head of the government, the POTUS was responsible. Those who knew Oswald have said over the years that he, Oswald liked and admired Kennedy on a personal level. Didn’t matter in Oswald’s damaged psyche. He wasn’t shooting JFK. He was shooting the POTUS and all that position represented in the world. Chaos. He believed guns were made to change the world.
Paul,
In general I agree with your assessment.
The way I see it, Oswald was a self-described Castro-loving Marxist who held a grudge against all governments (except Cuba's), and against the U.S. government in particular.
If he killed Kennedy, he did so not only to speed up "the dialectics of history," but -- having read about Castro's 7th of September dire warning to "American leaders" who were trying to knock him off -- to prevent Jack and Bobby from killing Castro before the 1964 presidential election.
-- MWT ;)
-
There is a full and complete accounting of Oswald's finances and how he got his job in Russia. Do you really believe that if Oswald was on someone's payroll to assassinate the president that this income would be reflected on his W-2s? Whew. Oswald only failed to hit Walker because his bullet deflected off of a window frame. Oswald was trained to shoot a rifle in the USMC.
Where is this information? We don't need witnesses, we need paper evidence such as bank statements and transactions. The Warren Commission adopted a prosecutor stance that the shooting involved a single lone nut gunman LHO and they brought only documents forward to support that - nothing ever to the contrary.
Look at modern day George Papadopoulos, lured to Rome and interviewed by CIA/FBI team members working with them and for them. Then the information is used against him. So.......you interview who you want, pick and choose statements and introduce them as evidence of collusion - very corrupt system and this is not the first time "framing" has occurred to gain the end result! When you control the narrative and evidence gathering by using "media" and "insiders", you can control the end game. The continued bombardment of Trump as a babbling fool by the MSM has a purpose. This is no different than controlling when and what people were allowed to see with LHO. More than 50 years later, documents still withheld from the public as a matter of national security! Why the need for secrecy if it wasn't a coup? Trumps polls are weak because of the dirt the propaganda network throws against him daily. JFK and him are the only 2 presidents that never drew a wage for themselves - they tried or try to do things for the good of their country.
In the case of JFK, independent investigators were not allowed to question the handling or gathering of evidence - including the removal of the President's limousine from the crime scene in Texas - just another one of those things where independent investigators were prevented from finding the truth and they could control the story line. Providing documents typed out from witnesses and having them sign them controls the situation. No grand jury and a special investigative teams provides bias reporting and fuels conspiracy! Examples, "Warren Commission Report", "911 Report" and now "Mueller Report". It all becomes a "matter of national security" as you have to "filter" what the people are allowed to see! Put the right people on the investigative team and you make it one-sided and purposeful. JMO.
-
Where is this information? We don't need witnesses, we need paper evidence such as bank statements and transactions. The Warren Commission adopted a prosecutor stance that the shooting involved a single lone nut gunman LHO and they brought only documents forward to support that - nothing ever to the contrary.
Look at modern day George Papadopoulos, lured to Rome and interviewed by CIA/FBI team members working with them and for them. Then the information is used against him. So.......you interview who you want, pick and choose statements and introduce them as evidence of collusion - very corrupt system and this is not the first time "framing" has occurred to gain the end result! When you control the narrative and evidence gathering by using "media" and "insiders", you can control the end game. The continued bombardment of Trump as a babbling fool by the MSM has a purpose. This is no different than controlling when and what people were allowed to see with LHO. More than 50 years later, documents still withheld from the public as a matter of national security! Why the need for secrecy if it wasn't a coup? Trumps polls are weak because of the dirt the propaganda network throws against him daily. JFK and him are the only 2 presidents that never drew a wage for themselves - they tried or try to do things for the good of their country.
In the case of JFK, independent investigators were not allowed to question the handling or gathering of evidence - including the removal of the President's limousine from the crime scene in Texas - just another one of those things where independent investigators were prevented from finding the truth and they could control the story line. Providing documents typed out from witnesses and having them sign them controls the situation. No grand jury and a special investigative teams provides bias reporting and fuels conspiracy! Examples, "Warren Commission Report", "911 Report" and now "Mueller Report". It all becomes a "matter of national security" as you have to "filter" what the people are allowed to see! Put the right people on the investigative team and you make it one-sided and purposeful. JMO.
