JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on December 01, 2022, 07:10:04 AM
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"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, 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."
The image below is from the
Wichita Falls Record News
March 7, 1963
(Image courtesy of Dale Myers)
(https://i.imgur.com/IimYaGo.jpg)
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"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, 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."
Wichita Falls Record News
March 7, 1963
(Image courtesy of Dale Myers)
(https://i.imgur.com/IimYaGo.jpg)
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression"
"I think that he felt"
"I think that was the reason."
"I wondered if that didn't have some bearing."
"I have no way of knowing"
"I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist"
"so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."
It seems Fritz did a lot of thinking and can not substantiate anything. :D
-
And yet the “Welcome Mr. President” ad and the “Wanted for Treason” flyer accused Kennedy of being too soft on Castro and communism.
-
Bill omitted the fact that everyone who knew Oswald personally said he liked JFK and agreed with Kennedy's pro-Civil Rights policies (unlike General Edwin Walker who was a bigot and pro-Segregation).
Even after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile crisis, LHO had a favorable opinion of JFK. That speaks volumes.
While it's fair to argue that Oswald had political motives for targeting Gen. Walker ("if" he targeted Walker), there is no evidence that LHO held a grudge towards JFK.
Bill omitted the fact that Oswald reportedly told Capt. Fritz that he didn't think Lyndon Johnson's policies towards Cuba would be different from Kennedy's.
Bill omitted the fact that LHO had no known friends who were Marxists. Nearly everyone whom he associated with was anti-communist. His Fair Play For Cuba organization was fake. There were no members. Oswald's real intentions for setting up the fake FPFC chapter remain ambiguous.
Lastly, politically motivated assassins and terrorists tend to take credit for their work. So it would be highly unusual for a political assassin or terrorist to deny responsibility if the act was motivated by politics.
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"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, 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."
Wichita Falls Record News
March 7, 1963
(Image courtesy of Dale Myers)
(https://i.imgur.com/IimYaGo.jpg)
Context also matters. Walker was targeted by Oswald from all the other public figures because of his high-profile anti-Communist views. JFK was largely a target of opportunity because his motorcade went by Oswald's place of employment by chance. I doubt Oswald would otherwise have ever targeted JFK absent the chance falling into his lap. In other words, Walker was clearly targeted for his political views while JFK was targeted more by opportunity.
So the specific motivations vary a bit but do come back to Oswald's leftist, anti-American political views. He certainly was ahead of his time by a few decades in that respect. In Walker's case, the assassination attempt was clearly a direct political act based on Walker's right-wing views. Oswald selected and went to his target in that case. In JFK's case, it was a symbolic act against the US based upon the opportunity that presented itself to Oswald. The target came to Oswald.
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"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, 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."
Wichita Falls Record News
March 7, 1963
(Image courtesy of Dale Myers)
(https://i.imgur.com/IimYaGo.jpg)
… 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.
It is interesting to read the actual newspaper articles that it is suspected that LHO probably read. This might be a good thread to post some of the actual newspaper articles. I am particularly interested in the newspaper articles that were published in New Orleans (regarding Castro’s threats, or warnings, of retaliation on U.S. leaders) around the time that it appears LHO decided to go to Mexico City. Most of my efforts these days seem to require an online subscription to the newspapers in order to search for old articles. So, if anyone has the ability to post the actual articles here, please do, I would appreciate it very much.
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"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, 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."
Wichita Falls Record News
March 7, 1963
Bill: I too believe that politics - Cuba specifically - likely had something to do with his act, but it's impossible to untangle what was going through his mind, what motivated him. A mix of personal demons, politics, despair, anger? He was a political person; it's hard to think he suddenly became apolitical on November 22, 1963. About two weeks before the assassination he attended a ACLU meeting where the Bircher threat was discussed. That's not something a non-political person would do I would think.
We have this account from "Marina and Lee". Marina said that when he returned from Mexico City that she asked him what happened, why he wasn't able to get to Cuba. Here's the account (in part):
When she met Oswald "He kissed her and asked if she had missed him? Then he started right in. "Ah, they're such terrible bureaucrats that nothing came of it after all." He described shuttling from embassy to embassy, how each one told him he had to wait and wait, and see what the other did, and how the whole time he had been worried about running out of money. He was especially vociferous about the Cubans - "the same kind of bureaucrats as in Russia. No point going there". Marina was so delighted she could not believe her ears. Indeed, Lee's disenchantment with Castro and Cuba was complete. He never again talked about "Uncle Fidel" nor sang the song "Viva Fidel" as he used to do, nor used the alias "Hidell."
Remember as well the near fight he got into with the Cuban Consul Azcue with Azcue escorting him out with the admonition "the Revolution" doesn't need people like you. From the accounts of the people there, he was loudly complaining about his mistreatment. The letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy also describes this perceived mistreatment.
This account has him giving up on Cuba, viewing it as he did the Soviet Union; that is a betrayal of Marxism, a bureaucrat state. If true then killing JFK for attacking this failed state is hard to understand. On the other hand - there's always two or three of these in this case - I find it hard to believe he would completely abandon Cuba - and give up on Castro - simply because some bureaucrats in an Embassy treated him poorly. What did Castro have to do with that? Is the entire Revolution a failure because some Embassy staffers were incompetent? That makes no sense to me.
-
Robert Oswald, in his PBS Frontline interview, said Lee ‘wasn’t a political extremist’ when he returned to the US from Russia:
“When Lee got back from Russia, the way he talked about the Russian system, he didn’t talk about it politically, in the sense that he was wrapped up in communism or Marxism. He was making fun of how inept they were, and he was making fun of them all the time. …
He wasn’t political. He really wasn’t. I say that in all honesty, because he tried to become what he needed to be to achieve his immediate objectives; i.e., he needed to be a Marxist and accept the Russians [to] get the experience in Russia. When he returned to the United States, he didn’t want to be a Russian. He wanted to be an American, to be accepted by the American society, and so wherever he was … he wanted to be accepted. He wasn’t political. He was what’s convenient to be.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-robert-oswald/
In 1963, Lee wrote a speech or letter where he criticized the USSR and American communists.
He had no friends or associates in the US who were communists.
The problem with applying political motivation to LHO is that there’s so little evidence of his dislike of JFK or devotion to communism.
-
Robert Oswald, in his PBS Frontline interview, said Lee “wasn’t a political extremist” when he returned to the US from Russia.
In 1963, Lee wrote a speech or letter where he criticized the USSR and American communists.
He had no friends or associates in the US who were communists.
The problem with applying political motivation to LHO is that there’s so little evidence of his dislike of JFK or devotion to communism.
Oswald was a lifelong malcontent. Angry at mainstream society. He disliked pretty much anything, and everyone associated with authority. JFK was the symbolic representative of that society as President. LHO would have assassinated Nixon, LBJ, or any other political figure who had driven by the TSBD if they had held that position at the time. I don't believe it was personal to JFK. An act of opportunity fueled by Oswald's anger and desire to make his mark.
-
Oswald was a lifelong malcontent. Angry at mainstream society. He disliked pretty much anything, and everyone associated with authority. JFK was the symbolic representative of that society as President. LHO would have assassinated Nixon, LBJ, or any other political figure who had driven by the TSBD if they had held that position at the time. I don't believe it was personal to JFK. An act of opportunity fueled by Oswald's anger and desire to make his mark.
But he was a political person, he read political material, biographies on major political figures. He had little money but subscribed to Marxist publications, followed Marxist politics, wrote about Marxism. He condemned the Soviet system as being a betrayal of real Marxism, that it had replaced a corrupt Czarist system with an even worse bureaucratic and cruel one. In other words, he compared it to true Marxism. Why would a person who wasn't a Marxist use Marxism as a guide? Robert Oswald said he and Lee had a "tacit" agreement to never discuss politics, that it was something they just didn't talk about.
WC testimony:
Representative BOGGS. He never discussed political matters with you?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; he did not. I would say we had a tacit agreement it was never brought up.
Representative BOGGS. By tacit, do you mean that----
Mr. OSWALD. An unspoken agreement that we never would discuss it.
Representative BOGGS. I understand. Had you arrived at this agreement because on previous occasions you had disagreed about political matters?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; that was not the reason. We just never discussed politics.
The idea that he never showed any favoritism towards Marxism - as he understood it - is, I think, not true.
-
Oswald was a lifelong malcontent. Angry at mainstream society. He disliked pretty much anything, and everyone associated with authority. JFK was the symbolic representative of that society as President. LHO would have assassinated Nixon, LBJ, or any other political figure who had driven by the TSBD if they had held that position at the time. I don't believe it was personal to JFK. An act of opportunity fueled by Oswald's anger and desire to make his mark.
His lack of a clear political motive doesn’t exonerate him of course.
But I’m not convinced by the “he did it because he was a loser” theory.
-
But he was a political person, he read political material, biographies on major political figures. He had little money but subscribed to Marxist publications, followed Marxist politics, wrote about Marxism. He condemned the Soviet system as being a betrayal of real Marxism, that it had replaced a corrupt Czarist system with an even worse bureaucratic and cruel one. In other words, he compared it to true Marxism. Why would a person who wasn't a Marxist use Marxist as a guide? Robert Oswald said he and Lee had a "tacit" agreement to never discuss politics, that it was something they just didn't talk about.
WC testimony:
Representative BOGGS. He never discussed political matters with you?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; he did not. I would say we had a tacit agreement it was never brought up.
Representative BOGGS. By tacit, do you mean that----
Mr. OSWALD. An unspoken agreement that we never would discuss it.
Representative BOGGS. I understand. Had you arrived at this agreement because on previous occasions you had disagreed about political matters?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; that was not the reason. We just never discussed politics.
The idea that he never showed any favoritism towards Marxism - as he understood it - is, I think, not true.
The fact that LHO didn’t associate with people who were marxists (he more often associated with people who opposed marxism) calls into question his devotion to marxism.
His closest friend in Dallas, George DeMorenschildt, was rabidly anti-communist.
Do you think it’s possible that after living in the USSR and experiencing the difficulties of life under communism, his views on marxism/communism became more pragmatic on politics and less idealistic?
I believe he most likely was genuinely left-leaning politically but not a political fanatic.
-
Sorry, this Oswald wasn't a "Marxist" argument is not convincing.
A person who subscribes to/reads fascist publications, praises fascism, praises fascist figures, call himself a fascist is a fascist whether he openly associates with other fascists or not. He doesn't have to attend fascist meetings in order to believe he is one or be one.
Substitute any other ideology for fascism - Marxism, Monarchism, Feudalism - and the same thing applies.
-
The fact that LHO didn’t associate with people who were marxists (he more often associated with people who opposed marxism) calls into question his devotion to marxism.
His closest friend in Dallas, George DeMorenschildt, was rabidly anti-communist.
Do you think it’s possible that after living in the USSR and experiencing the difficulties of life under communism, his views on marxism/communism became more pragmatic on politics and less idealistic?
I believe he most likely was genuinely left-leaning politically but not a political fanatic.
Did he try to shoot Walker or not?
Do you think this below is not evidence of a person with extreme views?
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.11531ddae146bb4ad823315fcf465e3b?rik=Wpu6lA0RbNbvIg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.davidhazy.org%2fandpph%2fphotofile-b%2foswald-CE-133-a.jpg&ehk=57PuWQlCMW6LuJO9%2bmxvgf74MYtkHu3pvfDXS477ZQU%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
But he was a political person, he read political material, biographies on major political figures. He had little money but subscribed to Marxist publications, followed Marxist politics, wrote about Marxism. He condemned the Soviet system as being a betrayal of real Marxism, that it had replaced a corrupt Czarist system with an even worse bureaucratic and cruel one. In other words, he compared it to true Marxism. Why would a person who wasn't a Marxist use Marxism as a guide? Robert Oswald said he and Lee had a "tacit" agreement to never discuss politics, that it was something they just didn't talk about.
WC testimony:
Representative BOGGS. He never discussed political matters with you?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; he did not. I would say we had a tacit agreement it was never brought up.
Representative BOGGS. By tacit, do you mean that----
Mr. OSWALD. An unspoken agreement that we never would discuss it.
Representative BOGGS. I understand. Had you arrived at this agreement because on previous occasions you had disagreed about political matters?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; that was not the reason. We just never discussed politics.
The idea that he never showed any favoritism towards Marxism - as he understood it - is, I think, not true.
It's debatable whether Oswald's attraction to Marxism was fueled by a belief in its ideology or whether Oswald turned to Marxism because it stood in contrast to American norms. Robert Oswald said exactly that: "If everybody had been Marxist, he would have been an American, vice versa."
-
Did he try to shoot Walker or not?
Do you think this below is not evidence of a person with extreme views?
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.11531ddae146bb4ad823315fcf465e3b?rik=Wpu6lA0RbNbvIg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.davidhazy.org%2fandpph%2fphotofile-b%2foswald-CE-133-a.jpg&ehk=57PuWQlCMW6LuJO9%2bmxvgf74MYtkHu3pvfDXS477ZQU%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Did he try to shoot Walker or not?
Did he? Walker didn't think so...
Do you think this below is not evidence of a person with extreme views?
Only to a biased mind.
More reasonable people consider it to be evidence of somebody, for whatever purpose, holding a rifle and some papers.
-
His lack of a clear political motive doesn’t exonerate him of course.
But I’m not convinced by the “he did it because he was a loser” theory.
Oswald's motive can only be known with certainty to himself. Assassinating the president as he did is not the action of a rational person. As a result, there is no single rational explanation for his act. No doubt many factors came into play including politics and Oswald's own psychological impulses. The evidence confirms he was the assassin, however, even if his motive can't be proven with certainty.
-
It's debatable whether Oswald's attraction to Marxism was fueled by a belief in its ideology or whether Oswald turned to Marxism because it stood in contrast to American norms. Robert Oswald said exactly that: "If everybody had been Marxist, he would have been an American, vice versa."
Right, Marxism was an explanation for his plight, for the ugliness he saw around him. "Why is the world so ugly to me?" Answer: Because it's a corrupt world, it's a world that Marxism explained to him. That's what happened, it seems to me, to many Americans who became communists during the Great Depression. At that time liberal democracy was a failure, fascism was on the rise, and communism seemed the answer to those challenges. It was why, for example, Whittaker Chambers became one.
But even if it was just a rejection of America it was still something he believed in. He wasn't, I don't think, a nihilist.
-
Right, Marxism was an explanation for his plight, for the ugliness he saw around him. "Why is the world so ugly to me?" Answer: Because it's a corrupt world, it's a world that Marxism explained to him. That's what happened, it seems to me, to many Americans who became communists during the Great Depression. At that time liberal democracy was a failure, fascism was on the rise, and communism seemed the answer to those challenges. It was why, for example, Whittaker Chambers became one.
But even if it was just a rejection of America it was still something he believed in. He wasn't, I don't think, a nihilist.
I think Oswald desired the attention (even negative attention) that he received by being associated with an extremist political cause. It suited his psychological need to be noticed. In the case of the US at the time, the political affiliation that was most removed from the mainstream was Marxism. Oswald wouldn't have received the same attention if he had joined a more mainstream political party. Did he still support Marxist causes? Sure. But I do think much of its attraction was that he enjoyed the fantasy that he was a big shot and received attention for belonging to such an outlier group. His political beliefs can't be separated from his own psychological impulses including anger and desire for attention.
-
Sorry, this Oswald wasn't a "Marxist" argument is not convincing.
If he was a marxist, why didn't he associate with other marxists? Why did he instead frequently associate with people who opposed communism?
Can you name a single marxist or communist that Oswald was known to associate with?
Within marxism, there are anti-Stalinists by the way. They're called "Trostskyites". Was Oswald a "Trotskyist" after leaving the USSR? it's possible, but we'll never know.
"Trotskyists are critical of Stalinism as they oppose Joseph Stalin's theory of socialism in one country in favour of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. Trotskyists criticize the bureaucracy and anti-democratic current developed in the Soviet Union under Stalin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#:~:text=Trotskyists%20are%20critical%20of%20Stalinism,the%20Soviet%20Union%20under%20Stalin.
-
Did he try to shoot Walker or not?
I don't know. Unlike the JFK example, it's clear that LHO didn't like Gen. Walker.
But the evidence of Oswald's involvement with the Walker shooting attempt remains inconclusive.
Do you think this below is not evidence of a person with extreme views?
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.11531ddae146bb4ad823315fcf465e3b?rik=Wpu6lA0RbNbvIg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.davidhazy.org%2fandpph%2fphotofile-b%2foswald-CE-133-a.jpg&ehk=57PuWQlCMW6LuJO9%2bmxvgf74MYtkHu3pvfDXS477ZQU%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
I believe the Backyard photos are real but they don't tell us much about Oswald's political views or the message he was trying to send in by the photos (which may never have been seen in public if not for the JFK assassination).
-
Here is DeMohrenschildt explaining his views on communism. These are hardly, to me, words of an hardcore anti-communist.
WC testimony:
Mr. JENNER. What is your attitude towards communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Towards communism, I wouldn't like to live in a Communist regime, I am not a Communist, never have been one. But if somebody likes it, let them have it. And I get along very well with fellow workers who are Communists. For instance, in Yugoslavia, I got along very well with them. Of course, we didn't discuss politics very much out there. On the contrary, you have to stay away from that subject. But I consider the other person's point of view.
If somebody is a Communist, let them be a Communist. That is his business.
Mr. JENNER. Have you----
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I do not try to propagandize him, and I see some good characteristics in communism.
Mr. JENNER. There are some indications that you have expressed that view from time to time during your lifetime while you are in this country, that there are some good qualities in communism.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Now, there we mean--or what do you mean? What is your concept of communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I am looking at communism more or less more from the economic point of view. I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution.
Mr. JENNER. A temporary one?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A temporary one, yes---which eventually, and I believe in evolution, and I have seen through my life that communism in certain places has developed into a livable type of an economy, a way of life.