An accounting of Oswald's finances is laid out in detail by the WC. In addition, various "researchers" - most of whom believe in Oswald's innocence - have turned over every stone for the past 50 plus years grasping at any straw. There is nothing in his finances that lends credence to a conspiracy connection. This is the most investigated case in the history of crime. Your objection appears more related to the conclusions reached than the investigation. There are legitimate reasons for not releasing every document among the millions generated by this case. For example, many people and their families who may have assisted the FBI and CIA in their investigation of Oswald's alleged connections to the Mob, Russians, and Cubans are still alive and subject to repercussions for their cooperation. My understanding is that many of Oswald's tax documents have been released and can be found via a simple Google search. To the extent that any are not available, it is a matter of privacy laws rather than any cover up.
-
An accounting of Oswald's finances is laid out in detail by the WC.
Again, like the Mueller Report run by people with a purpose and objective, you are given a solution and are told to accept it because they are experts and you are not. Only believe! They also control every aspect of what is written you must understand. Here is a good example today which applies to yesteryear. If you can clear Hilary Clinton of any wrong doing (Russian Collusion which most definitely occurred with links to Clinton Foundation, Uranium one, Fusion GPS, Steele Dossier, home server bleached bit disks and devices destroyed with hammer) - and then turn around and use the same agents to use the false info collected to implicate Russian Collusion by the Trump campaign, inviting and interviewing George Papadopoulous to Rome for a setup interview and write up a misleading report - you have issues that run very deep and go back many years. That was not the first time. LHO was no different. He was used and never realized it. Was he a spy sent to Russia to gain information or was he a defector? Double agent? After all he was a US Marine who served his country for some time. I don't think it is that easy to become a Marine - they undergo vigorous testing and loyalty tests.
You will never be allowed to see any information which implicated any of the 3 lettered organizations that do not report to the common people. They operate on their own turf, if you want to remove a car from the crime scene and investigate it yourselves, you can. They operate above the law (police force). If you want to remove a body from a crime scene and take it to another jurisdiction, you can overrule the local coroner and get away with it. If you are implicated with anything, simply run it through the shredder and it can never be proven or disproven.
Modern day Hilary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI but always off the record with no recording. LHO was in custody for a couple of days, no recordings of his interviews made, no statements taken, only a purely controlled environment left behind and paper statements produced. If you look back at crime scene, everyone flooded towards the grassy knoll. One of the first reports by a reporter reported a single shot that sounded like a fire cracker and then 2 shots followed in "quick succession". If you were reloading your Carcano bolt action rifle, you can't have 2 shots in quick succession! Rebolting, Re-aiming means shots have to come out at about the same intervals. Zapruder's film clearly shows the delay between 1st bullet and 2 and 3. Clearly the first indication of where bullets came from was the grassy knoll and underpass area as people raced up there. It makes sense when you see JFK's head slap back when the killshot hits him. Even the car's sun visors are up and out of position. It did not knock him forward! LHO has no motive in the whole story other than to follow orders given him. If they tell him to go to a theater to hide, he does that.
In addition, various "researchers" - most of whom believe in Oswald's innocence - have turned over every stone for the past 50 plus years grasping at any straw. There is nothing in his finances that lends credence to a conspiracy connection. This is the most investigated case in the history of crime.
The man, LHO was dead, why can't the tax returns be revealed? Link me to google, afraid you can't! This investigation was a report from a commission not by investigators of crime. One of their objectives was to make sure that a coup d'etat was not found to have taken place as it would have sent the country into chaos. If the FBI and Secret Service were found to be part of it, who could you trust? They did the investigating - so you can rule that one out immediately! The initial report by a reporter on the scene also indicates that there was "convey spreading" that took place to give place for a clearer shot? Coincidence? Clearly you can see lead car under the overpass already and the limo then passes them on the way to hospital! Even the Coroner's report was shredded in Bethesda and never issued as it had blood on it. It was even done by a real coroner! Every aspect of that investigation was botched, and CTers speculate that it was done on purpose to hide those responsible - LNers buy into it hook line and sinker that it was a lone nut gunman!
Your objection appears more related to the conclusions reached than the investigation. There are legitimate reasons for not releasing every document among the millions generated by this case. For example, many people and their families who may have assisted the FBI and CIA in their investigation of Oswald's alleged connections to the Mob, Russians, and Cubans are still alive and subject to repercussions for their cooperation. My understanding is that many of Oswald's tax documents have been released and can be found via a simple Google search. To the extent that any are not available, it is a matter of privacy laws rather than any cover up.