Again: "I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution."
That, again, isn't what I would call a hard anti-communist.
-
Here is DeMohrenschildt explaining his views on communism. These are hardly, to me, words of an hardcore anti-communist.
WC testimony:
Mr. JENNER. What is your attitude towards communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Towards communism, I wouldn't like to live in a Communist regime, I am not a Communist, never have been one. But if somebody likes it, let them have it. And I get along very well with fellow workers who are Communists. For instance, in Yugoslavia, I got along very well with them. Of course, we didn't discuss politics very much out there. On the contrary, you have to stay away from that subject. But I consider the other person's point of view.
If somebody is a Communist, let them be a Communist. That is his business.
Mr. JENNER. Have you----
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I do not try to propagandize him, and I see some good characteristics in communism.
Mr. JENNER. There are some indications that you have expressed that view from time to time during your lifetime while you are in this country, that there are some good qualities in communism.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Now, there we mean--or what do you mean? What is your concept of communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I am looking at communism more or less more from the economic point of view. I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution.
Mr. JENNER. A temporary one?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A temporary one, yes---which eventually, and I believe in evolution, and I have seen through my life that communism in certain places has developed into a livable type of an economy, a way of life.
Again: "I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution."
That, again, isn't what I would call a hard anti-communist.
Fair enough but DeMorenschildt was a "White Russian". They were the Russians who were sent into exile by the Bolshevik revolution. He may have had nuanced views on communism but he didn't like the Soviets and probably didn't like Castro either.
And we still can't point to a single person LHO associated with who identified as a marxist or communist. I know Oswald mostly lived in the South where people rarely overtly express pro-marxist views but if he was able to seek out and find Cuban exile activists, explain why he wasn't able to find other communists to associate with? Or why in his writings in 1963, he ridiculed American communists?
The non-conspiratorial answer aligns with Robert Oswald's view that Oswald was a contrarian and just expressed marxist views just for the sake of "being different".
The conspiratorial answer is that he created a persona as a marxist as part of some sort of intelligence operation (an operation that is not necessarily related to JFK's assassination).
With all that said, I do think he had genuine left-leaning political views but I don't believe he was a political fanatic or a devout marxist.
There's zero evidence that Oswald disliked JFK (personally or politically) and he had no known marxist associates...
"He made the point that he disliked capitalism because its foundation was the exploitation of the poor. He implied, but did not state directly, that he was disappointed in Russia because the full principles of Marxism were not lived up to and the gap between Marxist theory and the Russian practice disillusioned him with Russian communism. He said, ‘ Capitalism doesn’t work, communism doesn’t work. In the middle is socialism, and that doesn’t work either.’"
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-oswald-speech-in-alabama
That doesn't sound like the words of a devoted marxist.
It's widely accepted across the political spectrum that neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism are good in practice. Mixed economies are what exists in most wealthy nations. That's a pretty reasonable view.
-
This was his final protest to a world that had ignored him, sometimes mocked him, always failed to acknowledge his superiority.
Robert Oswald, page 214 of “Lee, a Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald”
And I believe that a large part of his motive had to do with the last part (underlined by me) of Robert’s statement. Robert also indicates that a pattern was apparent to him regarding LHO’s behavior. I will post Robert’s exact words about that pattern when I locate them in the above referenced book.
-
This was his final protest to a world that had ignored him, sometimes mocked him, always failed to acknowledge his superiority.
Robert Oswald, page 214 of “Lee, a Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald”
And I believe that a large part of his motive had to do with the last part (underlined by me) of Robert’s statement. Robert also indicates that a pattern was apparent to him regarding LHO’s behavior. I will post Robert’s exact words about that pattern when I locate them in the above referenced book.
Michael Paine said something similar in his testimony. He said that Oswald was very bitter, very distrustful of people. But that Oswald placed himself as part of a larger class of people, that it wasn't just himself, that this mistreatment was "institutional", built into the capitalist system. Thus the embrace of the Marxist view of the world: oppressors and oppressed. So it was both personal and political and not either/or.
Mr. PAINE: [Oswald] was extremely bitter and couldn't believe there was much good will in people. There was mostly evil, conniving, or else stupidity--was the description--that was his opinion or would be his description of most people. That's my description, and the best description I can give of him--to call him other psychological names--names of paranoia or paranoid or something like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - What made you pick that particular name?
Mr. PAINE - Well, that kind of suspicion of people expecting them to be consciously perpetrating evil or ill toward him or toward the oppressed people-workers-is perhaps a trait of paranoia.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that he exhibited this trait?
Mr. PAINE - Yes; he did, but it didn't seem to be uncontrollable. He didn't generally take it--I would say he was paranoid if he always took it personally, but he always seemed to transfer it to, or put himself in the class of people who were oppressed, so that's the distinction why I wouldn't call him sick or wouldn't have then called him sick---before the assassination.
Mr. LIEBELER - Because he seemed to describe this feeling of his in institutional terms?
Mr. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And in terms of the social structure and the impact the world had on classes and groups of people?
Mr. PAINE - He was in the exploited class.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; there was no doubt about that--I mean, as far as his own mind was concerned--that's what he thought?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
-
Context also matters. Walker was targeted by Oswald from all the other public figures because of his high-profile anti-Communist views. JFK was largely a target of opportunity because his motorcade went by Oswald's place of employment by chance. I doubt Oswald would otherwise have ever targeted JFK absent the chance falling into his lap. In other words, Walker was clearly targeted for his political views while JFK was targeted more by opportunity.
So the specific motivations vary a bit but do come back to Oswald's leftist, anti-American political views. He certainly was ahead of his time by a few decades in that respect. In Walker's case, the assassination attempt was clearly a direct political act based on Walker's right-wing views. Oswald selected and went to his target in that case. In JFK's case, it was a symbolic act against the US based upon the opportunity that presented itself to Oswald. The target came to Oswald.
Thanks Richard. I agree with every bit of that.
-
Opinions, speculations and assumptions.....
Aren't they fun :D
And they allow you to come up with any kind of narrative you like... Now isn't that a bonus? Thumb1:
-
Bill: I too believe that politics - Cuba specifically - likely had something to do with his act, but it's impossible to untangle what was going through his mind, what motivated him. A mix of personal demons, politics, despair, anger? He was a political person; it's hard to think he suddenly became apolitical on November 22, 1963. About two weeks before the assassination he attended a ACLU meeting where the Bircher threat was discussed. That's not something a non-political person would do I would think.
We have this account from "Marina and Lee". Marina said that when he returned from Mexico City that she asked him what happened, why he wasn't able to get to Cuba. Here's the account (in part):
When she met Oswald "He kissed her and asked if she had missed him? Then he started right in. "Ah, they're such terrible bureaucrats that nothing came of it after all." He described shuttling from embassy to embassy, how each one told him he had to wait and wait, and see what the other did, and how the whole time he had been worried about running out of money. He was especially vociferous about the Cubans - "the same kind of bureaucrats as in Russia. No point going there". Marina was so delighted she could not believe her ears. Indeed, Lee's disenchantment with Castro and Cuba was complete. He never again talked about "Uncle Fidel" nor sang the song "Viva Fidel" as he used to do, nor used the alias "Hidell."
Remember as well the near fight he got into with the Cuban Consul Azcue with Azcue escorting him out with the admonition "the Revolution" doesn't need people like you. From the accounts of the people there, he was loudly complaining about his mistreatment. The letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy also describes this perceived mistreatment.
This account has him giving up on Cuba, viewing it as he did the Soviet Union; that is a betrayal of Marxism, a bureaucrat state. If true then killing JFK for attacking this failed state is hard to understand. On the other hand - there's always two or three of these in this case - I find it hard to believe he would completely abandon Cuba - and give up on Castro - simply because some bureaucrats in an Embassy treated him poorly. What did Castro have to do with that? Is the entire Revolution a failure because some Embassy staffers were incompetent? That makes no sense to me.
Thanks for the comments, Steve. I understand your points and can't say they are invalid. I agree with you that it is hard to believe that Oswald would completely abandon Cuba.
No way to know Oswald's motive for sure. When it comes to a motive for Oswald, all we can do is speculate. We just have to try to make our admitted speculation make as much sense as possible.
-
Robert Oswald, in his PBS Frontline interview, said Lee ‘wasn’t a political extremist’ when he returned to the US from Russia:
“When Lee got back from Russia, the way he talked about the Russian system, he didn’t talk about it politically, in the sense that he was wrapped up in communism or Marxism. He was making fun of how inept they were, and he was making fun of them all the time. …
He wasn’t political. He really wasn’t. I say that in all honesty, because he tried to become what he needed to be to achieve his immediate objectives; i.e., he needed to be a Marxist and accept the Russians [to] get the experience in Russia. When he returned to the United States, he didn’t want to be a Russian. He wanted to be an American, to be accepted by the American society, and so wherever he was … he wanted to be accepted. He wasn’t political. He was what’s convenient to be.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-robert-oswald/
In 1963, Lee wrote a speech or letter where he criticized the USSR and American communists.
He had no friends or associates in the US who were communists.
The problem with applying political motivation to LHO is that there’s so little evidence of his dislike of JFK or devotion to communism.
Oswald did not believe that Communism is the same as Marxism. Do you?
-
What Bill and others can do is speculate that the CIA killed JFK. Or the Pentagon. Or the FBI. Or Wall Street bankers. Or Texas oilmen.
We can speculate about all sorts of hairbrained conspiracy theories involving all sorts of institutions and figures and persons and forces. Hell, we can speculate about aliens (that is one theory). It's done here nearly every day. Tens of thousands of such posts. All sort of oddball claims and allegations.
And the skeptics here who lecture against "speculation" will not say a word about this. Not one. But speculating based on facts about Oswald's motives? That's simply not allowed.
And they think they are convincing people that they really aren't conspiracy believers. Yes they do.
-
What Bill and others can do is speculate that the CIA killed JFK. Or the Pentagon. Or the FBI. Or Wall Street bankers. Or Texas oilmen.
We can speculate about all sorts of hairbrained conspiracy theories involving all sorts of institutions and figures and persons and forces. Hell, we can speculate about aliens (that is one theory). It's done here nearly every day. Tens of thousands of such posts. All sort of oddball claims and allegations.
And the skeptics here who lecture against "speculation" will not say a word about this. Not one. But speculating based on facts about Oswald's motives? That's simply not allowed.
And they think they are convincing people that they really aren't conspiracy believers. Yes they do.
But speculating based on facts about Oswald's motives? That's simply not allowed.
Why wouldn't that be allowed? It gets dubious when speculation and assumptions are being confused with actual facts.
Btw, how can you speculate "based on facts about Oswald's motives" when - unless you knew the man personally - all you are doing is accepting what you have been told is actually factual, without really knowing that it is.
-
Oswald did not believe that Communism is the same as Marxism. Do you?
Communism is derived from Marxism but there are different interpretations of Marxist philosophy as well as different interpretations of socialism and communism.
So yes, I think it's possible for someone to identify as a marxist but not a communist. I also mentioned earlier in the thread that there are anti-Stalinists within marxism who oppose Soviet style communism.
As for the questions of ideology and hate for America, there's no evidence that Oswald disliked JFK but plenty of evidence that right-wing loons in Dallas hated JFK.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Wanted_for_treason.jpg)
-
What Bill and others can do is speculate that the CIA killed JFK. Or the Pentagon. Or the FBI. Or Wall Street bankers. Or Texas oilmen.
We can speculate about all sorts of hairbrained conspiracy theories involving all sorts of institutions and figures and persons and forces. Hell, we can speculate about aliens (that is one theory). It's done here nearly every day. Tens of thousands of such posts. All sort of oddball claims and allegations.
And the skeptics here who lecture against "speculation" will not say a word about this. Not one. But speculating based on facts about Oswald's motives? That's simply not allowed.
And they think they are convincing people that they really aren't conspiracy believers. Yes they do.
Speculation about historic events is perfectly normal. Individuals can observe the same historic facts and reach different conclusions or interpretations of the facts. There are few historic events that have 100% consensus among historians and researchers.
Only the LN crowd within the JFK research community tries to discourage people from speculation about the JFK assassination.
I think it's perfectly fine to debate Oswald's motives but at the end of the day, only Oswald knows what he was thinking or feeling on 11/22/63 and all we can do is speculate because he was killed soon after.
I'm of the opinion that there was likely a conspiracy but I'm undecided on what role Oswald played in it. If he was involved, I admit that I don't know what would've motivated him.
-
Context also matters. Walker was targeted by Oswald from all the other public figures because of his high-profile anti-Communist views. JFK was largely a target of opportunity because his motorcade went by Oswald's place of employment by chance. I doubt Oswald would otherwise have ever targeted JFK absent the chance falling into his lap. In other words, Walker was clearly targeted for his political views while JFK was targeted more by opportunity.
So the specific motivations vary a bit but do come back to Oswald's leftist, anti-American political views. He certainly was ahead of his time by a few decades in that respect. In Walker's case, the assassination attempt was clearly a direct political act based on Walker's right-wing views. Oswald selected and went to his target in that case. In JFK's case, it was a symbolic act against the US based upon the opportunity that presented itself to Oswald. The target came to Oswald.
What a long-winded way to say “I don’t know, but here’s something I completely made up”.
-
A person who subscribes to/reads fascist publications, praises fascism, praises fascist figures, call himself a fascist is a fascist whether he openly associates with other fascists or not.
When did Oswald call himself a fascist?
-
This was his final protest to a world that had ignored him, sometimes mocked him, always failed to acknowledge his superiority.
Robert Oswald, page 214 of “Lee, a Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald”
And I believe that a large part of his motive had to do with the last part (underlined by me) of Robert’s statement. Robert also indicates that a pattern was apparent to him regarding LHO’s behavior. I will post Robert’s exact words about that pattern when I locate them in the above referenced book.
Robert, like other WC believers decided first that Lee did it, then went hunting for a motive.
-
But speculating based on facts about Oswald's motives? That's simply not allowed.
Of course it’s “allowed”. Just don’t pretend it means anything.
And they think they are convincing people that they really aren't conspiracy believers. Yes they do.
It’s not complicated, Steve. A “conspiracy believer” is one who believes in a conspiracy.
-
Only the LN crowd within the JFK research community tries to discourage people from speculation about the JFK assassination.
Ironic, given that their entire belief system is built on a speculation bus.
-
Robert, like other WC believers decided first that Lee did it, then went hunting for a motive.
Another insignificant remark from the peanut gallery. And it couldn’t be more wrong.
Actually, according to Robert Oswald, in his book, he was already discussing and searching for possible motives while LHO was still alive.
One example from page 146:
If I had been allowed to spend half an hour with Lee that Saturday, and then continue our talk over the next day or two, I believe I would have been able to arrive at final answers to two questions: Was Lee guilty? If he was guilty, what were his motives?
Also, on pages 139-140 Robert Oswald writes about discussing possible motives with Secret Service agent Mike Howard (while Robert was waiting to see LHO).
-
Bull. Robert was estranged and hadn’t see his brother in over a year. He just wanted to sell a book after the fact.
-
Hinckley shot Reagan for Foster, and Oswald shot Kennedy for Castro.
-
Bull. Robert was estranged and hadn’t see his brother in over a year. He just wanted to sell a book after the fact.
Throwing peanuts at a dead brother Robert, eh? ???
Are you seriously claiming that, 11/23/63, Robert Oswald didn’t discuss possible motives with Mike Howard?
Are you seriously claiming that, on 11/23/63, Robert Oswald wasn’t trying to find out what happened and why?
-
Hinckley shot Reagan for Foster, and Oswald shot Kennedy for Castro.
I recently read that Hinckley is out of the hospital and is a performing musician who has trouble booking gigs due to security concerns…
-
Throwing peanuts at a dead brother Robert, eh? ???
Are you seriously claiming that, 11/23/63, Robert Oswald didn’t discuss possible motives with Mike Howard?
Are you seriously claiming that, on 11/23/63, Robert Oswald wasn’t trying to find out what happened and why?
I don’t care if he did or not. Unless he had some kind of magical crystal ball, he didn’t have any more knowledge about the case than anybody else. Especially on Saturday 11/23/63 when most of what we know wasn’t yet discovered.
-
I don’t care if he did or not. Unless he had some kind of magical crystal ball, he didn’t have any more knowledge about the case than anybody else. Especially on Saturday 11/23/63 when most of what we know wasn’t yet discovered.
Here is your claim:
Robert, like other WC believers decided first that Lee did it, then went hunting for a motive.
It is in conflict with what Robert Oswald wrote that he actually did on 11/23/63. How do you rectify this?
-
What Bill and others can do is speculate that the CIA killed JFK. Or the Pentagon. Or the FBI. Or Wall Street bankers. Or Texas oilmen.
We can speculate about all sorts of hairbrained conspiracy theories involving all sorts of institutions and figures and persons and forces. Hell, we can speculate about aliens (that is one theory). It's done here nearly every day. Tens of thousands of such posts. All sort of oddball claims and allegations.
And the skeptics here who lecture against "speculation" will not say a word about this. Not one. But speculating based on facts about Oswald's motives? That's simply not allowed.
And they think they are convincing people that they really aren't conspiracy believers. Yes they do.
Yes, it's the same tired song and dance from our contrarians. Someone asks a question that by necessity calls for speculation. And, of course, a question about Oswald's "motive" by necessity must implicitly assume that Oswald assassinated JFK. Otherwise, there is no motive to speculate about. They then dismiss the answer because it contains speculation. Suggesting, of all things, that no one can even speculate about Oswald's motives unless they personally knew him! HA HA HA. The time machine argument. Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime. The evidence does that. There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence. We do, however, know a great deal about Oswald himself from his family and acquaintance and there is an amazingly consistent pattern to his life. He was a malcontent who acted up from childhood on for attention. So, the "speculation" here is well grounded in facts that support that speculation. Unlike the nutty contrarian theories that imply all manner of thing that is not only implausible but completely baseless.
-
We can only speculate about Oswald’s guilt or motive because one or more persons made sure that he didn’t live long enough to talk.
-
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book." Ironically, a conclusion based entirely on "speculation" for which there is no supporting evidence. How much money did Robert Oswald even make on this book? I bet he didn't sell many copies. But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty. The sole standard to attack an individual in the contrarian fantasy world. They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty. But keep in mind these kooks are just neutral arbiters of the truth. They post day and night only to nitpick any evidence of Oswald's guilt, but they are not CTers! Just ask them. Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. LOL.
-
We can only speculate about Oswald’s guilt or motive because one or more persons made sure that he didn’t live long enough to talk.
There would always have been a necessity to speculate about Oswald's motives. His act was not a rational one. Therefore, it is unlikely that even Oswald himself could explain it in any way that makes sense to a rational person. He may not have even fully understood himself why he did it. Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world. He may have thought that he was going to escape to Cuba and become a revolutionary hero. That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility. James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK. If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum. I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take. Castro took in other cop killers and Americans who managed to get to Cuba in the 60s and 70s. In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful. He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life. He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.
-
Yes, it's the same tired song and dance from our contrarians. Someone asks a question that by necessity calls for speculation. And, of course, a question about Oswald's "motive" by necessity must implicitly assume that Oswald assassinated JFK. Otherwise, there is no motive to speculate about. They then dismiss the answer because it contains speculation. Suggesting, of all things, that no one can even speculate about Oswald's motives unless they personally knew him! HA HA HA. The time machine argument. Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime. The evidence does that. There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence. We do, however, know a great deal about Oswald himself from his family and acquaintance and there is an amazingly consistent pattern to his life. He was a malcontent who acted up from childhood on for attention. So, the "speculation" here is well grounded in facts that support that speculation. Unlike the nutty contrarian theories that imply all manner of thing that is not only implausible but completely baseless.
Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime. The evidence does that. There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence.
For the umpteenth time; show us the evidence you're constantly talking about but never produce. If the evidence is such that there is indeed no doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, why don't you simply shut us up by simply producing the conclusive evidence you must be talking about. You have no reason not to, or to hide behind "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out, unless of course you don't really have any evidence to present.
-
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book." Ironically, a conclusion based entirely on "speculation" for which there is no supporting evidence. How much money did Robert Oswald even make on this book? I bet he didn't sell many copies. But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty. The sole standard to attack an individual in the contrarian fantasy world. They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty. But keep in mind these kooks are just neutral arbiters of the truth. They post day and night only to nitpick any evidence of Oswald's guilt, but they are not CTers! Just ask them. Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. LOL.
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book."
Such utter nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were "in on his frame up". Stop making up stuff!
But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty.
Before Oswald died, Robert did not have a clue if he was guilty or not, so there was nothing to betray. Some time after Oswald was killed, Robert did not suggest he was guilty. Instead he simply accepted the findings of the WC. Just like Marina did until she later changed her mind.
They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty.
Hipocrisy on full display. When Jesse Curry said they never had any evidence that put Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, guys like you dismissed it because he was merely trying to sell a book.
Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. LOL.
I understand that it is a foreign concept to you, but the actual available evidence does indeed support the conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination. You can laugh all you want, but for some four months now you haven't been able to substantiate your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot.
This leaves the readers with two possibilities; they either follow the evidence and come to an inevitable conclusion or they just accept the word of a known liar who is making claims he can not support with actual evidence. An easy choice indeed.....
-
Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime. The evidence does that. There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence.
For the umpteenth time; so us the evidence you're constantly talking about but never produce. If the evidence is such that there is indeed no doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, why don't you simply shut us up by simply producing the conclusive evidence you must be talking about. You have no reason not to, or to hide behind "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out, unless of course you don't really have any evidence to present.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
-
There would always have been a necessity to speculate about Oswald's motives. His act was not a rational one. Therefore, it is unlikely that even Oswald himself could explain it in any way that makes sense to a rational person. He may not have even fully understood himself why he did it. Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world. He may have thought that he was going to escape to Cuba and become a revolutionary hero. That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility. James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK. If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum. I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take. Castro took in other cop killers and Americans who managed to get to Cuba in the 60s and 70s. In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful. He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life. He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.
Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world.
Really? That would have made him highly susceptible to manipulation, don't you think?
That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility. James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK. If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum. I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take.
Wait, what happened to the LN "Oswald did not expect to survive and get out of the building" claim? Want to have you cake and eat it too?
In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful. He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life. He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.
Sound like you know the man pretty well Thumb1:
Oh wait, you don't know him at all of course and are just making up stuff as usual.... :D
-
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book." Ironically, a conclusion based entirely on "speculation" for which there is no supporting evidence. How much money did Robert Oswald even make on this book? I bet he didn't sell many copies. But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty. The sole standard to attack an individual in the contrarian fantasy world. They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty. But keep in mind these kooks are just neutral arbiters of the truth. They post day and night only to nitpick any evidence of Oswald's guilt, but they are not CTers! Just ask them. Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. LOL.
Everything - every person, every institution - that is critical of Oswald, that says or points to his guilt, is corrupt. All of them. Even his family, his brother (his mother gets a pass). The only pure person here is one Lee Harvey Oswald. Every one of his acts is characterized as innocent, as the ordinary behavior of "lots of people."
Speculating that he was framed, that the evidence was planted, that the investigations were rigged, that a conspiracy occurred that set him up, is fine to these neutral observers. But any speculation about Oswald is attacked.
It's like an Amber alert, a bat signal goes off when someone says something critical about Oswald. They rush to rescue him. You can smear and defame everyone else - the Paines for example - and that's fine, you won't be challenged. But don't go after Oswald.
-
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book."
Such utter nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were "in on his frame up". Stop making up stuff!
LOL. This is a keeper. No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald? I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald. In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book. And that doesn't even get into the many ordinary citizens who Oswald encountered including Tippit, Brewer, Paine, Brennan, Postal, Markham and many others who have been mocked and even accused of being complicit in the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination. But it's "nonsense." You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination. Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer. What a bizarre Inspector Clouseau fantasy world you live in. You don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor but also won't acknowledge that you are a CTer.
-
LOL. This is a keeper. No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald? I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald. In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book. And that doesn't even get into the many ordinary citizens who Oswald encountered including Tippit, Brewer, Paine, Brennan, Postal, Markham and many others who have been mocked and even accused of being complicit in the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination. But it's "nonsense." You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination. Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer. What a bizarre Inspector Clouseau fantasy world you live in. You don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor but also won't acknowledge that you are a CTer.
He actually wrote that nobody claimed that Marina was coerced/coached into framing Oswald? This is his claim? Nobody has made this allegation?
I don't think I've read a single conspiracy book that referred to Marina's testimony that didn't make this claim. Is there one?
-
Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world.
Really? That would have made him highly susceptible to manipulation, don't you think?
That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility. James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK. If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum. I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take.
Wait, what happened to the LN "Oswald did not expect to survive and get out of the building" claim? Want to have you cake and eat it too?
In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful. He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life. He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.
Sound like you know the man pretty well Thumb1:
Oh wait, you don't know him at all of course and are just making up stuff as usual.... :D
Oswald understood that his act was extremely risky and that he might not get out of the building. Can you understand how he could have believed this but also still have made an effort to escape? As he did. This would be obvious to most people, but just because Oswald might have been surprised to get out of the building does not preclude him from making efforts to escape after doing so. And based upon what we do know about Oswald, including the fact that he was desperately trying to reach Cuba before the assassination and knew the drill about reaching the Cuban embassy in Mexico City, that he might have entertained the possibility of doing so after the assassination. If Tippit had not encountered him, there were buses available to move Oswald in that direction. There are no good options for a person who has just assassinated the president but seeking asylum from Castro would have fit perfectly with what we know about Oswald. He didn't exactly have any other good options. It would have been the most logical thing for him to try in the circumstance even if the likelihood of success was extremely small. What do you think Oswald would have done in that circumstance if he were the assassin on the run?
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
Thank you.
The "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out is the best evidence of the fact that you can not substantiate your claims.
Nothing in the WC report, supports the claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and/or that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
This means of course that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Well done for confirming that your claims are absolutely bogus and meritless. Thumb1:
-
Everything - every person, every institution - that is critical of Oswald, that says or points to his guilt, is corrupt. All of them. Even his family, his brother (his mother gets a pass). The only pure person here is one Lee Harvey Oswald. Every one of his acts is characterized as innocent, as the ordinary behavior of "lots of people."
Speculating that he was framed, that the evidence was planted, that the investigations were rigged, that a conspiracy occurred that set him up, is fine to these neutral observers. But any speculation about Oswald is attacked.
It's like an Amber alert, a bat signal goes off when someone says something critical about Oswald. They rush to rescue him. You can smear and defame everyone else - the Paines for example - and that's fine, you won't be challenged. But don't go after Oswald.
The corruption of Dallas law enforcement under Henry Wade was so bad that many of his cases were overturned by more recent Dallas DAs after Wade left.
The FBI reportedly didn’t trust the Dallas PD.
Of course the corruption of the FBI under Hoover is well documented too. They had their own set of issues.
So there are legit reasons for speculation about evidence and witness manipulation in the Kennedy assassination.
I have no reason to suspect that Robert Oswald lied or has been corrupted. Hence why I’ve quoted him in this thread. But I don’t believe his opinion of his brother’s guilt proves there was “no conspiracy”. It’s just his opinion and doesn’t matter anymore than Marina’s opinion (and she now believes there was a conspiracy).
Lastly, this is an open forum. If you don’t want to see any pushback or different points of view, you’re in the wrong place…
-
LOL. This is a keeper. No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald? I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald. In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book. And that doesn't even get into the many ordinary citizens who Oswald encountered including Tippit, Brewer, Paine, Brennan, Postal, Markham and many others who have been mocked and even accused of being complicit in the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination. But it's "nonsense." You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination. Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer. What a bizarre Inspector Clouseau fantasy world you live in. You don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor but also won't acknowledge that you are a CTer.
No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald?
Oh boy. Framing somebody is something that's done prior to the event.
I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald.
Marina's testimony was, IMO, more about self preservation rather than framing Oswald. In any event, she is on record admitting having lied to investigators, and an immigration officer was flown in to tell Marina she was going to be fine as long as she cooperated with the investigators. Anybody who attaches any value to her testimony under those circumstances needs his head examined.
-
Oswald understood that his act was extremely risky and that he might not get out of the building. Can you understand how he could have believed this but also still have made an effort to escape? As he did. This would be obvious to most people, but just because Oswald might have been surprised to get out of the building does not preclude him from making efforts to escape after doing so. And based upon what we do know about Oswald, including the fact that he was desperately trying to reach Cuba before the assassination and knew the drill about reaching the Cuban embassy in Mexico City, that he might have entertained the possibility of doing so after the assassination. If Tippit had not encountered him, there were buses available to move Oswald in that direction. There are no good options for a person who has just assassinated the president but seeking asylum from Castro would have fit perfectly with what we know about Oswald. He didn't exactly have any other good options. It would have been the most logical thing for him to try in the circumstance even if the likelihood of success was extremely small. What do you think Oswald would have done in that circumstance if he were the assassin on the run?
Oswald understood that his act was extremely risky and that he might not get out of the building. Can you understand how he could have believed this but also still have made an effort to escape?
And when exactly would Oswald have come up with a plan to escape to Mexico? After he left the TSBD (why didn't get on the first bus to take him out of town, right there and then?) or after leaving the roominghouse (why would he walk/run to 10th street where there isn't a bus to be found anywhere?)?
he was desperately trying to reach Cuba before the assassination and knew the drill about reaching the Cuban embassy in Mexico City, that he might have entertained the possibility of doing so after the assassination. If Tippit had not encountered him, there were buses available to move Oswald in that direction. There are no good options for a person who has just assassinated the president but seeking asylum from Castro would have fit perfectly with what we know about Oswald.
Hilarious stupidity. If Oswald wanted to get out of town, to either Mexico or Cuba, as quickly as he could, he could have taken any bus in the area around the TSBD, that would have taken him out of town, but he didn't. Instead he went to the roominghouse (where he also could have taken any bus) and then to a suburban neighbourhood where there wasn't a bus in sight anywhere. Yet, you somehow seem to believe this makes sense for a guy who wants to get to Mexico.
What do you think Oswald would have done in that circumstance if he were the assassin on the run?
Probably get on the first bus out of town he could find.
-
Yes, it's the same tired song and dance from our contrarians. Someone asks a question that by necessity calls for speculation. And, of course, a question about Oswald's "motive" by necessity must implicitly assume that Oswald assassinated JFK. Otherwise, there is no motive to speculate about. They then dismiss the answer because it contains speculation.
The only people who ask the question are people who have already decided that he did it, so what's the point?
Suggesting, of all things, that no one can even speculate about Oswald's motives unless they personally knew him! HA HA HA. The time machine argument. Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime. The evidence does that.
HA HA HA. Right -- the "evidence" that you never seem to get around to actually citing.
There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence.
HA HA HA.
We do, however, know a great deal about Oswald himself from his family and acquaintance and there is an amazingly consistent pattern to his life. He was a malcontent who acted up from childhood on for attention.
Not nearly as much of a malcontent who acts up for attention as "Richard".
-
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book."
Strawman "Smith" strikes again.
Ironically, a conclusion based entirely on "speculation" for which there is no supporting evidence. How much money did Robert Oswald even make on this book? I bet he didn't sell many copies.
So what? You bet on a lot of things you are completely ignorant about.
But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty.
He can "suggest" whatever he likes, but that doesn't convey some special secret knowledge about the case.
Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. LOL.
Still waiting for your evidence that he did. LOL.
-
He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life.
So do you, but nobody accuses you of murder.
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
What is your evidence that Christianity is true?
The bible says it is.
LOL
-
LOL. This is a keeper. No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald?
Utterly dishonest. You stated "in which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to 'sell a book.'". Nobody said that -- you made it up. Now you're moving the goalpost.
I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald. In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book.
No, "we" were told nothing of the kind. Robert Oswald's opinion shouldn't be given any more weight than anybody else's.
You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination. Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer.
Still waiting for you to explain how a conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs establishes a conspiracy theory. But it'll never happen. You never explain your delirious rantings.
-
He actually wrote that nobody claimed that Marina was coerced/coached into framing Oswald? This is his claim?
Nobody here wrote that. "Richard" made it up.
-
Thank you.
The "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out is the best evidence of the fact that you can not substantiate your claims.
Nothing in the WC report, supports the claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and/or that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
This means of course that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Well done for confirming that your claims are absolutely bogus and meritless. Thumb1:
I don't believe Oswald was guilty because the "WC said so." I agree with the WC's conclusion because it is supported by the evidence provided by the state and federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the case. It's that evidence, as compiled and cited by the WC, that convinces me. The great irony is that you, however, appear to disagree with the WC"s conclusion BECAUSE the WC said so. You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt. You have no such evidence. If you believe, however, that you have legitimate grounds to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt, then please inform us why you have not taken this evidence to the NY Times or other media outlet to share in the Pulitzer Prize instead of spending day and night on an Internet forum making this false claim.
-
In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book."
Such utter nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were "in on his frame up". Stop making up stuff!
Here is Martin denying that anyone has "ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were 'in on his frame up." I guess I dreamed all those endless posts about Marina lying to implicate Oswald for the authorities. We can now all agree that her testimony confirms that Oswald posed for the BY photos, owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, confessed to trying to assassinate Walker etc. I'm glad we are making progress!
-
I don't believe Oswald was guilty because the "WC said so." I agree with the WC's conclusion because it is supported by the evidence provided by the state and federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the case. It's that evidence, as compiled and cited by the WC, that convinces me. The great irony is that you, however, appear to disagree with the WC"s conclusion BECAUSE the WC said so. You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt. You have no such evidence. If you believe, however, that you have legitimate grounds to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt, then please inform us why you have not taken this evidence to the NY Times or other media outlet to share in the Pulitzer Prize instead of spending day and night on an Internet forum making this false claim.
I don't believe Oswald was guilty because the "WC said so."
Of course you do....
I agree with the WC's conclusion because it is supported by the evidence provided by the state and federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the case.
Would that be the evidence you are never able to produce or cite?
It's that evidence, as compiled and cited by the WC, that convinces me.
Yeah, sure it does.... you just can't tell us what that evidence is and where it can be found, right?
The great irony is that you, however, appear to disagree with the WC"s conclusion BECAUSE the WC said so.
HA HA HA...
You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt.
Don't have to. I'm not claiming Oswald is guilty or innocent, but since you mention it, why don't you provide that "actual evidence" and I will gladly tell you if I question it or not and why.
-
Bill omitted the fact that everyone who knew Oswald personally said he liked JFK and agreed with Kennedy's pro-Civil Rights policies (unlike General Edwin Walker who was a bigot and pro-Segregation).
Even after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile crisis, LHO had a favorable opinion of JFK. That speaks volumes.
While it's fair to argue that Oswald had political motives for targeting Gen. Walker ("if" he targeted Walker), there is no evidence that LHO held a grudge towards JFK.
Bill omitted the fact that Oswald reportedly told Capt. Fritz that he didn't think Lyndon Johnson's policies towards Cuba would be different from Kennedy's.
Bill omitted the fact that LHO had no known friends who were Marxists. Nearly everyone whom he associated with was anti-communist. His Fair Play For Cuba organization was fake. There were no members. Oswald's real intentions for setting up the fake FPFC chapter remain ambiguous.