They have generated so many documents and rabbit trails that in itself proves a coverup took place. If there was a lone nut gunman responsible for the shooting, there would have been no problem with having everything investigated right there in Dallas. The Secret Service forcibly removed the President's body and the car (crime scene) quickly and shipped back before anyone independent could examine in Dallas. The SS are responsible for evasive maneuvers and after the first shot came in - they did nothing except slow down. It is little wonder that Jacqueline said "THEY killed him". She would have been the only witness in history which was never interviewed or allowed to testify as to what she saw. Even if a man kills his wife, he is not exempt from examination even if it is his wife! They slowed down so much that Clint Hill could run from the back car to the lead car and jump on - pretty sad!
Yes, Give me the google links in a google search to reveal his tax returns. Post them! It seems they can get them for Trump. Richard you can't and you know that. Anything you don't want the peasants to see has been "whitewashed(shredded)" or becomes a matter of "privacy laws" and "national security". That pretty well blankets it if you don't want to release anything, cite that for reason! If that doesn't work, take the 5th!
-
Again, like the Mueller Report run by people with a purpose and objective, you are given a solution and are told to accept it because they are experts and you are not. Only believe! They also control every aspect of what is written you must understand. Here is a good example today which applies to yesteryear. If you can clear Hilary Clinton of any wrong doing (Russian Collusion which most definitely occurred with links to Clinton Foundation, Uranium one, Fusion GPS, Steele Dossier, home server bleached bit disks and devices destroyed with hammer) - and then turn around and use the same agents to use the false info collected to implicate Russian Collusion by the Trump campaign, inviting and interviewing George Papadopoulous to Rome for a setup interview and write up a misleading report - you have issues that run very deep and go back many years. That was not the first time. LHO was no different. He was used and never realized it. Was he a spy sent to Russia to gain information or was he a defector? Double agent? After all he was a US Marine who served his country for some time. I don't think it is that easy to become a Marine - they undergo vigorous testing and loyalty tests.
You will never be allowed to see any information which implicated any of the 3 lettered organizations that do not report to the common people. They operate on their own turf, if you want to remove a car from the crime scene and investigate it yourselves, you can. They operate above the law (police force). If you want to remove a body from a crime scene and take it to another jurisdiction, you can overrule the local coroner and get away with it. If you are implicated with anything, simply run it through the shredder and it can never be proven or disproven.
Modern day Hilary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI but always off the record with no recording. LHO was in custody for a couple of days, no recordings of his interviews made, no statements taken, only a purely controlled environment left behind and paper statements produced. If you look back at crime scene, everyone flooded towards the grassy knoll. One of the first reports by a reporter reported a single shot that sounded like a fire cracker and then 2 shots followed in "quick succession". If you were reloading your Carcano bolt action rifle, you can't have 2 shots in quick succession! Rebolting, Re-aiming means shots have to come out at about the same intervals. Zapruder's film clearly shows the delay between 1st bullet and 2 and 3. Clearly the first indication of where bullets came from was the grassy knoll and underpass area as people raced up there. It makes sense when you see JFK's head slap back when the killshot hits him. Even the car's sun visors are up and out of position. It did not knock him forward! LHO has no motive in the whole story other than to follow orders given him. If they tell him to go to a theater to hide, he does that.
The man, LHO was dead, why can't the tax returns be revealed? Link me to google, afraid you can't! This investigation was a report from a commission not by investigators of crime. One of their objectives was to make sure that a coup d'etat was not found to have taken place as it would have sent the country into chaos. If the FBI and Secret Service were found to be part of it, who could you trust? They did the investigating - so you can rule that one out immediately! The initial report by a reporter on the scene also indicates that there was "convey spreading" that took place to give place for a clearer shot? Coincidence? Clearly you can see lead car under the overpass already and the limo then passes them on the way to hospital! Even the Coroner's report was shredded in Bethesda and never issued as it had blood on it. It was even done by a real coroner! Every aspect of that investigation was botched, and CTers speculate that it was done on purpose to hide those responsible - LNers buy into it hook line and sinker that it was a lone nut gunman!
They have generated so many documents and rabbit trails that in itself proves a coverup took place. If there was a lone nut gunman responsible for the shooting, there would have been no problem with having everything investigated right there in Dallas. The Secret Service forcibly removed the President's body and the car (crime scene) quickly and shipped back before anyone independent could examine in Dallas. The SS are responsible for evasive maneuvers and after the first shot came in - they did nothing except slow down. It is little wonder that Jacqueline said "THEY killed him". She would have been the only witness in history which was never interviewed or allowed to testify as to what she saw. Even if a man kills his wife, he is not exempt from examination even if it is his wife! They slowed down so much that Clint Hill could run from the back car to the lead car and jump on - pretty sad!
Yes, Give me the google links in a google search to reveal his tax returns. Post them! It seems they can get them for Trump. Richard you can't and you know that. Anything you don't want the peasants to see has been "whitewashed(shredded)" or becomes a matter of "privacy laws" and "national security". That pretty well blankets it if you don't want to release anything, cite that for reason! If that doesn't work, take the 5th!
You appear to have access to a computer. Go to Google and type in "Oswald's tax returns". See what happens. I don't believe there would have been any 1963 tax form for Oswald because he was dead. Gary Mack provided some insight on Oswald's taxes: "All his tax returns were released except for 1962. Marina has a copy and researchers have examined it and found nothing suspicious or anything that was not already known."
Also read 26 USC Sec. 6103 which protects the confidentiality of tax returns (even of deceased individuals) except under certain enumerated conditions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103
After you have done this give some thought to the likelihood of a "secret agent" Oswald reporting any income on his taxes for services involved in a conspiracy to assassinating the president.
-
Great black humour in the movie, though
'You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!'
'Premier Kissoff' haha
Yes, I need to watch that movie again. Thanks.
-
I reckon Oswald's motive can be reasonably established by examining two people in 1963 that Oswald pointed his rifle at(Walker and Kennedy) and what was their connection?
During February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis in an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered by mail a Carcano rifle, using the alias "A. Hidell."[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
And 3 days after the following article was printed in the Dallas Times Herald, Kennedy was assassinated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2rVY245R/WH-Vol26-0053a-1.gif)
Oswald has a proven history of supporting Cuba.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYWZGJyK/WH-Vol26-0242br.jpg)
Oswald's possessions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63MyWNmf/oswald-s-cuba-fidel-stuff.jpg)
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
JohnM
-
I reckon Oswald's motive can be reasonably established by examining two people in 1963 that Oswald pointed his rifle at(Walker and Kennedy) and what was their connection?
During February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis in an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered by mail a Carcano rifle, using the alias "A. Hidell."[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
And 3 days after the following article was printed in the Dallas Times Herald, Kennedy was assassinated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2rVY245R/WH-Vol26-0053a-1.gif)
Oswald has a proven history of supporting Cuba.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYWZGJyK/WH-Vol26-0242br.jpg)
Oswald's possessions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63MyWNmf/oswald-s-cuba-fidel-stuff.jpg)
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
JohnM
John,
Great post.
I think the literature is particularly damning. I wonder if those publications were ever checked for Oswald's fingerprints?
My current (lol) theory is a synthesis of Ion Pacepa's Programmed To Kill and Gus Russo's Live By The Sword, with a little reverse spin on John Newman's Oswald and the CIA thrown in.
-- MWT ;)
PS The only problem I have is Buell Wesley Frazier's saying the package was only 24-to-25 inches long, and that Oswald carried it with one end cupped in his hand, and the other end in his armpit.
-
John,
Great post.
I think the literature is particularly damning. I wonder if those publications were ever checked for Oswald's fingerprints?
My current (lol) theory is a synthesis of Ion Pacepa's Programmed To Kill and Gus Russo's Live By The Sword, with a little reverse spin on John Newman's Oswald and the CIA thrown in.
-- MWT ;)
PS The only problem I have is Buell Wesley Frazier's saying the package was only 24-to-25 inches long, and that Oswald carried it with one end cupped in his hand, and the other end in his armpit.
Walker was the mastermind behind these murders in Dallas on 22.11.63
-
I reckon Oswald's motive can be reasonably established by examining two people in 1963 that Oswald pointed his rifle at(Walker and Kennedy) and what was their connection?
During February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis in an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered by mail a Carcano rifle, using the alias "A. Hidell."[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
And 3 days after the following article was printed in the Dallas Times Herald, Kennedy was assassinated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2rVY245R/WH-Vol26-0053a-1.gif)
Oswald has a proven history of supporting Cuba.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYWZGJyK/WH-Vol26-0242br.jpg)
Oswald's possessions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63MyWNmf/oswald-s-cuba-fidel-stuff.jpg)
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
JohnM
All of this obviously had a lot to do with his state of mind at the time. I wonder, if Oswald hadn't been stopped so soon, whether there would have been an airplane hijacked to Cuba out of Love Field later that day or soon after that.