Lastly, politically motivated assassins and terrorists tend to take credit for their work. So it would be highly unusual for a political assassin or terrorist to deny responsibility if the act was motivated by politics.
Oswald may or may not have liked JFK. We’ll never know. What we do have a fairly good idea about is Oswald’s life and belief system. I don’t believe Oswald was shooting at JFK personally. I believe he was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
-
Here is Martin denying that anyone has "ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were 'in on his frame up." I guess I dreamed all those endless posts about Marina lying to implicate Oswald for the authorities. We can now all agree that her testimony confirms that Oswald posed for the BY photos, owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, confessed to trying to assassinate Walker etc. I'm glad we are making progress!
Here is Martin denying that anyone has "ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were 'in on his frame up."
Here's "Richard" dreaming up another misrepresentation of what was actually said. The constant and desperate need for all these misrepresentations is the best evidence of just how weak the case against Oswald is....
I guess I dreamed all those endless posts about Marina lying to implicate Oswald for the authorities.
You seem to be dreaming up a lot of bogus claims and misrepresentations and the weird thing is that you are somehow doing it while awake.
We can now all agree that her testimony confirms that Oswald posed for the BY photos, owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, confessed to trying to assassinate Walker etc.
Aha more stuff you have dreamed up. Nice try though....
-
Oswald may or may not have liked JFK. We’ll never know. What we do have a fairly good idea about is Oswald’s life and belief system. I don’t believe Oswald was shooting at JFK personally. I believe he was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
Not to sidetrack this (but I will anyway <g>), if I'm framing Oswald and I have all of this power then I'm getting 10 people to say that he said he hated JFK.
Supposedly all of these eyewitnesses were coached or ordered to frame Oswald. People like Marina, Robert Oswald, the DeMohrenschildts, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine.....And none of them were directed to say that Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK?
If Ruth and Michael Paine were, as alleged, CIA agents/assets who framed Oswald, they sure as heck are going to say he said he detested JFK.
-
Not to sidetrack this (but I will anyway <g>), if I'm framing Oswald and I have all of this power then I'm getting 10 people to say that he said he hated JFK.
Supposedly all of these eyewitnesses were coached or ordered to frame Oswald. People like Marina, Robert Oswald, the DeMohrenschildts, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine.....And none of them were directed to say that Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK?
If Ruth and Michael Paine were, as alleged, CIA agents/assets who framed Oswald, they sure as heck are going to say he said he detested JFK.
Nobody framed Oswald. 59 years and no hard evidence to support that claim. None.
-
Oswald may or may not have liked JFK. We’ll never know. What we do have a fairly good idea about is Oswald’s life and belief system. I don’t believe Oswald was shooting at JFK personally. I believe he was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
There’s no evidence that he disliked Kennedy and there’s some things we have yet to learn about Oswald’s life.
Not only was he very secretive but the government hasn’t declassified everything that they know about Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. So there may be more to learn about him.
-
Not to sidetrack this (but I will anyway <g>), if I'm framing Oswald and I have all of this power then I'm getting 10 people to say that he said he hated JFK.
Supposedly all of these eyewitnesses were coached or ordered to frame Oswald. People like Marina, Robert Oswald, the DeMohrenschildts, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine.....And none of them were directed to say that Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK?
If Ruth and Michael Paine were, as alleged, CIA agents/assets who framed Oswald, they sure as heck are going to say he said he detested JFK.
It’s plausible that DeMorenschildt and the Paines babysat and informed on Oswald before 11/22/63 at worst (their relationships with the US intelligence community seems too coincidental).
However, I don’t think most serious researchers have alleged that those people helped frame Oswald before 11/22/63. Seems like another strawman argument…
-
It’s plausible that DeMorenschildt and the Paines babysat and informed on Oswald before 11/22/63 at worst (their relationships with the US intelligence community seems too coincidental).
However, I don’t think most serious researchers have alleged that those people helped frame Oswald before 11/22/63. Seems like another strawman argument…
Strawmen argument? We had numerous posts here recently about, among other things, a documentary claiming that the Paines planted Oswald, i.e., got him the job, in the TSBD in order to frame him for the assassination. See Garrison's work. Salandria's work. DiEugenio's work. They all make the same claim.
I think you need to visit the conspiracy sites a bit more. They are filled with claims that the Paines setup Oswald.
Try this: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Assassination%20and%20Mrs.%20Paine
And this: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28210-ruth-paine-on-the-assassination-mrs-paine-film-well-done-but-powerfully-awful/#comment-473654
If you want to dismiss all of these people as crackpots and oddballs, I'll agree. But if you want to say these claims are on the fringe, I won't.
-
Here is the late Vincent Salandria, one of the "deans" of the JFK conspiracy movement/cause. He was a Philadelphia attorney, a member of the ACLU; this was a serious person. Here he is on the Paines:
"If you wanted to have a conspiracy, you’ve got to complete the circle. In this case you’ve got to get the Oswalds into the Dallas area. You’ve got to get Oswald into the Texas Book Depository in time. People with a garage where the so-called murder weapon can be stored. Suppose it's a conspiracy that says we’ll just wait, somebody will get Oswald and his family into Dallas, we’ll just wait--maybe he’ll happen to find a job in the Texas Book Depository. Once you see a conspiracy, its over for the Paines. You can’t close the circle without the Paines! There’s no way they can be innocent! No way!
This was from the documentary that Tracy Parnell reviewed.
Here is a major piece on Salandria: https://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/02/27/vince-salandria-jfk-conspiracy-theorist/
And a obit: https://jfkfacts.org/rip-vincent-salandria-leading-warren-commission-critic/
From the above: "The writings of Vincent J Salandria on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are historic, foundational, and essential to any serious scholar interested in understanding the real dynamics of the Kennedy murder and its place as a terrible and pivotal moment of the American Century. In his 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson notes that what he terms the “second generation” of assassination researchers—including Mark Lane, Edward J. Epstein, Harold Weisberg, Raymond Marcus, Léo Sauvage, Richard Popkin—owe “a deep debt to Salandria’s pioneering and largely unsung research.” Thompson is accurate, since Salandria is in the front rank of Warren Commission critics, and the prescience of his analysis is an instruction to all interested people."
-
Not to sidetrack this (but I will anyway <g>), if I'm framing Oswald and I have all of this power then I'm getting 10 people to say that he said he hated JFK.
Yet another example of “Conspirators that I just dreamed up in my head would never do something like that, therefore Oswald killed Kennedy”.
Supposedly all of these eyewitnesses were coached or ordered to frame Oswald. People like Marina, Robert Oswald, the DeMohrenschildts, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine.....
According to whom?
-
Strawmen argument? We had numerous posts here recently about, among other things, a documentary claiming that the Paines planted Oswald, i.e., got him the job, in the TSBD in order to frame him for the assassination. See Garrison's work. Salandria's work. DiEugenio's work. They all make the same claim.
BS: The Max Good documentary doesn’t claim anything of the kind. Besides, none of those people participate in this forum. Perhaps you’re pontificating in the wrong place.
If you want to dismiss all of these people as crackpots and oddballs, I'll agree. But if you want to say these claims are on the fringe, I won't.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that they are all crackpots and oddballs (whatever that means — I think it just means “disagrees with Galbraith”). Does that somehow prove that Oswald did it?
-
Strawmen argument? We had numerous posts here recently about, among other things, a documentary claiming that the Paines planted Oswald, i.e., got him the job, in the TSBD in order to frame him for the assassination. See Garrison's work. Salandria's work. DiEugenio's work. They all make the same claim.
I think you need to visit the conspiracy sites a bit more. They are filled with claims that the Paines setup Oswald.
Try this: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Assassination%20and%20Mrs.%20Paine
And this: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28210-ruth-paine-on-the-assassination-mrs-paine-film-well-done-but-powerfully-awful/#comment-473654
If you want to dismiss all of these people as crackpots and oddballs, I'll agree. But if you want to say these claims are on the fringe, I won't.
I watched the recent documentary on Ruth Paine by Max Good and I thought the film was fair and left it up to the viewers draw their own conclusions.
Some of the questions she gave the interviewer lead to more questions about her and based on her reactions I felt that she was aware or had an understanding of why some are suspicious of her.
She confirmed her family’s relationship with Allen Dulles but was evasive about her father and sister’s careers in US intelligence. Her father worked for USAID and her sister, who she visited in the summer of 63 before traveling to New Orleans, worked for the CIA.
The CIA isn’t supposed to operate domestically so I understand why they continue to be cagey about the extent of their spying on US citizens on US soil. But it seems plausible that DeMorenschildt and the Paines might have been informants for them.
I think Oswald, who had returned from Russia and had a Russian wife, was a legit target for US intelligence surveillance so I don’t think the fact that some people close to him may have been informants justifies leaping to the conclusion that they helped to frame him. But if the informant thing is confirmed to be true then it becomes harder to rule out potential manipulation of Oswald.
Most researchers that I follow avoid suggesting that the Paines framed Oswald and I think that’s the correct position unless some evidence surfaces to prove that they had a hand in manipulating and framing him.
-
Oswald may or may not have liked JFK. We’ll never know. What we do have a fairly good idea about is Oswald’s life and belief system. I don’t believe Oswald was shooting at JFK personally. I believe he was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
I believe he was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented to the world.
_ Agreed. Myself, I have attempted to represent that position graphically. (See Dead Oswald Tour #337/338)
(The tuxedo represents a kind of 'poke-in-the-eye' from Oswald).
-
Oswald had no motive . He was set up as a Patsy . Ruby had a motive and he went through with it . Malcolm Wallace wanted more money and it cost him his life . Loy Factor did not shoot at anyone that day and neither did LHO . Wake up people . We were all taken for a ride and that ride continues to this day .
-
Here’s a paragraph from Robert Oswald’s book “Lee” that I find significant:
I still remember how completely relaxed he seemed, as though all the frenzied activity there in the Dallas jail and all over the United States had nothing whatever to do with him. His voice was calm, and he talked matter-of-factly, without any sign of tension or strain, as though we were discussing a moderately interesting incident at his office or my office.
Marina also took note of his calm demeanor, she even stated something to the effect that this was one item that indicated to her that LHO was guilty. She thought that if he was innocent, that he would be raising holy hell.
And several of the law enforcement officers, investigators, etc have also expressed the opinion that LHO seemed too calm for the circumstances.
People have tried to draw various conclusions from his calm demeanor. Of course these can only be opinions. Personally, I think that it is significant that the calm demeanor stood out as an unexpected aspect, and made a lasting impression on both Robert and Marina, two people who knew LHO well. I think that LHO knew that it was over (he reportedly said so in the Texas Theater). However, I believe that he also knew that he had made his mark on the world, and that the end result would therefore mean that he would “go down in history.” I believe that, to LHO’s troubled mind, the end result somehow justified the means. That’s how freaking sick I believe he was.
-
This is just sad. The OP seems oblivious to all the research done on Oswald since the 1990s and to all the new information that has come to light about Oswald's extensive ties to right-wing figures and anti-Castro elements, not to mention the fact that virtually everyone who said they heard Oswald talk about JFK said that he admired and liked JFK.
-
This is just sad. The OP seems oblivious to all the research done on Oswald since the 1990s and to all the new information that has come to light about Oswald's extensive ties to right-wing figures and anti-Castro elements, not to mention the fact that virtually everyone who said they heard Oswald talk about JFK said that he admired and liked JFK.
I don’t think they’re oblivious to those things.
They just cherry-pick the facts in order to justify their conclusions.
-
Robert Oswald, "Lee" pages 224-227:
While I am ready at any time to be convinced that the Warren commission was wrong, I have not yet read or heard or seen any evidence that has shaken my conviction that Lee and Lee alone fired the shots that woulded Governor Connally and killed the President of the United States.
I base my own judgment largely on the physical evidence and on the words spoken to me by Lieutenant Cunningham and Henry Wade in the first twenty-four hours after the assassination. Cunningham's account of Lee's strange behavior at the Texas Theatre and reports by both Cunningham and Wade of what various eyewitnesses had said made me impatient to hear some explanation from Lee. When I saw him on Saturday, he offered no explanation.
Despite the blunders by the Dallas police and the errors and omissions of the Warren Commission, I am convinced:
1. Lee ordered the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano from Klein's Sporting Goods Company in Chicago in March, 1963. Handwriting experts told the Commission that the mail-order form and the money order were in Lee's handwriting.
2. Lee received the rifle. It was mailed to Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, and this was the last address Lee gave to me for his mail. While he denied that he owned any rifle, Marina's testimony and the photographs found in the Paine garage on the afternoon of November 23 prove that he did own one.
3. The rifle was taken from the Paine garage sometime before November 22, 1963. I believe it was taken by Lee when he made his unusual Thursday evening visit to the Paine home on November 21, 1963.
4. Lee did have a package with him when he went to the Texas School Book Depository on Friday morning, November 22, 1963. If the package actually contained curtain rods - as he told Buell Wesley Frazier, the neighbor who drove him to work - then those curtain rods have never turned up after the most intensive search of the Depository building.
5. Lee did have the general opportunity to shoot at the President without being seen by anyone else at the Depository. charles Givens, who was working with a floor-laying crew on the sixth floor, saw Lee on the fifth floor around 11:50 or 11:55 a.m. on November 22, 1963. Lee was then carrying a clipboard which was found ten days after the assassination hidden on the sixth floor. No one has ever come forward with any testimony that proves that Lee was not in that general part of the Depository building at the time of the assassination.
6. The 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766, was found on the sixth floor of the Depository building about 1:22 p.m. on November 22, 1963. The rifle still had one live round in it. About ten minutes earlier three empty cartridge cases had been discovered near the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Unfortunately, an officer - Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman - said the weapon was a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle. He made that statement before he had taken the trouble to examine the weapon closely, and he was wrong - as he later admitted. Actually, there are certain resemblances between the 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle and the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, and under ordinary circumstances the officer's casual statement would have been treated as an unfortunate but unimportant error - as though he had said a suspect was "about 5 feet 9 inches" when he was actually 5 feet 8 inches. The error Weitzman made does not alter the fact: Less than an hour after the assassination, the Dallas police had found in the Texas School Book Depository Building the rifle mailed to Lee from Chicago about seven months earlier.
7. Lee did leave the Depository building almost immediately after the assassination.
8. Lee did return to the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley about one o'clock on November 22, 1963, and left three or four minutes later.
9. Police Officer J. D. Tippit was shot near the intersection of Tenth and Patton, a few blocks from the rooming house, at approximately 1:16 p.m.
10. When Lee was arrested at the Texas Theatre, about eight blocks from the spot where Tippit was shot, between 1:45 and 1:50 p.m., he had a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V510210. Four cartridge cases found a few minutes later in the shrubbery at the corner of Tenth and Patton by three eyewitnesses had ben fired from that particular pistol, according to expert testimony.
11. Lee had ordered that revolver in January or February, 1963, from Seaport Traders, Inc., of Los Angeles. He had used the alias "A. J. Hidell," and had used the same address he gave me and later used in ordering the rifle - Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.
12. Five different people picked out Lee as the man they had seen shoot J. D. Tippit or run from the scene of the shooting, emptying his revolver as he ran.
I do not believe any one of these twelve statements can be disproved, and I find only one explanation for this sequence of events: Lee shot President Kennedy, Governor Connally, and Officer J. D. Tippit. I kept my mind open for other explanations as long as I could, and I am ready at any time to be proven wrong. But those who chip away at details in the twenty-six volumes issued by the Warren Commission seem to me to accomplish nothing unless they can offer some alternate explanation for this series of actions by Lee between January, 1963, and November 22, 1963.
Robert's list is not a complete list, but is what he believed was enough to convince him. He is, like most lone gunman believers that I have encountered, "ready at any time to be proven wrong." It has been over 59-years and still nothing...
-
I don’t think they’re oblivious to those things.
They just cherry-pick the facts in order to justify their conclusions.
Oswald did the cherry-picking
We just watched
-
Robert Oswald, smeared above as going along with the framing of his brother out of self-interest, for money, also said this:
"This is a struggle that has gone on with me. This is mind over heart. The mind tells me one thing, the heart tells me something else.
True, no one saw him actually pull the trigger on the president, but his rifle's there. His presence in the building was there. What he did after he left the building is known— bus ride, taxi ride, boarding house, pick up the pistol, shoot the police officer. Eyewitnesses there, five or six.
You can't set that aside just because he is saying, "I am a patsy." I'd love to do that, but you cannot, in my mind, set that aside.
It's good that people raise questions and say, "Wait a minute. Let's take a second look at this." I think that's great, you know? But when you take the second look and the third and the fortieth and the fiftieth— hey, enough's enough. It's there. Put it to rest."
"Enough's enough... Put it to rest."
Just to add: If he simply wanted to make money out of this I would suggest promoting a "My brother was setup by the military industrial complex/CIA national security state" would have gotten him more of it than this "My brother killed the president" one. Not even close.
Link/source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/transcript/
-
Robert Oswald, smeared above as going along with the framing of his brother out of self-interest, for money, also said this:
"This is a struggle that has gone on with me. This is mind over heart. The mind tells me one thing, the heart tells me something else.
True, no one saw him actually pull the trigger on the president, but his rifle's there. His presence in the building was there. What he did after he left the building is known— bus ride, taxi ride, boarding house, pick up the pistol, shoot the police officer. Eyewitnesses there, five or six.
You can't set that aside just because he is saying, "I am a patsy." I'd love to do that, but you cannot, in my mind, set that aside.
It's good that people raise questions and say, "Wait a minute. Let's take a second look at this." I think that's great, you know? But when you take the second look and the third and the fortieth and the fiftieth— hey, enough's enough. It's there. Put it to rest."
"Enough's enough... Put it to rest."
Just to add: If he simply wanted to make money out of this I would suggest promoting a "My brother was setup by the military industrial complex/CIA national security state" would have gotten him more of it than this "My brother killed the president" one. Not even close.