-
John,
Great post.
I think the literature is particularly damning. I wonder if those publications were ever checked for Oswald's fingerprints?
My current (lol) theory is a synthesis of Ion Pacepa's Programmed To Kill and Gus Russo's Live By The Sword, with a little reverse spin on John Newman's Oswald and the CIA thrown in.
-- MWT ;)
PS The only problem I have is Buell Wesley Frazier's saying the package was only 24-to-25 inches long, and that Oswald carried it with one end cupped in his hand, and the other end in his armpit.
Hi Thomas, thanks for the feedback. As for Frazier;
1. Frazier tells us during his testimony that he wasn't "paying much attention to the bag"
2. Oswald tells Frazier he's carrying curtain rods
3. Oswald tells his interrogators that he has his lunch in the bag.
4. Frazier says the bag was on the back seat.
5. Oswald says he carried the bag on his lap.
6. The bag matches the size of the broken down rifle.
7. The bag has Oswald's prints.
8. The bag was found in the sniper's nest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d15LCwHD/buell-linnie-est.jpg)
JohnM
-
Hi Thomas, thanks for the feedback. As for Frazier;
1. Frazier tells us during his testimony that he wasn't "paying much attention to the bag"
2. Oswald tells Frazier he's carrying curtain rods
3. Oswald tells his interrogators that he has his lunch in the bag.
4. Frazier says the bag was on the back seat.
5. Oswald says he carried the bag on his lap.
6. The bag matches the size of the broken down rifle.
7. The bag has Oswald's prints.
8. The bag was found in the sniper's nest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d15LCwHD/buell-linnie-est.jpg)
JohnM
John,
Yes, but it seems to me that his "not paying much attention" to the package is contradicted by his describing it more recently as being "24 to 25 inches in length" (iirc)
Why not say it was "24-to-30 inches in length", or something, instead?
Why the only one inch increment?
Smacks of a close observation on his part, imho.
Just saying ...
-- MWT ;)
PS I wonder if anyone has determined how many inches there are from a typical 5' 9.5" American man's armpit to the cup of his hand?
Point being: If the package was only 25 inches long, would it have been long enough to fit well from Oswald's armpit to his hand?
-
I reckon Oswald's motive can be reasonably established by examining two people in 1963 that Oswald pointed his rifle at(Walker and Kennedy) and what was their connection?
During February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis in an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered by mail a Carcano rifle, using the alias "A. Hidell."[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
And 3 days after the following article was printed in the Dallas Times Herald, Kennedy was assassinated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2rVY245R/WH-Vol26-0053a-1.gif)
Oswald has a proven history of supporting Cuba.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYWZGJyK/WH-Vol26-0242br.jpg)
Oswald's possessions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63MyWNmf/oswald-s-cuba-fidel-stuff.jpg)
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
JohnM
Don’t see a WC exhibit number for this one. Is it a fake?
(https://i.ibb.co/NSg99KK/CC1-D5-EF0-AA5-E-4082-A395-DF185-C376838.jpg)
-
Don’t see a WC exhibit number for this one. Is it a fake?
(https://i.ibb.co/NSg99KK/CC1-D5-EF0-AA5-E-4082-A395-DF185-C376838.jpg)
Gosh, it must be, huh?
(sarcasm)
-- MWT ;)
-
John,
Yes, but it seems to me that his "not paying much attention" to the package is contradicted by his describing it more recently as being "24 to 25 inches in length" (iirc)
Why not say it was "24-to-30 inches in length", or something, instead?
Why the only one inch increment?
Smacks of a close observation on his part, imho.
Just saying ...
-- MWT ;)
PS I wonder if anyone has determined how many inches there are from a typical 5' 9.5" American man's armpit to the cup of his hand?
Point being: If the package was only 25 inches long, would it have been long enough to fit well from Oswald's armpit to his hand?
Smacks of a close observation on his part, imho.
While Frazier was in the Service, he broke down his 44.3 inch M14 rifle many times and you can't get a closer hands on observation than that, also remember that Frazier never handled Oswald's package
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb3.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CW4rqPg/M14.jpg)
Btw the package had Oswald's prints and Oswald and Frazier had different recollections about the contents and placement of the package, who had the greater incentive to lie?
JohnM
-
Btw the package had Oswald's prints and Oswald and Frazier had different recollections about the contents and placement of the package, who had the greater incentive to lie?
JohnM
The evening of the assassination, Oswald in custody accused of shooting Tippit. Also suspected of involvement in JFK assassination.
At that point Frazier, was known to be involved in getting Oswald a job at TSBD, drove him to work that morning, was his closest associate at TSBD, somehow left the scene after all employees who had been on 6th floor that morning were to be taken downtown for questioning. Was not located for many hours after the shooting. After being taken into custody, had his rifle confiscated and was called back to be given a polygraph after being told by Fritz to confess.
-
While Frazier was in the Service, he broke down his 44.3 inch M14 rifle many times and you can't get a closer hands on observation than that, also remember that Frazier never handled Oswald's package
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb3.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CW4rqPg/M14.jpg)
Btw the package had Oswald's prints and Oswald and Frazier had different recollections about the contents and placement of the package, who had the greater incentive to lie?
JohnM
Point being?
Once again ... Why such a close observation-like, detailed (measley one-inch increment) statement my Frazier?
"24-to-25 inches in length"
-- MWT ;)
-
The evening of the assassination, Oswald in custody accused of shooting Tippit. Also suspected of involvement in JFK assassination.
At that point Frazier, was known to be involved in getting Oswald a job at TSBD, drove him to work that morning, was his closest associate at TSBD, somehow left the scene after all employees who had been on 6th floor that morning were to be taken downtown for questioning. Was not located for many hours after the shooting. After being taken into custody, had his rifle confiscated and was called back to be given a polygraph after being told by Fritz to confess.
Sure, Frazier was spombleprofglidnoctobunsting bricks at that stage and under the same circumstances, I would be too!
But the fact of the matter is, Frazier had no idea who else saw Oswald carry the long package into the depository, so obviously Frazier had to say that Oswald was carrying something long, even if imo Frazier slightly underestimated the length, a guess is just a guess after all.
Who wants to be known as the guy who could have prevented a Presidential assassination because he didn't report an obviously suspicious package of about 35 inches?
JohnM
-
Point being?
Once again ... Why such a close observation-like, detailed (measley one-inch increment) statement my Frazier?
"24-to-25 inches in length"
-- MWT ;)
Point being?
Frazier's Service rifle was 44.3 inches and Frazier recalls the length as 30 some odd inches long.
How come Frazier doesn't pinpoint the very familiar M14 with a measly one-inch increment, not only does Frazier give a vaguely approximate answer, his answer appears to be about a foot off.
At the London TV Trial, Frazier while under oath admits that the rifle could have been sticking out in front.
In the following graphic by Jerry Organ, Frazier may have seen the following and just assumed that Oswald carried the rifle from his cuoped hand to his armpit. Btw I'm 6'2" and the measurement of my cupped hand to my armpit is about 22 inches.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
JohnM
-
Frazier's Service rifle was 44.3 inches and Frazier recalls the length as 30 some odd inches long.
How come Frazier doesn't pinpoint the very familiar M14 with a measly one-inch increment, not only does Frazier give a vaguely approximate answer, his answer appears to be about a foot off.
At the London TV Trial, Frazier while under oath admits that the rifle could have been sticking out in front.
In the following graphic by Jerry Organ, Frazier may have seen the following and just assumed that Oswald carried the rifle from his cuoped hand to his armpit. Btw I'm 6'2" and the measurement of my cupped hand to my armpit is about 22 inches.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
JohnM
How the hell could Frazier mistake a package only 20 inches long (capable, maybe, of being carried by 5' 9.5" Oswald between his armpit and his cupped hand) and a package almost 35 inches long?
-- MWT ;)
PS Was Oswald broad-shouldered and thick-armed like that mannequin?
-
Who wants to be known as the guy who could have prevented a Presidential assassination because he didn't report an obviously suspicious package of about 35 inches?
JohnM
If Oswald had only taken the rifle in the blanket. After all Michael Paine had even handled that object and assumed it to be camping equipment. No need for talk of curtain rods and disassembling the MC into an ill fitting wrapper.
-
Who wants to be known as the guy who could have prevented a Presidential assassination because he didn't report an obviously suspicious package of about 35 inches?
Well, it may very well go down that way, Buell Old Boy.
I forgot to mention that since Oswald got out of the car (presumably with his little bundle) and waited some distance away while Frazier fast-idled his old Ford, and started walking ahead of him after Frazier had finished doing that about five minutes later, Frazier probably had plenty of opportunity to see just how long that sucker was before they started walking.