Link/source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/transcript/
Robert was openly critical of some of the WC’s work. For instance, Robert didn’t go along with the single bullet theory, at least not when he wrote the book. He did study the report and the volumes and the works of the critics of the WC before deciding that LHO was guilty. If Robert gave his reasons for writing the book, I haven’t seen them. But I am glad he wrote it and that I have read it.
-
Robert was openly critical of some of the WC’s work. For instance, Robert didn’t go along with the single bullet theory, at least not when he wrote the book. He did study the report and the volumes and the works of the critics of the WC before deciding that LHO was guilty. If Robert gave his reasons for writing the book, I haven’t seen them. But I am glad he wrote it and that I have read it.
If I'm him and solely wanting to make money, just sell a book, that was not the book I write. I'm promoting a conspiracy, conspiracies sells. I'm not writing a lone assassin work.
As you know, he wrote this about the single bullet: "The Commission may have convinced some people that the one bullet caused the extensive injuries to two men and then emerged in that condition. It has not convinced me, partly because of the vagueness of its report on its own efforts to demonstrate the reasonableness of its theory. I feel that these tests, like many of the others carried out with the Mannlicher-Carcano, were ill-conceived, unrealistic and finally meaningless."
He said he believes (or believed at that time) that each shot hit the men; no misses, no single bullet doing the damage to JFK and JC.
I don't know if he later changed his mind on this.
-
Just to add: If he simply wanted to make money out of this I would suggest promoting a "My brother was setup by the military industrial complex/CIA national security state" would have gotten him more of it than this "My brother killed the president" one. Not even close.
Link/source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/transcript/
I don't think he was motivated by money, but do you really believe the mainstream media wouldn't have ignored Robert, as they did his mother, if he joined her in alleging that LHO was framed?
Like Marina, he was useful in helping to promote the lone-nut narrative (even if that wasn't their intentions). If he had changed his mind as Marina, DeMorenschildt, and a few others did, his change of heart would've been dismissed just as much as they were.
-
If I'm him and solely wanting to make money, just sell a book, that was not the book I write. I'm promoting a conspiracy, conspiracies sells. I'm not writing a lone assassin work.
As you know, he wrote this about the single bullet: "The Commission may have convinced some people that the one bullet caused the extensive injuries to two men and then emerged in that condition. It has not convinced me, partly because of the vagueness of its report on its own efforts to demonstrate the reasonableness of its theory. I feel that these tests, like many of the others carried out with the Mannlicher-Carcano, were ill-conceived, unrealistic and finally meaningless."
He said he believes (or believed at that time) that each shot hit the men; no misses, no single bullet doing the damage to JFK and JC.
I don't know if he later changed his mind on this.
It is either Belin or Willens (or both) that explained in detail in their books what the tests were meant to show, and how the ballistics tests results were meant to be interpreted. I need to read the WC report again to see how well the test results were presented in that report. Many people who, for instance, were skeptical of the appearance of CE-399 (as a bullet that caused all the wounds) interpreted the test results differently than was intended (due mostly to confirmation bias, I believe). Could the tests have been better conceived? Of course they could have been. But that opinion is in hindsight.
-
You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt.
Don't have to. I'm not claiming Oswald is guilty or innocent, but since you mention it, why don't you provide that "actual evidence" and I will gladly tell you if I question it or not and why.
Says the guy who claimed that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination. Again, explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs".
-
Says the guy who claimed that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination. Again, explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs".
Why do you constantly need to lie and misrepresent what people say?
What I actually said is that all the available evidence points to Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
Another one of your pathetic habits is asking questions that have already been answered
Now how about you presenting that "actual evidence" you constantly talk about but never produce? Let's start, shall we, by you proving wrong my conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs? Show us the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot. Go on then.....
-
Why do you constantly need to lie and misrepresent what people say?
What I actually said is that all the available evidence points to Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
Another one of your pathetic habits is asking questions that have already been answered
Now how about you presenting that "actual evidence" you constantly talk about but never produce? Let's start, shall we, by you proving wrong my conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs? Show us the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot. Go on then.....
So you believe Oswald COULD have come down the stairs from the 6th floor after the assassination unnoticed by anyone in time for the encounter with Baker? Thus, rendering your endless analysis on the topic of the stairs pointless in terms of whether he was the assassin.
-
So you believe Oswald COULD have come down the stairs from the 6th floor after the assassination unnoticed by anyone in time for the encounter with Baker? Thus, rendering your endless analysis on the topic of the stairs pointless in terms of whether he was the assassin.
More evasion.... from the guy who claims he has all the evidence for Oswald's guilt. Pathetic!
We already had this conversation and I am not going to have it again. My position is clear, no matter how many times you try to misrepresent it. Only a fool tries the same thing again and expects a different result.
Now, are you going to show that my conclusion about Oswald not coming down the stairs is wrong or not?
-
Oswald was”too calm”, therefore he shot the president. This is how ridiculous LN “evidence” is.
-
Robert Oswald, like other cult members, makes a series of claims that are either non-evidence, false, or not well supported by the actual evidence, forms a conclusion, and then says that it’s correct by default until somebody proves something different.
-
If I'm him and solely wanting to make money, just sell a book, that was not the book I write. I'm promoting a conspiracy, conspiracies sells. I'm not writing a lone assassin work.
Please. Bugliosi reportedly got a million dollar advance for his doorstop, which I doubt they ever recouped. I got one in the bargain bin a few months later.
-
Robert was openly critical of some of the WC’s work. For instance, Robert didn’t go along with the single bullet theory, at least not when he wrote the book.
It’s pretty hard to make a case for a single shooter without the single-bullet fantasy. That’s the whole reason it was invented.
-
So you believe Oswald COULD have come down the stairs from the 6th floor after the assassination unnoticed by anyone in time for the encounter with Baker? Thus, rendering your endless analysis on the topic of the stairs pointless in terms of whether he was the assassin.
“COULD have”. LOL. You can either demonstrate that something happened or you cannot.
-
“COULD have”. LOL. You can either demonstrate that something happened or you cannot.
Indeed, but we're dealing here with a fool who thinks that the evidence for Oswald coming down the stairs is the fact that it happened.
-
Oswald was”too calm”, therefore he shot the president. This is how ridiculous LN “evidence” is.
“Oswald’s erratic behavior after he left the Book Depository proves his guilt”
“Oswald’s calmness while in police custody proves his guilt”
Seems like the LN crowd tries to have it both ways…
-
“Oswald’s erratic behavior after he left the Book Depository proves his guilt”
“Oswald’s calmness while in police custody proves his guilt”
Seems like the LN crowd tries to have it both ways…
Thumb1:
Anything Oswald did would be considered “evidence” of his guilt.
-
Oswald was”too calm”, therefore he shot the president. This is how ridiculous LN “evidence” is.
No one has made that claim.
When making a conclusion, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered. Robert Oswald listed twelve items that convinced him that his brother was guilty. This wasn’t even one of them, just something that stood out to him and some others. This is significant in my opinion. You are quite free to have your own opinion.
You continue to take individual items and pretend that they are supposed to mean something unintended. If you ever see the error of your ways, someone might take you a little more seriously. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.
-
“Oswald’s erratic behavior after he left the Book Depository proves his guilt”
“Oswald’s calmness while in police custody proves his guilt”
Seems like the LN crowd tries to have it both ways…
There's two ways? ;)
-
It’s pretty hard to make a case for a single shooter without the single-bullet fantasy. That’s the whole reason it was invented.
Howard Willens, “History Will Prove Us Right”, page 462:
After reviewing the medical and other testimony pertaining to the single-bullet theory, the Select Committee confirmed that both men were hit by a single bullet. As Liebeler said in 1996: “In spite of all the criticism the single-bullet theory is stronger today than it was at birth. On the basis of analytical techniques not available in 1964 and using approaches quite different from those used by the Warren Commission, the House Committee has unequivocally reaffirmed the single-bullet theory.”79
I kind of like the term “born” …
-
The entire discussion about the opinions of Robert Oswald and some authors is another admission of just how weak the case against Oswald really is.
If the case was strong, as the LN's like to pretend, a discussion of third party opinions would be irrelevant and a complete waste of time.
-
If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case. But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.
That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people. No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic. If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.
-
If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case. But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.
That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people. No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic. If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.
If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case.
So, why are the LNs discussing it rather than presenting the actual "major evidence"?
But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.
Yes, I have read it and find it not persuasive.
That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people.
Let me guess; the rational, reasonable people are those who agree with you, right?
No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic.
BS. Nobody is dismissing authentic and conclusive evidence. What is being dismissed is bad faith arguments, speculation, assumptions and claims not supported by actual evidence. It's not the problem of reasonable people that you don't like it.
If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.
You do understand that what you've just said is basically; "who cares about [the lack of] the evidence, we know he did it so let's hang him". Do you really want to go back 200 years in time?
-
If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case. But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.
That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people. No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic. If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.
That Robert Oswald can disagree with significant aspects of the WC’s work and still conclude that his own brother is guilty speaks volumes about the strengths of their work. Enough said…
-
That Robert Oswald can disagree with significant aspects of the WC’s work and still conclude that his own brother is guilty speaks volumes about the strengths of their work. Enough said…
Exactly what a die hard fanatical LN would say.... Enough said
-
That Robert Oswald can disagree with significant aspects of the WC’s work and still conclude that his own brother is guilty speaks volumes about the strengths of their work. Enough said…
LHO’s potential guilt doesn’t preclude the possibility that there was a conspiracy.
I don’t know whether he was framed or not but I can see a plausible conspiracy with Oswald as a witting participant. Which would mean he was ‘guilty’ even if others were involved and got away with it.
Hence why I don’t think Robert’s opinions about his brother matter in the broader debate over the question of conspiracy…
-
Howard Willens, “History Will Prove Us Right”, page 462:
After reviewing the medical and other testimony pertaining to the single-bullet theory, the Select Committee confirmed that both men were hit by a single bullet. As Liebeler said in 1996: “In spite of all the criticism the single-bullet theory is stronger today than it was at birth. On the basis of analytical techniques not available in 1964 and using approaches quite different from those used by the Warren Commission, the House Committee has unequivocally reaffirmed the single-bullet theory.”79
I kind of like the term “born” …
How about (FMJ ammo) 'is designed to pass through-and-through human flesh while remaining as intact as possible'
-
How about (FMJ ammo) 'designed to pass through-and-through human flesh while remaining as intact as possible'
In theory maybe.
In reality, bullets, even FMJ, typically get deformed after hitting human or animal bones as the Edgewood Arsenal tests for the Warren Commission found…
-
In theory maybe.
In reality, bullets, even FMJ, typically get deformed after hitting human or animal bones as the Edgewood Arsenal tests for the Warren Commission found…
In reality Kennedy was not sitting in a barrel of cotton, nor fitted with animal bones. Nor was he born needing a precise load of gunpowder.
Nor was FMJ ammo designed to pass through-and-through a barrel of cotton, nor crunch a bag of goat bones
-
The WC bullets tests were meant to show what happens to a Carcano bullet at full-speed and striking hard tissue (bone) nose-on. The result was mushroomed and deformed bullets, quite unlike the CE399 "pristine" bullet.
This was supposed to demonstrate that CE399 didn't strike bone at full-speed nose-on but rather was a bullet consistent with having been slowed passing through soft-tissue (Kennedy's neck), no longer nose-on when glancing along Connally's thin fifth rib (further slowing and more off-axis) to arrive at the radius no longer at full-speed nor nose-on. Thus no mushrooming or major deformity of the bullet.
The Warren Commission probably figured the public was sensible enough to understand and appreciate such tests. Instead, the critics saw an opportunity and claimed the test bullets showed what CE399 should have looked like.
There was a 2004 program called "Beyond the Magic Bullet" that did a more direct replication of CE399, using torso-sized casts and firing a Carcano rifle from a distance and height comparable to the SN in Dealey Plaza. The crane holding the "sniper's nest" was swaying in the wind. Thus the shot arrived a little low into "Kennedy" than they hoped. The "Kennedy" torso had no simulated bones so passing low and exiting the chest on the model was just more soft tissue compared to the real Kennedy's neck. The "Connally" torso did have "bones" that the test bullet struck. They found the bullet on the ground and it was in one piece with a squeezed appearance, similar to CE399.
The SBT shot in 1963 was one-in-a-million. If the gunman had waited a second or aimed a micro-degree different, it would have been a different set of wounds being discussed. Replicating it means the odds are heavily stacked against it. The 2004 test came close.
-
The WC bullets tests were meant to show what happens to a Carcano bullet at full-speed and striking hard tissue (bone) nose-on. The result was mushroomed and deformed bullets, quite unlike the CE399 "pristine" bullet.
This was supposed to demonstrate that CE399 didn't strike bone at full-speed nose-on but rather was a bullet consistent with having been slowed passing through soft-tissue (Kennedy's neck), no longer nose-on when glancing along Connally's thin fifth rib (further slowing and more off-axis) to arrive at the radius no longer at full-speed nor nose-on. Thus no mushrooming or major deformity of the bullet.
The Warren Commission probably figured the public was sensible enough to understand and appreciate such tests. Instead, the critics saw an opportunity and claimed the test bullets showed what CE399 should have looked like.
There was a 2004 program called "Beyond the Magic Bullet" that did a more direct replication of CE399, using torso-sized casts and firing a Carcano rifle from a distance and height comparable to the SN in Dealey Plaza. The crane holding the "sniper's nest" was swaying in the wind. Thus the shot arrived a little low into "Kennedy" than they hoped. The "Kennedy" torso had no simulated bones so passing low and exiting the chest on the model was just more soft tissue compared to the real Kennedy's neck. The "Connally" torso did have "bones" that the test bullet struck. They found the bullet on the ground and it was in one piece with a squeezed appearance, similar to CE399.
The SBT shot in 1963 was one-in-a-million. If the gunman had waited a second or aimed a micro-degree different, it would have been a different set of wounds being discussed. Replicating it means the odds are heavily stacked against it. The 2004 test came close.
Thumb1:
The WC bullets tests were meant to show what happens to a Carcano bullet at full-speed and striking hard tissue (bone) nose-on. The result was mushroomed and deformed bullets, quite unlike the CE399 "pristine" bullet.
As I believe it is Belin who explains, that they also show that Connally’s wrist would have been significantly more damaged if it had been hit with a Carcano bullet at full speed. He probably would have required amputation. Therefore, the WC tests do show that the bullet that hit Connaly’s wrist had been slowed. The 2004 Beyond the Magic Bullet tests demonstrate that the bullet does begin tumbling as it exits the JFK model.
-
That Robert Oswald can disagree with significant aspects of the WC’s work and still conclude that his own brother is guilty speaks volumes about the strengths of their work. Enough said…
Touche.
That's because - as you noted that others erroneously do - he didn't look at the totality of evidence and strip out or separate one piece from the rest and conclude from there that the entirety of the evidence can also be dismissed. If one wants to be a Mark Lane, a defender of Oswald, then that is what you do. It's a legal tactic, a strategy to persuade one gullible juror that his client was innocent. It's not about the truth. Lane wasn't interested in finding out what happened (he blamed the CIA of course); he was only interested in trying to clear Oswald.
But again, as you said, enough said.....
-
In reality Kennedy was not sitting in a barrel of cotton, nor fitted with animal bones. Nor was he born needing a precise load of gunpowder.
Nor was FMJ ammo designed to pass through-and-through a barrel of cotton, nor crunch a bag of goat bones
That's not the only reason to doubt that CE399 struck both JFK and Connally of course but I don't find the explanations for the lack of damage to 399 to be convincing. It doesn't add up.
-
When making a conclusion, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered.
Things that are not evidence are not part of “the totality of the evidence”. The only thing that makes Oswald’s “calmness” “significant” is your imagination.
-
That's not the only reason to doubt that CE399 struck both JFK and Connally of course but I don't find the explanations for the lack of damage to 399 to be convincing. It doesn't add up.
It was meant as mockery but it could have been more clearly written, I admit
See Jerry Organ's piece (Reply #117)
-
Things that are not evidence are not part of “the totality of the evidence”. The only thing that makes Oswald’s “calmness” “significant” is your imagination.
A suspect’s behavior before and after the crime is evidence. Fleeing the scene is but one example. Notwithstanding your opinion, Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, and several law enforcement officers and investigators all thought his calmness was significant.
-
A suspect’s behavior before and after the crime is evidence. Fleeing the scene is but one example. Notwithstanding your opinion, Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, and several law enforcement officers and investigators all thought his calmness was significant.
People react and behave differently in stressful situations. To even suggest that a suspect being calm is somehow evidence of guilt is idiotic!
-
From 'Dead Oswald Tour'
(https://i.postimg.cc/NM8yzc27/238-PRISTINE-YEAH-SURE.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
From 'Dead Oswald Tour'
(https://i.postimg.cc/NM8yzc27/238-PRISTINE-YEAH-SURE.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
The mostly intact bullet, CE399, is not consistent with the number of bullet fragments found in Governor Connally (some fragments were removed from his wrist while he died with other fragments never being removed).
-
LHO’s calmness while in police custody was enough out of character that both Marina and Robert Oswald thought it was significant. Here’s a snip from a Washington Post article that describes his out of character calmness before the assassination. I think that Mailer’s comparison to what some combat soldiers experience before combat is interesting.
Now, months later, after putting Junie to bed he asked Marina if he could help her wash the dinner dishes — again, out of character. In recounting the scene, Mailer wrote, “Oswald has reached that zone of serenity that some men attain before combat, when anxiety is deep enough to feel like quiet exaltation: You are finally going into an action that will be equal in dimension to the importance of your life.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/25/jfks-assassin-lee-harvey-oswalds-eerie-calm-the-day-before-he-pulled-the-trigger/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/25/jfks-assassin-lee-harvey-oswalds-eerie-calm-the-day-before-he-pulled-the-trigger/)
-
LHO’s calmness while in police custody was enough out of character that both Marina and Robert Oswald thought it was significant. Here’s a snip from a Washington Post article that describes his out of character calmness before the assassination. I think that Mailer’s comparison to what some combat soldiers experience before combat is interesting.
Now, months later, after putting Junie to bed he asked Marina if he could help her wash the dinner dishes — again, out of character. In recounting the scene, Mailer wrote, “Oswald has reached that zone of serenity that some men attain before combat, when anxiety is deep enough to feel like quiet exaltation: You are finally going into an action that will be equal in dimension to the importance of your life.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/25/jfks-assassin-lee-harvey-oswalds-eerie-calm-the-day-before-he-pulled-the-trigger/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/25/jfks-assassin-lee-harvey-oswalds-eerie-calm-the-day-before-he-pulled-the-trigger/)
Lee Oswald was reportedly calm after his arrest in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 too.
Maybe the guy didn’t get rattled easily.
I think you’re reading too much into it…
-
Lee Oswald was reportedly calm after his arrest in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 too.
Maybe the guy didn’t get rattled easily.
I think you’re reading too much into it…
It isn’t just me, its the people who knew LHO. But if you consider that LHO spent time in the brig while he was in the USMC, it could be that he learned from that experience.
-
The mostly intact bullet, CE399, is not consistent with the number of bullet fragments found in Governor Connally (some fragments were removed from his wrist while he died with other fragments never being removed).
David Belin, “November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury”, pages 317-318:
There was much comment after the assassination about whether the nearly whole bullet could have caused all the damage to Governor Connally, because X-rays showed metallic fragments in the wrist, whereas the bullet itself, Exhibit 399, weighed only one and one-half to three grains less than an ordinary bullet. Dr Gregory put such speculation to rest with the following testimony:
Mr. Spector. Will you describe as specifically as you can what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?
Dr. Gregory. I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters in diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness.
They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal.
Mr. Spector. What would your estimate be as to their weight in total?
Dr. Gregory. I would estimate that they would be weighed in micrograms which is very small amount of weight. I don’t know how to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you. It is the kind of weighing that requires a micro adjustable scale, which means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp.
I googled to find the average weight of a postage stamp and here is what I found:
A used average size US commemorative weighs 1.1 grains.
From the same Belin Book, page 322 (Dr. Shires is referring to Connally’s thigh wound):
Mr. Spector. What would your best estimate be as to the size of that fragment?
Dr Shires. One millimeter in diameter - one to two.
Mr. Spector. Would you have any estimate as to how much that might weigh in grains?
Dr. Shires. In grains - a fraction of a grain, maybe, a tenth of a grain - very small.
David Belin, “November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury”, page324:
Most important of all, the testimony of Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shires was unequivocal on the amount of bullet fragments that remained in Governor Connally’s wrist and in his thigh. The amount was infinitesimally small - a measurement in “micrograms,” which are thousandths of a grain - there are 7,000 grains in an ounce. However, to a third party inspecting X-rays, such as Dr. Shaw, the opaque showing on the X-rays would give the impression of a substantially larger amount of fragments. This is of crucial importance in determining whether the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland Memorial Hospital caused all the damage.
It appears to me that the two doctors tell us that the estimated total weight of all of the metallic fragments seen in Connally is something less than 1.2 grains. Whereas CE 399 lost an estimated total of 1.5 to 3 grains.
-
A suspect’s behavior before and after the crime is evidence. Fleeing the scene is but one example.
And “fleeing” is a loaded term that’s an example of your preexisting bias.
Notwithstanding your opinion, Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, and several law enforcement officers and investigators all thought his calmness was significant.
And their opinion that it’s “significant” isn’t evidence of anything either.
-
LHO’s calmness while in police custody was enough out of character that both Marina and Robert Oswald thought it was significant.
And yet Oswald’s lack of calmness in the theater and in front of Brewer’s store is also seen as “evidence” of his guilt for murder. Like I said, no matter what he does, it’s guilt.
-
David Belin, “November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury”, pages 317-318:
The broken chain of custody and the lack of damage to the bullet that supposedly stuck both JFK and Connally, are the main reasons that I have doubts about CE399. I appreciate your citations but it doesn't change my mind.
-
The broken chain of custody and the lack of damage to the bullet that supposedly stuck both JFK and Connally, are the main reasons that I have doubts about CE399. I appreciate your citations but it doesn't change my mind.
I didn’t expect to change your mind. But if someone with an open mind reads this, perhaps they will understand.
-
And their opinion that it’s “significant” isn’t evidence of anything either.
Character evidence is evidence. Pertinence and relevance of the character evidence might be to show a state of mind.
-
And yet Oswald’s lack of calmness in the theater and in front of Brewer’s store is also seen as “evidence” of his guilt for murder. Like I said, no matter what he does, it’s guilt.
Different situations.
-
So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.
-
So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.
Ruby’s state of mind, and his behavior leading up to the shooting, was a big part of his defense, if I remember correctly. The jury didn’t agree with what his first attorney presented for a meaning.
-
Speaking of different situations. Nobody had to try to prove that Ruby did it.
-
Speaking of different situations. Nobody had to try to prove that Ruby did it.
They had to prove that it was “Ruby” who did it, otherwise he would have been released.
Temporary Insanity
If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity for the criminal offense, but regains mental competence at the time of prosecution, the defendant is released after the verdict is rendered.
https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/ (https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/)
-
So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.
They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.
-
They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.
Here's my circular argument
Go ahead: Show us where the twofer is 'pristine'
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXWnmMKW/PRISTINE-YEAH-SURE.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.
Who is this "they" that did this? On whose orders? And who were Oswald's fellow conspirators? Where was his help?
Were "they" the WC, the HSCA, the Church Committee, multiple news organizations, investigative reporters.....? Multiple generations of Americans over half a century. Which one did this? All of them? Now there's a heckuva conspiracy. The idea that you could get all of these disparate groups to come to the same conclusion is...well....I'm not sure how you can think that can pulled off.
This has been looked at/investigated again and again and again and again. All sorts of groups/entities/organizations have investigated it. Did they all start from a lone assassin view and reject contradictory evidence?
Your argument is they didn't find a conspiracy therefore there was a conspiracy to not find a conspiracy. Now that's circular thinking.
BTW, who were the conspirators that they didn't find? You're vague as to who they were.
-
Did they all start from a lone assassin view and reject contradictory evidence?
Yes.
-
Oswald got what he deserved
-
Oswald got what he deserved
Sorry, no. Even the worst of people - child killers? what's worse? - deserve a fair trial, due process. If you accept vigilantism here, in this case, how do you stop it tomorrow? If it's you?
There's a scene from the movie "Man For All Seasons" where More defends the rule of law. Even the devil deserves it; because if you remove the rule of law where do you go when you're the one being sought? And by the Devil himself? The law protects both the Devil and you. Besides, had we had a trial I am absolutely sure that we wouldn't be here. Oswald would have, implicitly if not explicitly, confessed. Sure the "Oswald was brainwashed by MK-Ultra" types would defend him but they would be in the Holocaust denial/911 Truthers far fringe.
Here's the critical exchange:
-
In his December 9, 1963 Dan Smoot Report, Dan writes that: “Oswald was a psychotic misanthrope.” After studying the case for many years, I think that he may have been right.
-
In his December 9, 1963 Dan Smoot Report, Dan writes that: “Oswald was a psychotic misanthrope.” After studying the case for many years, I think that he may have been right.
Hmm, I think he had moral agency; he wasn't driven by voices or demons. But he wasn't a normal person. Below is from the Nechiporenko book on Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. This is a man with a persecution complex, someone who feels his life is in danger. That might be a form of psychosis I guess. I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others.
Of course the conspiracy believers will say this was an impersonator, it was the CIA framing him. Round-and-round we go.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9735178260/Keyveu551itolpl/oswald in embassy.JPG)
-
Hmm, I think he had moral agency; he wasn't driven by voices or demons. But he wasn't a normal person. Below is from the Nechiporenko book on Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. This is a man with a persecution complex, someone who feels his life is in danger. Of course the conspiracy believers will say this was an impersonator, it was the CIA framing him. Round-and-round we go.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9735178260/Keyveu551itolpl/oswald in embassy.JPG)
I don't believe that Oswald really intended to go back to Russia. It is clear based on his personal writings and things he told to people close to him that he disliked life in the Soviet Union.
We don't know what the true intentions of his mysterious trip to Mexico City were and may never know.
-
Sorry, no. Even the worst of people - child killers? what's worse? - deserve a fair trial, due process. If you accept vigilantism here, in this case, how do you stop it tomorrow? If it's you?
There's a scene from the movie "Man For All Seasons" where More defends the rule of law. Even the devil deserves it; because if you remove the rule of law where do you go when you're the one being sought? And by the Devil himself? The law protects both the Devil and you. Besides, had we had a trial I am absolutely sure that we wouldn't be here. Oswald would have, implicitly if not explicitly, confessed. Sure the "Oswald was brainwashed by MK-Ultra" types would defend him but they would be in the Holocaust denial/911 Truthers far fringe.
Here's the critical exchange:
'Oswald had no chance to defend himself', said some Oswald apologist
Well, neither did Kennedy
What went around came around
RIP Officer Tippit
-
'Oswald had no chance to defend himself', said some Oswald apologist
Well, neither did Kennedy
What went around came around
RIP Officer Tippit
And what happened to JFK - an injustice - calls for or justifies another injustice? If what happened to JFK was wrong, as it was, does that justify another one? This is what More meant above. If you toss out the rule of law in one case, make an exception, then how do you prevent the next one?
What about other killers? Child rapists, murderers? How about the parents of a child killed? Can they kill that killer? They are victims of an injustice every bit if not more than the Kennedys. No, this is the path to anarchism and vigilantism.
-
Hmm, I think he had moral agency; he wasn't driven by voices or demons. But he wasn't a normal person. Below is from the Nechiporenko book on Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. This is a man with a persecution complex, someone who feels his life is in danger. That might be a form of psychosis I guess. I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others.
Of course the conspiracy believers will say this was an impersonator, it was the CIA framing him. Round-and-round we go.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9735178260/Keyveu551itolpl/oswald in embassy.JPG)
That description of the encounter in MC reminds me so much of a kid pitching a temper tantrum so that his mommy will cave in and give him what he wants. I can’t help but think that this is probably what happened between LHO and his mother way too many times.
I haven’t yet found his exact words, but Robert Oswald wrote that he noticed a pattern in LHO’s behavior. Whenever LHO failed at something or things didn’t go as he wanted, he then proceeded to do something outrageous [Possibly an adult substitute for a childish temper tantrum?]. Defecting to Russia was an example. Assassinating JFK was the ultimate outrageous act.
-
And what happened to JFK - an injustice - calls for or justifies another injustice? If what happened to JFK was wrong, as it was, does that justify another one? This is what More meant above. If you toss out the rule of law in one case, make an exception, then how do you prevent the next one?
What about other killers? Child rapists, murderers? How about the parents of a child killed? Can they kill that killer? They are victims of an injustice every bit if not more than the Kennedys. No, this is the path to anarchism and vigilantism.
Oswald paid for what he did
RIP Officer Tippit
-
Oswald paid for what he did
RIP Officer Tippit
We live in a land of laws which are there to protect the rights of individuals, so there should be no approval of what Ruby did.
That said, there were a lot of people who were glad that Ruby shot LHO. There are plenty of telegrams in evidence, that were sent from people all over, congratulating Ruby. I have to confess that, as a ten year old, my first reaction was mixed. Part of me was glad, but I knew it was wrong.
Part of me still wants to say it was poetic justice:
Poetic irony (a.k.a. poetic justice) occurs when a crime or transgression is unexpectedly resolved positively, often due to a 'twist of fate. ' In other words, karma — you get what you deserve. This is very closely related to cosmic irony because there is a sense that the Universe stepped in to balance the scales.
But deep down inside I agree with Steve that it should not be condoned.
-
We live in a land of laws which are there to protect the rights of individuals, so there should be no approval of what Ruby did.
That said, there were a lot of people who were glad that Ruby shot LHO. There are plenty of telegrams in evidence, that were sent from people all over, congratulating Ruby. I have to confess that, as a ten year old, my first reaction was mixed. Part of me was glad, but I knew it was wrong.
Part of me still wants to say it was poetic justice:
Poetic irony (a.k.a. poetic justice) occurs when a crime or transgression is unexpectedly resolved positively, often due to a 'twist of fate. ' In other words, karma — you get what you deserve. This is very closely related to cosmic irony because there is a sense that the Universe stepped in to balance the scales.
But deep down inside I agree with Steve that it should not be condoned.
BONUS
REPEAT
Courtesy
Dead Oswald Tour
27,000 views and counting
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7YcpDB4/216-RUBY-CAME-AROUND-3.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
On one hand LHO got ambushed (like his victims).
On the other hand, if he had lived to go through a trial and was sentenced to death, he would have probably
suffered the anxiety of looking at the electric chair.
On the third hand LHO was denied most of the time in which he would have had the attention he apparently craved.
On the fourth hand LHO did go down in history and we are still talking about him.
The vision that keeps occurring to me is that he is in hell and satan keeps taunting him that most people think that he wasn’t capable of the assassination without help….
-
On one hand LHO got ambushed (like his victims).
On the other hand, if he had lived to go through a trial and was sentenced to death, he would have probably
suffered the anxiety of looking at the electric chair.
On the third hand LHO was denied most of the time in which he would have had the attention he apparently craved.
On the fourth hand LHO did go down in history and we are still talking about him.
The vision that keeps occurring to me is that he is in hell and satan keeps taunting him that most people think that he wasn’t capable of the assassination without help….
With two trials and two convictions plus the jailhouse interviews he'd had given we wouldn't be talking about him this much if at all; this forum wouldn't exist. The conspiracy crowd would be quite small. Sure, if Oswald was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they would deny it. There's always that crowd.
It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.
It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.
One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.
But see? This is all eye-rolling speculation for the conspiracy crowd. They sneer at it. They can speculate about Ruth and Michael Paine and their motive for setting Oswald up (so they say), or LBJ's motives, or the CIA, or Angleton or a hundred different people. They can propose motives for their acts but if we do it for Oswald it's unfair. Well, hooey on that.
-
With two trials and two convictions plus the jailhouse interviews he'd had given we wouldn't be talking about him this much if at all; this forum wouldn't exist. The conspiracy crowd would be quite small. Sure, if Oswald was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they would deny it. There's always that crowd.
It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.
It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.
One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.
But see? This is all eye-rolling speculation for the conspiracy crowd. They sneer at it. They can speculate about Ruth and Michael Paine and their motive for setting Oswald up (so they say), or LBJ's motives, or the CIA, or Angleton or a hundred different people. They can propose motives for their acts but if we do it for Oswald it's unfair. Well, hooey on that.
One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.
Even the best of us can from time to time feel like the world is against us. If several important aspects of our lives go wrong at about the same time, it is easy to fall into that frame of mind. Especially if one is a relatively young age (say early twenties). But most of us recover from that type of mind-set and carry on with life normally. Then again, most of us didn’t have Marguerite Oswald for a mother…
-
With two trials and two convictions plus the jailhouse interviews he'd had given we wouldn't be talking about him this much if at all; this forum wouldn't exist. The conspiracy crowd would be quite small. Sure, if Oswald was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they would deny it. There's always that crowd.
It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.
It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.
One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.
But see? This is all eye-rolling speculation for the conspiracy crowd. They sneer at it. They can speculate about Ruth and Michael Paine and their motive for setting Oswald up (so they say), or LBJ's motives, or the CIA, or Angleton or a hundred different people. They can propose motives for their acts but if we do it for Oswald it's unfair. Well, hooey on that.
Intelligent and informed people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions. It happens all the time in politics and it’s not always in Bad Faith (although on some occasions it is).
The only thing I’ll add is that it seems like LN and CT are wired differently the same way Conservatives and Liberals are. Meaning, different personalities and different life experiences can affect how we interpret the facts of the Kennedy assassination the same way that our personalities can affect our political views.
-
It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.
It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.
But the famous quote says ''History is written by the victors. And Oswald's entire persona, his legend, has been written by the very agencies that clearly played a role in the coverup of JFK's assassination reality.
The hilarious thing is you mention Oswald's ''exchange with the Soviet/KGB'' like any of that wouldn't have seriously bleeped on the radars of the various agencies tasked with protecting JFK, leading up to Dallas. The same guy comes back to Texas from Russia and doesn't even undergo any CIA or any other agency debriefing, that we know of -- seeing the documents are still mostly withheld. Oswald just struts his stuff plotting to murder the president of USA, gets a job on the parade route, so the secret service never got suspicious about one of the most notorious men in the nation navigating into such a position to assassinate the POTUS. FBI removed Oswald from the watch list prior to the assassination. Boom!
You are lying to yourself.
-
But the famous quote says ''History is written by the victors. And Oswald's entire persona, his legend, has been written by the very agencies that clearly played a role in the coverup of JFK's assassination reality.
The hilarious thing is you mention Oswald's ''exchange with the Soviet/KGB'' like any of that wouldn't have seriously bleeped on the radars of the various agencies tasked with protecting JFK, leading up to Dallas. The same guy comes back to Texas from Russia and doesn't even undergo any CIA or any other agency debriefing, that we know of -- seeing the documents are still mostly withheld. Oswald just struts his stuff plotting to murder the president of USA, gets a job on the parade route, so the secret service never got suspicious about one of the most notorious men in the nation navigating into such a position to assassinate the POTUS. FBI removed Oswald from the watch list prior to the assassination. Boom!
You are lying to yourself.