-- MWT ;)
Buell a life-long Republican, btw?
LOL
-
It seems to me in retrospect that Buell Wesley Frazier would have been better off in the long run if he'd told the authorities the package Oswald was carrying was about three feet long, and yes, he thought it contained curtain rods, and no, he had no idea whatsoever that JFK was going to be passing by the TSBD at lunchtime that day.
Don't you agree that that would have been more plausible than what he did say?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
If Oswald had only taken the rifle in the blanket. After all Michael Paine had even handled that object and assumed it to be camping equipment. No need for talk of curtain rods and disassembling the MC into an ill fitting wrapper.
He took part of the blanket with him ;)
And yeah, no talk between Paine, Marina and Oswald about any damn curtain rods that night.
-
If Oswald had only taken the rifle in the blanket. After all Michael Paine had even handled that object and assumed it to be camping equipment. No need for talk of curtain rods and disassembling the MC into an ill fitting wrapper.
How so? He would still have to explain to Frazier what he was doing carry a long package whether it was a wrapped up blanket or paper.
-
If Oswald had only taken the rifle in the blanket. After all Michael Paine had even handled that object and assumed it to be camping equipment. No need for talk of curtain rods and disassembling the MC into an ill fitting wrapper.
I believe that he left the blanket laying where it had been stored for a reason. That is so if anyone (especially Marina since she knew about the rifle) went into the garage after he had removed the rifle, and before the assassination, they wouldn't see the blanket missing, put it together with the Presidential motorcade, and become alarmed and possibly call the authorities to attempt to stop him.
-
Don’t see a WC exhibit number for this one. Is it a fake?
(https://i.ibb.co/NSg99KK/CC1-D5-EF0-AA5-E-4082-A395-DF185-C376838.jpg)
No WCE number for this one it seems. Anyone know why not?
-
No WCE number for this one it seems. Anyone know why not?
Maybe it was because they had 10,000 pieces of evidence already indicting Oswald! No need for additional evidence. Obviously if you introduced this one, you would also have to find the "LHO Stamp" which would open up another venue of investigation and another 100 pages to the report! When did he purchase the stamp? Was it another mail order? One would have to assume getting a stamp made would have a trail....... How many other things did he stamp or was this just a "one of a kind" .....?
Interesting crease marks on that paper? Was it somehow folded into a triangle? The "stamp" also looks not well worn, fairly new as it is clear print, no smudging or fading and or drying out!
-
Maybe it was because they had 10,000 pieces of evidence already indicting Oswald! No need for additional evidence. Obviously if you introduced this one, you would also have to find the "LHO Stamp" which would open up another venue of investigation and another 100 pages to the report! When did he purchase the stamp? Was it another mail order? One would have to assume getting a stamp made would have a trail....... How many other things did he stamp or was this just a "one of a kind" .....?
Interesting crease marks on that paper? Was it somehow folded into a triangle? The "stamp" also looks not well worn, fairly new as it is clear print, no smudging or fading and or drying out!
Why include the Magazine St and PO Box ones and not this? Was it the address that was difficult to explain or was it discovered at a later time.
-
Hi Thomas, thanks for the feedback. As for Frazier;
1. Frazier tells us during his testimony that he wasn't "paying much attention to the bag"
2. Oswald tells Frazier he's carrying curtain rods
3. Oswald tells his interrogators that he has his lunch in the bag.
4. Frazier says the bag was on the back seat.
5. Oswald says he carried the bag on his lap.
6. The bag matches the size of the broken down rifle.
7. The bag has Oswald's prints.
8. The bag was found in the sniper's nest.
There's no reason to think that the bag allegedly found in the "sniper's nest" was the bag that Frazier saw.
-
He took part of the blanket with him ;)
:D
-
Maybe it was because they had 10,000 pieces of evidence already indicting Oswald!
I've told you 10,000 times not to exaggerate.
-
Maybe it was because they had 10,000 pieces of evidence already indicting Oswald!
Would you care to list them please?
-
Everyone who personally knew Oswald said he liked or admired JFK even after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis. I don’t see any evidence that he was extremely anti-American.
According to George DeMorenschildt, Oswald was extremely anti-Fascist or anti-Racist. Which is why it’s easier to explain his potential Motive for the General Edwin Walker incident than the JFK assassination.