Oswald didn't "get a job on the parade route." In fact, that was impossible under the known timeline. There was no parade route when Oswald obtained his job. Oswald did not "strut his stuff plotting to murder the President." He didn't even know that JFK was coming to Dallas until just a couple of days before the event. He didn't make any threats or discuss his intention to assassinate JFK with any other person. He just did it. There was nothing to uncover to suggest he was intending to assassinate JFK. The FBI knew only that he had pro-Communist political views. What difference would it make to remove Oswald from the watch list if the FBI and CIA were in on the plot? That doesn't make any sense. What were they going to do? Arrest the guy they planned to frame for the crime?
-
Oswald didn't "get a job on the parade route." In fact, that was impossible under the known timeline. There was no parade route when Oswald obtained his job. Oswald did not "strut his stuff plotting to murder the President." He didn't even know that JFK was coming to Dallas until just a couple of days before the event. He didn't make any threats or discuss his intention to assassinate JFK with any other person. He just did it. There was nothing to uncover to suggest he was intending to assassinate JFK. The FBI knew only that he had pro-Communist political views. What difference would it make to remove Oswald from the watch list if the FBI and CIA were in on the plot? That doesn't make any sense. What were they going to do? Arrest the guy they planned to frame for the crime?
Oswald's "history" comes, in part, from people like Marina, Kerry Thornley, Michael Paine, Robert Oswald, Soviet/KGB agents and others. If someone thinks this "history" was concocted, created by "the government" - that those people read from scripts (even the KGB agents?) to frame Oswald - then what can you do to counter this? Whatever evidence you produce will be dismissed as part of the fake history made by "the government" in their efforts to kill JFK and frame Oswald.
Item: We have the account by the KGB/Embassy people of a irrational Oswald who feels persecuted by the US. This is not a well man, this is not someone, for me, the CIA or anyone could rely upon. He's unstable. But to the conspiracy believers this was really not Oswald; it was an impostor. So where do we take this?
As to the job: As you pointed out, Ruth Paine, on Marina's request after they learned from a friend (Frazier's sister) that a job might be available, got him an interview. That was it. After that it was out of her hands. Oswald showed up and applied for it. He made the impression. He took the job. Truly hired him. Oswald performed the job. He showed up for work. Who was able to control all of this? We see chance, fate, terrible luck taking place. Conspiracy believers see invisible or not so invisible (Ruth Paine) hands directing all of this. It's crazy.
If you ask 15 different conspiracy believers/hobbyists to give your their story as to what happened, their theory, their explanation, you get 15 different explanations. They don't agree on who killed JFK. Was it the CIA? A rogue element? The Pentagon? FBI? Rich Texas oilmen? The mob? Anti-Castro Cubans? Who? And what about Oswald? Was he a willing participant who was used? Or an innocent bystander? Or something in between? There's no agreement on any of this. They are all over the conspiracy map with their explanations.
It's like some weird game, "JFK: The Assassination" where the participants try to score the most points by coming up with the most novel and innovative claim. If it's just a hobby, then fine (I guess). But some of these people are very serious. That's no so fine.
-
But the famous quote says ''History is written by the victors. And Oswald's entire persona, his legend, has been written by the very agencies that clearly played a role in the coverup of JFK's assassination reality.
The hilarious thing is you mention Oswald's ''exchange with the Soviet/KGB'' like any of that wouldn't have seriously bleeped on the radars of the various agencies tasked with protecting JFK, leading up to Dallas. The same guy comes back to Texas from Russia and doesn't even undergo any CIA or any other agency debriefing, that we know of -- seeing the documents are still mostly withheld. Oswald just struts his stuff plotting to murder the president of USA, gets a job on the parade route, so the secret service never got suspicious about one of the most notorious men in the nation navigating into such a position to assassinate the POTUS. FBI removed Oswald from the watch list prior to the assassination. Boom!
You are lying to yourself.
When Oswald returned from the USSR he was briefed/questioned by the FBI. Twice. Then followed - but sloppily - afterwards.
Where did Oswald "strut his stuff" about murdering the president? How did you come to this idea? As to the Soviet Embassy. How did anyone in the government know what he talked about? They learned that he contacted the embassy. They also learned that he visited it and talked to a Kostin. Other than that, they knew nothing. He was a blip on the radar. What did they know about the incident that should have led to them arresting Oswald? The account by the KGB officers came out in 1993 after the dissolution of the USSR. In any case, James Hosty, the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds, did go to talk to him. He interviewed Marina but failed to interview Oswald. Incompetency not design.
Here's the gap, the chasm: You see "the government" operating behind all of this and pulling strings and pushing buttons and their perceived failure to act is, in your view, evidence of complicity. Such as Oswald being "placed" in the TSBD and parade route. We see a bureaucracy filled with different agencies and divisions and people and all of the confusion and disarray and incompetency that comes with it (Hoover punished 17 agents for their failures to keep track of Oswald: was that all a lie?). There is no way of bridging this. We say "A" and you say "not A".
One question: Wasn't there anyone in the government who liked JFK? Who wouldn't go along with this act of treason? Nobody? Everyone agreed during the planning? During the execution? During the coverup? All of these people you have carrying this out and no one said no? Had second thoughts? And all of these investigations were coverups as well? These were smart people; why didn't they see what you clearly do? How crazy does this get?
-
Oswald didn't "get a job on the parade route." In fact, that was impossible under the known timeline. There was no parade route when Oswald obtained his job.
Between the 1940s and 1960s, Dealey Plaza was a routine part of parade routes in downtown Dallas.
Meaning, once JFK’s visit to Dallas was announced by September of 1963, it would’ve been relatively easy for conspirators to predict that his motorcade would pass through Dealey Plaza.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Oswald intentionally looked for jobs along the parade route but if there was a conspiracy, it’s plausible that the potential conspirators could have predicted that JFK would pass through Dealey Plaza again as he did in 1960 as a Presidential candidate...
If you ask 15 different conspiracy believers/hobbyists to give your their story as to what happened, their theory, their explanation, you get 15 different explanations. They don't agree on who killed JFK. Was it the CIA? A rogue element? The Pentagon? FBI? Rich Texas oilmen? The mob? Anti-Castro Cubans? Who? And what about Oswald? Was he a willing participant who was used? Or an innocent bystander? Or something in between? There's no agreement on any of this. They are all over the conspiracy map with their explanations.
Most Americans believe that there was a conspiracy but among that group, yes, not everyone can agree on "who" was responsible. The reason is because the history of the JFK assassination is incomplete. There are lots of questions remaining. At best, it's an inconclusive case, not "case closed" in my opinion.
Even if you are 100% convinced that no one but Oswald was involved, I don't believe you're being honest if you say that we know everything that happened and "why". That's obviously not true because even LN'ers disagree on some details like "Oswald's potential motive" for example. The forensic evidence is another area of disagreement among LN'ers. And if I'm remembering correctly, Vincent Bugliosi, was a critic of Gerald Posner.
So like I've been saying, well informed people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions or interpretations. Very few historical events are documented to the point where there's no room for debate about the historical facts. The Kennedy assassination is no exception.
-
One question:
Wasn't there anyone in the government who liked JFK? Who wouldn't go along with this act of treason? Nobody? Everyone agreed during the planning? During the execution? During the coverup? All of these people you have carrying this out and no one said no? Had second thoughts? And all of these investigations were coverups as well? These were smart people; why didn't they see what you clearly do? How crazy does this get?
I'm pretty sure that Robert Kennedy liked JFK. And he believed there was a conspiracy.
I'm pretty sure that George Burkley, JFK's physician, liked JFK. And HE believed there was a conspiracy (he saw JFKs body at both Parkland and Bethesda and signed the death certificate, so he was in a position to know if there were multiple shooters).
I'm pretty sure that JFK's friends like Washington Post chief, Ben Bradlee, liked him. And he too thought there was a conspiracy.
The people that I mentioned and others in the government and news media who weren't convinced that it was a "lone gunman", had varying reasons for expressing their true opinions in private only (which indirectly helped the cover-up). It wasn't that they hated JFK. It likely had more to do with national security or their own personal ambitions.
It's one thing to intuitively believe that there was a conspiracy. But you don't go public with that sort of thing unless you can present hard evidence and have no fear of losing everything (including your life) when you piss off the wrong people.
Only a small number of people are needed to execute a conspiracy, but yes, a coverup requires hundreds, if not thousands, of people deciding to stay silent about what they know or what they saw.
There are many of examples of that happening in the JFK assassination. People telling the truth to family and friends but not going public due to the fears of hurting their own careers and personal ambitions, or maybe worse things happening to them.
And I can't believe that you're not aware of the pattern of those types of stories in the Kennedy assassination aftermath...
-
When Oswald returned from the USSR he was briefed/questioned by the FBI. Twice. Then followed - but sloppily - afterwards.
Where did Oswald "strut his stuff" about murdering the president? How did you come to this idea? As to the Soviet Embassy. How did anyone in the government know what he talked about? They learned that he contacted the embassy. They also learned that he visited it and talked to a Kostin. Other than that, they knew nothing. He was a blip on the radar. What did they know about the incident that should have led to them arresting Oswald? The account by the KGB officers came out in 1993 after the dissolution of the USSR. In any case, James Hosty, the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds, did go to talk to him. He interviewed Marina but failed to interview Oswald. Incompetency not design.
Here's the gap, the chasm: You see "the government" operating behind all of this and pulling strings and pushing buttons and their perceived failure to act is, in your view, evidence of complicity. Such as Oswald being "placed" in the TSBD and parade route. We see a bureaucracy filled with different agencies and divisions and people and all of the confusion and disarray and incompetency that comes with it (Hoover punished 17 agents for their failures to keep track of Oswald: was that all a lie?). There is no way of bridging this. We say "A" and you say "not A".
One question: Wasn't there anyone in the government who liked JFK? Who wouldn't go along with this act of treason? Nobody? Everyone agreed during the planning? During the execution? During the coverup? All of these people you have carrying this out and no one said no? Had second thoughts? And all of these investigations were coverups as well? These were smart people; why didn't they see what you clearly do? How crazy does this get?
Just read everything you type. It's all subterfuge intrigue. Oswald's adult existence revolved around blatantly obvious agency(s) manipulation of his life. To just be so solemnly convinced a person pulled off the shots with that rifle is laughable horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. Let alone all the blatant oddities with what happened after the assassination of JFK. Jack Ruby, the 'strip club owner' stalks his victim and waits for the most perfect moment to wipe out the only man that knew if he really fired the gun that blow JFK's brains to pieces. Case closed. It was him, and that is all folks. I would rather part of the millions and millions each with their own theory of what happened to JFK. To be part of the small group that stubbornly believe ONLY Oswald pulled the trigger and only he was consciously plotting to kill the POTUS is far more irrational than all the many millions that know the government lied on many occasions and covered up the real truth. Obviously, proofs in the documents situation that was brought in to seal up the truth long enough for the plotting committee to die.
-
Just read everything you type. It's all subterfuge intrigue. Oswald's adult existence revolved around blatantly obvious agency(s) manipulation of his life. To just be so solemnly convinced a person pulled off the shots with that rifle is laughable horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. Let alone all the blatant oddities with what happened after the assassination of JFK. Jack Ruby, the 'strip club owner' stalks his victim and waits for the most perfect moment to wipe out the only man that knew if he really fired the gun that blow JFK's brains to pieces. Case closed. It was him, and that is all folks. I would rather part of the millions and millions each with their own theory of what happened to JFK. To be part of the small group that stubbornly believe ONLY Oswald pulled the trigger and only he was consciously plotting to kill the POTUS is far more irrational than all the many millions that know the government lied on many occasions and covered up the real truth. Obviously, proofs in the documents situation that was brought in to seal up the truth long enough for the plotting committee to die.
This has become a highly entertaining thread, where fanatical LN zealots speculate about Oswald's motives for killing Kennedy when, in fact, none of them can get beyond "the WC said so" and provide the actual conclusive evidence for his guilt. They can't even provide a shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.
-
Between the 1940s and 1960s, Dealey Plaza was a routine part of parade routes in downtown Dallas.
Meaning, once JFK’s visit to Dallas was announced by September of 1963, it would’ve been relatively easy for conspirators to predict that his motorcade would pass through Dealey Plaza.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Oswald intentionally looked for jobs along the parade route but if there was a conspiracy, it’s plausible that the potential conspirators could have predicted that JFK would pass through Dealey Plaza again as he did in 1960 as a Presidential candidate...
Most Americans believe that there was a conspiracy but among that group, yes, not everyone can agree on "who" was responsible. The reason is because the history of the JFK assassination is incomplete. There are lots of questions remaining. At best, it's an inconclusive case, not "case closed" in my opinion.
Even if you are 100% convinced that no one but Oswald was involved, I don't believe you're being honest if you say that we know everything that happened and "why". That's obviously not true because even LN'ers disagree on some details like "Oswald's potential motive" for example. The forensic evidence is another area of disagreement among LN'ers. And if I'm remembering correctly, Vincent Bugliosi, was a critic of Gerald Posner.
So like I've been saying, well informed people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions or interpretations. Very few historical events are documented to the point where there's no room for debate about the historical facts. The Kennedy assassination is no exception.
So Oswald or the fantasy conspirators trying to frame him got him a job at the TSBD based upon a hope that JFK would someday drive by this building? LOL. That was the plan? Why would Oswald even have to work in a building on the parade route to be framed for the crime? Why bother with that? It's the evidence left at the scene that links Oswald to the crime. Lots of people believe in UFOs and ghosts. That doesn't mean they exist. It means there are a lot of gullible people.
-
So Oswald or the fantasy conspirators trying to frame him got him a job at the TSBD based upon a hope that JFK would someday drive by this building? LOL. That was the plan? Why would Oswald even have to work in a building on the parade route to be framed for the crime? Why bother with that? It's the evidence left at the scene that links Oswald to the crime. Lots of people believe in UFOs and ghosts. That doesn't mean they exist. It means there are a lot of gullible people.
I specifically explained how it was possible to predict the parade route before it was announced in the newspapers. Did that in fact happen? I don’t know. But we can’t rule it out.
That JFK would do a motorcade tour of several cities including Dallas in the Fall of 1963, was made public in the news before Oswald got his job at TSBD.
-
So Oswald or the fantasy conspirators trying to frame him got him a job at the TSBD based upon a hope that JFK would someday drive by this building? LOL. That was the plan? Why would Oswald even have to work in a building on the parade route to be framed for the crime? Why bother with that? It's the evidence left at the scene that links Oswald to the crime. Lots of people believe in UFOs and ghosts. That doesn't mean they exist. It means there are a lot of gullible people.
It's the evidence left at the scene that links Oswald to the crime.
Utter BS.
All that was "left at the scene" was (1) a rifle, which you can not conclusively show belonged to Oswald or that it was actually fired that day, (2) three shells which could have been fired at any time and (3) a few prints on boxes left behind by a guy who worked in the building and was moving boxes every day.
It means there are a lot of gullible people.
Indeed. Some of them actually believe in Trump (which is very telling) and claim that Oswald is guilty, without being able to provide a shred of evidence to support that claim.
-
I specifically explained how it was possible to predict the parade route before it was announced in the newspapers. Did that in fact happen? I don’t know. But we can’t rule it out.
That JFK would do a motorcade tour of several cities including Dallas in the Fall of 1963, was made public in the news before Oswald got his job at TSBD.
Why would anyone want to "predict" the possible parade route of a future motorcade? There was no guarantee that JFK would use the exact same motorcade as previous motorcades. In fact, the route wasn't finalized until just a few days before the event. Why did Oswald need to work in a building overlooking the parade route to be framed for the crime? In fact, if CTers are to be believed, Oswald's presence in a building overlooking the parade route should have raised some red flags for authorities. Maybe safer if he didn't work in the building. There is no need to link an assassin to a place of employment. It's the evidence left at the scent that does that.
-
Why would anyone want to "predict" the possible parade route of a future motorcade? There was no guarantee that JFK would use the exact same motorcade as previous motorcades. In fact, the route wasn't finalized until just a few days before the event.
This isn’t Rocket Science.
Most cities have a central area where parades are typically held. I’ve explained that Dealey Plaza was part of parade routes in Dallas going as far back as the FDR motorcade era. JFK’s motorcade passed the School Book Depository when he visited Dallas in 1960. There are eerie photos of him passing the Book Depository as a candidate in 1960.
Anyone familiar with Dallas parade logistics could’ve predicted that JFK’s motorcade would pass through Dealey Plaza long before the official parade route was announced.
His visit to Dallas was announced publicly, two months before 11/22/63.
Why did Oswald need to work in a building overlooking the parade route to be framed for the crime?
Obviously the conspirators would need a non-conspiratorial reason for Oswald being there for it not to obviously be a conspiracy.
In fact, if CTers are to be believed, Oswald's presence in a building overlooking the parade route should have raised some red flags for authorities.
The fact that Oswald’s name was removed from a government list of potential threats weeks before 11/22/63 SHOULD raise alarm bells. Was it a coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe safer if he didn't work in the building. There is no need to link an assassin to a place of employment. It's the evidence left at the scent that does that.
Similar to the MLK assassination, the evidence may have been left at the crime scene intentionally.
If there was a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination, the Fall Guy was Oswald.
-
It's the evidence left at the scene that links Oswald to the crime.
LOL. Still waiting…
Lots of people believe in UFOs and ghosts. That doesn't mean they exist. It means there are a lot of gullible people.
Lots of people believe Oswald killed Kennedy. That doesn't he did. It means there are a lot of gullible people.
-
This isn’t Rocket Science.
Most cities have a central area where parades are typically held. I’ve explained that Dealey Plaza was part of parade routes in Dallas going as far back as the FDR motorcade era. JFK’s motorcade passed the School Book Depository when he visited Dallas in 1960. There are eerie photos of him passing the Book Depository as a candidate in 1960.
Anyone familiar with Dallas parade logistics could’ve predicted that JFK’s motorcade would pass through Dealey Plaza long before the official parade route was announced.
His visit to Dallas was announced publicly, two months before 11/22/63.
Obviously the conspirators would need a non-conspiratorial reason for Oswald being there for it not to obviously be a conspiracy.
The fact that Oswald’s name was removed from a government list of potential threats weeks before 11/22/63 SHOULD raise alarm bells. Was it a coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
Similar to the MLK assassination, the evidence may have been left at the crime scene intentionally.
If there was a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination, the Fall Guy was Oswald.
Again, why go through this pointless exercise to obtain employment in the TSBD? Why not just drop Oswald's gun on the grassy knoll after the assassination and declare victory? In fact, that would have been much easier than having conspirators access the TSBD on the day of the assassination to leave evidence framing Oswald since a stranger9s) might be noticed in the building. No one can possibly believe that any fantasy conspirators got Oswald a job at the TSBD long before the parade route was even known and just hoped (based on some historical precedent) that one day JFK would drive by that particular building. That doesn't work as a planned event. It does work as a quirk of fate. But if you want to attribute this level of foresight to your fantasy conspirators, why couldn't Oswald himself have obtained the job with the intent to assassinate the JFK on the fateful day from that building?
-
Again, why go through this pointless exercise to obtain employment in the TSBD? Why not just drop Oswald's gun on the grassy knoll after the assassination and declare victory? In fact, that would have been much easier than having conspirators access the TSBD on the day of the assassination to leave evidence framing Oswald since a stranger9s) might be noticed in the building.
If we assume for the sake of argument that Oswald was framed, how would the conspirators have made sure he was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 if he didn't get a job there?
If for example, Oswald took the better paying job at the airport, he would've had a good alibi if his whereabouts at the time of the shooting didn't place him anywhere near Dealey Plaza.
So for the sake of using Oswald as the Fall Guy, they needed a reason for him to be at Dealey Plaza that day. Otherwise, there was no way to ensure that he was where they needed him to be.
if you want to attribute this level of foresight to your fantasy conspirators, why couldn't Oswald himself have obtained the job with the intent to assassinate the JFK on the fateful day from that building?
We have no way of knowing whether Oswald was aware of a plot against JFK, or just used as a "Patsy".
James Jarman testified that Oswald asked him on the morning of 11/22/63 'why people were lining up outside the Book Depository'. Which implied that Oswald wasn't aware that morning that the President's motorcade would pass by.
Did LHO have the foresight to know the relevance of that question? Or did he really not know that JFK's motorcade would pass by his workplace?
-
If we assume for the sake of argument that Oswald was framed, how would the conspirators have made sure he was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 if he didn't get a job there?
If for example, Oswald took the better paying job at the airport, he would've had a good alibi if his whereabouts at the time of the shooting didn't place him anywhere near Dealey Plaza.
So for the sake of using Oswald as the Fall Guy, they needed a reason for him to be at Dealey Plaza that day. Otherwise, there was no way to ensure that he was where they needed him to be.
How did your conspirators ensure that Oswald showed up for work that day at the TSBD? Or even continue to be employed there until the fateful day that JFK would drive by? He wasn't exactly the most dependable guy. Some CTers contend there is no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired arguing he was in the lunch room or even on the street. We are supposed to buy that nonsense but not that the conspirators could have dropped his rifle on the Grassy Knoll and framed Oswald regardless of where he was that day?
-
How did your conspirators ensure that Oswald showed up for work that day at the TSBD? Or even continue to be employed there until the fateful day that JFK would drive by? He wasn't exactly the most dependable guy. Some CTers contend there is no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired arguing he was in the lunch room or even on the street. We are supposed to buy that nonsense but not that the conspirators could have dropped his rifle on the Grassy Knoll and framed Oswald regardless of where he was that day?
Some CTers contend there is no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired arguing he was in the lunch room or even on the street.
Hilariously pathetic. Since last summer you and I (CTrs have nothing to do with it) have been discussing your claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. You have been asked time and time again to provide even a shred of evidence for that claim and the same goes for Oswald going down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.
Nobody argued that he was in the lunch room (although it is the most likely location) or on the street.
Until today you have not presented a shred of evidence for either Oswald's presence on the 6th floor or him running down the stairs, which makes the conclusion that there simply is no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor or on the stairs a correct one. And of course it makes your claims nonsense, but we know that already.
-
Some CTers contend there is no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired arguing he was in the lunch room or even on the street. We are supposed to buy that nonsense but not that the conspirators could have dropped his rifle on the Grassy Knoll and framed Oswald regardless of where he was that day?
If LHO doesn't get a job at TSBD (or any other location in Dealey Plaza), how would they have been able to frame him?
Even without proof that he was on the Sixth floor when the shots were fired, they were able to say that a rifle that Oswald owned was found in the building where the shots were fired which also happened to be where he worked. That was enough to ensure that he took the Fall for the crime.
Some witnesses placed Oswald on the first floor minutes before the shots were fired but it didn't matter to the Warren Commission of course.
-
If LHO doesn't get a job at TSBD (or any other location in Dealey Plaza), how would they have been able to frame him?
Even without proof that he was on the Sixth floor when the shots were fired, they were able to say that a rifle that Oswald owned was found in the building where the shots were fired. That was enough to ensure that he took the Fall for the crime.
Some witnesses placed Oswald on the first floor minutes before the shots were fired but it didn't matter to the Warren Commission of course.
Even without proof that he was on the Sixth floor when the shots were fired, they were able to say that a rifle that Oswald owned was found in the building where the shots were fired. That was enough to ensure that he took the Fall for the crime.
Thumb1:
The rifle and Oswald's alleged ownership of it was indeed the only piece of physical evidence. Everything else was either related to that rifle or simply pure speculation and assumptions not supported by evidence.
-
Even without proof that he was on the Sixth floor when the shots were fired, they were able to say that a rifle that Oswald owned was found in the building where the shots were fired. That was enough to ensure that he took the Fall for the crime.
Thumb1:
The rifle and Oswald's alleged ownership of it was indeed the only piece of physical evidence. Everything else was either related to that rifle or simply pure speculation and assumptions not supported by evidence.
Right. I'm not saying that the evidence is rock solid. Just explaining how planting evidence where Oswald worked made sense if someone wanted to frame him.
-
If LHO doesn't get a job at TSBD (or any other location in Dealey Plaza), how would they have been able to frame him?
Even without proof that he was on the Sixth floor when the shots were fired, they were able to say that a rifle that Oswald owned was found in the building where the shots were fired which also happened to be where he worked. That was enough to ensure that he took the Fall for the crime.
Some witnesses placed Oswald on the first floor minutes before the shots were fired but it didn't matter to the Warren Commission of course.
It is helpful to the case against Oswald that he worked in the TSBD as it does place him in the building. And, of course, he was guilty. My point, however, is that it was not NECESSARY for him to be employed in that building to frame him. It's the evidence left at the scene (as outlined by the WC) that links him to the crime. Not simply that he worked in that building. A lot of people worked in the building. Some were, like Oswald, in the building at the time that shots were fired. If, as Martin and some other CTers stupidly suggest, Oswald wasn't even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination and the fantasy conspirators simply allowed him to roam about, then why couldn't they have framed him from any location? They drop his rifle at the grassy knoll, for example, claim to find his prints on it, and silence anyone who could give Oswald an alibi for the time of the assassination. That's more or less what CTers suggest happened in the TSBD.
It defies belief that any fantasy conspirators would get Oswald a job at the TSBD long before the motorcade route was even planned, and hope based on some precedent that a future motorcade would bring JFK by the building. That is laughable as a plan. And again, how do they ensure that an unstable guy like Oswald even continues to work there or bothers to show up on the 11.22? How do they get him to make an unexpected trip to the Paine home on the night before the assassination? How do they know he is not planning on taking a long weekend with his family? How do they get him to take a long package to work the next morning?
-
It is helpful to the case against Oswald that he worked in the TSBD as it does place him in the building. And, of course, he was guilty. My point, however, is that it was not NECESSARY for him to be employed in that building to frame him. It's the evidence left at the scene (as outlined by the WC) that links him to the crime. Not simply that he worked in that building. A lot of people worked in the building. Some were, like Oswald, in the building at the time that shots were fired. If, as Martin and some other CTers stupidly suggest, Oswald wasn't even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination and the fantasy conspirators simply allowed him to roam about, then why couldn't they have framed him from any location? They drop his rifle at the grassy knoll, for example, claim to find his prints on it, and silence anyone who could give Oswald a motive for the time of the assassination. That's more or less what CTers suggest happened in the TSBD.
It defies belief that any fantasy conspirators would get Oswald a job at the TSBD long before the motorcade route was even planned, and hope based on some precedent that a future motorcade would bring JFK by the building. That is laughable as a plan. And again, how do they ensure that an unstable guy like Oswald even continues to work there or bothers to show up on the 11.22? How do they get him to make an unexpected trip to the Paine home on the night before the assassination? How do they know he is not planning on taking a long weekend with his family? How do they get him to take a long package to work the next morning?
From what we know about sting operations conducted by the FBI, all it takes is one or two agents or assets assigned to make sure the person stays on task and is where you need them to be. I’m not saying that the FBI was involved in JFK’s murder. Only noting that similar tactics could be used by other organizations.
Getting Oswald a job in TSBD all but ensured that he would be there on 11/22/63.
You have yet to offer an alternative theory of how to make sure Oswald was in Dealey Plaza at on the day that JFK visited Dallas.
If he doesn’t get a job at the Book Depository or anywhere near the parade route, he would’ve had an alibi.
-
From what we know about sting operations conducted by the FBI, all it takes is one or two agents or assets assigned to make sure the person stays on task and is where you need them to be. I’m not saying that the FBI was involved in JFK’s murder. Only noting that similar tactics could be used by other organizations.
Getting Oswald a job in TSBD all but ensured that he would be there on 11/22/63.
You have yet to offer an alternative theory of how to make sure Oswald was in Dealey Plaza at on the day that JFK visited Dallas.
If he doesn’t get a job at the Book Depository or anywhere near the parade route, he would’ve had an alibi.
According to the CTers who post here, Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (or at least they suggest there is no evidence of such). And some even claim he had an alibi. So why would anyone need to make sure Oswald was in DP to frame him for the crime? They drop the same rifle with his prints on the grassy knoll, arrest Oswald somewhere else, and coerce any person who could give him an alibi into silence. All things CTers regularly suggest did happen to frame Oswald in the TSBD.
-
According to the CTers who post here, Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (or at least they suggest there is no evidence of such). And some even claim he had an alibi. So why would anyone need to make sure Oswald was in DP to frame him for the crime? They drop the same rifle with his prints on the grassy knoll, arrest Oswald somewhere else, and coerce any person who could give him an alibi into silence. All things CTers regularly suggest did happen to frame Oswald in the TSBD.
The conspirators just have to make sure he doesn't have an iron clad alibi, one that he can use to clear himself, one they can't manipulate/control or make disappear. Then they can put him anywhere in Dealey Plaza - the picket fence, the underpass, the sewer - and plant the evidence for his acts.
This idea that two months before the assassination they plant him in the TSBD and then two months later everything works out so they can frame him is an idea I find completely impossible. So many intermediate steps have to go right, so many uncontrollable things, that it's not even remotely possible. But this view is based on the idea that there were/are limits to what they can, how much they can control.
In conspiracy world anything is possible. As Hofstadter said, the conspiracy view "Believes it is up against an enemy who is as infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreaching consistent theory."
Again: "imputed total competence."
-
According to the CTers who post here, Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (or at least they suggest there is no evidence of such). And some even claim he had an alibi. So why would anyone need to make sure Oswald was in DP to frame him for the crime? They drop the same rifle with his prints on the grassy knoll, arrest Oswald somewhere else, and coerce any person who could give him an alibi into silence. All things CTers regularly suggest did happen to frame Oswald in the TSBD.
I’m not explaining what I believe happened.
I responded to your comment about why potential conspirators would’ve gotten Oswald a job in Dealey Plaza ahead of Kennedy’s visit to Dallas.
Without Oswald having a job in Dealey Plaza there would’ve been no way to frame him as he might’ve been somewhere else at the time of the assassination.
I’m aware of the lack of evidence proving that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting and personally don’t know if he fired a rifle that day. I noted James Jarman’s testimony about Oswald not knowing that the motorcade was going to pass the Book Depository.
I believe it’s possible that he was framed but I admit that I’m not sure…
-
In conspiracy world anything is possible. As Hofstadter said, the conspiracy view "Believes it is up against an enemy who is as infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreaching consistent theory."
Again: "imputed total competence."
Conspirators are not always competent. See Watergate and Iran Contra for famous examples of conspiracies exposed by incompetence.
But there are other examples of competent and successful conspiracies. Many of those examples involve organized crime. Some involve terrorists. The CIA had a number of successful conspiracy plots in other countries before the Bay of Pigs and other well publicized failures. The FBI almost got away with their COINTELPRO conspiracies.
When it comes to conspiracies, I’m generally a skeptic believe it or not. I don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t believe Trump “colluded” with Putin in 2016. I don’t believe Hillary intentionally let Americans die in Benghazi.
The JFK assassination is different to me because of the overwhelming number of strange coincidences, inconclusive and inconsistent evidence, and continued secrecy by our national security state. In other words, it seems perfectly reasonable for people to speculate that there might have been a conspiracy based on the things that continue to be debated and remain inconclusive.
So I don’t understand your relentless attempts to paint people who speculate about conspiracies in the Kennedy assassination as “Tin foil hat” people. Granted, some in the JFK assassination research community fall into that category but most people (myself included) honestly don’t find the official narrative to be convincing and are still searching for the truth.
-
So I don’t understand your relentless attempts to paint people who speculate about conspiracies in the Kennedy assassination as “Tin foil hat” people.
Because that’s easier than thinking.
-
I’m not explaining what I believe happened.
I responded to your comment about why potential conspirators would’ve gotten Oswald a job in Dealey Plaza ahead of Kennedy’s visit to Dallas.
Without Oswald having a job in Dealey Plaza there would’ve been no way to frame him as he might’ve been somewhere else at the time of the assassination.
I’m aware of the lack of evidence proving that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting and personally don’t know if he fired a rifle that day. I noted James Jarman’s testimony about Oswald not knowing that the motorcade was going to pass the Book Depository.
I believe it’s possible that he was framed but I admit that I’m not sure…
You asked how the conspirators could ensure that Oswald would be in DP on the day of the assassination in order to frame him for the crime if he didn't work at the TSBD. I've tried to explain to you that using CTer logic that would not be necessary. He could have been at the North Pole with Santa and all the conspirators had to do was drop the same rifle, claim it had Oswald's prints and coerce any witness who could give him an alibi to be silent. All things that CTers have claimed DID happen in the TSBD. That as much as I can simplify this.
-
You asked how the conspirators could ensure that Oswald would be in DP on the day of the assassination in order to frame him for the crime if he didn't work at the TSBD. I've tried to explain to you that using CTer logic that would not be necessary. He could have been at the North Pole with Santa and all the conspirators had to do was drop the same rifle, claim it had Oswald's prints and coerce any witness who could give him an alibi to be silent. All things that CTers have claimed DID happen in the TSBD. That as much as I can simplify this.
There’s no “logic” in your argument.
If LHO doesn’t get a job anywhere near the crime scene, there’s no way to ensure that he would’ve been near the crime scene on 11/22/63. It’s that simple.
-
There’s no “logic” in your argument.
If LHO doesn’t get a job anywhere near the crime scene, there’s no way to ensure that he would’ve been near the crime scene on 11/22/63. It’s that simple.
Why does he need a job near the crime scene? He didn't have a job near the scene of the Tippit shooting. And people believe he was framed for that murder. I assume, I hope?, you think the evidence shows he shot Tippit?
The conspirators have to be sure he doesn't have an alibi, witnesses who can show he was not at the scene of the crime. If he doesn't have one they can plant the evidence he was there and shot JFK.
He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.
-
Why does he need a job near the crime scene? He didn't have a job near the scene of the Tippit shooting. And people believe he was framed for that murder. I assume, I hope?, you think the evidence shows he shot Tippit?
The conspirators have to be sure he doesn't have an alibi, witnesses who can show he was not at the scene of the crime. If he doesn't have one they can plant the evidence he was there and shot JFK.
He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.
He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.
That would have been a valid argument if Oswald had lived to have his day in court. After he was killed they could come up with any kind of narrative they wanted without an alibi ever coming into play.
-
Why does he need a job near the crime scene? He didn't have a job near the scene of the Tippit shooting. And people believe he was framed for that murder. I assume, I hope?, you think the evidence shows he shot Tippit?
The conspirators have to be sure he doesn't have an alibi, witnesses who can show he was not at the scene of the crime. If he doesn't have one they can plant the evidence he was there and shot JFK.
He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.
Some people are impervious to logic and common sense.
-
Some people are impervious to logic and common sense.
Have you been looking in the mirror again?
-
Have you been looking in the mirror again?
What has happened to Otto? Do you see him in the mirror?
-
Why does he need a job near the crime scene?
To ensure that he’s in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, which along with other circumstantial evidence, made Oswald a plausible suspect.
As I explained earlier, if Oswald took the offer for a job at the airport (that Ruth Paine never told him about), how would the conspirators have put him a position to be a suspect in JFK’s assassination?
If he took a job at the airport, why would he have gone anywhere near Dealey Plaza that day if he didn’t have a reason to?
He didn't have a job near the scene of the Tippit shooting. And people believe he was framed for that murder. I assume, I hope?, you think the evidence shows he shot Tippit?
If I were on a jury, I don’t think I would vote that Oswald was guilty of shooting Tippit based on the available evidence.
If the reports that an unknown person placed Oswald’s wallet (or a wallet that resembled Oswald’s) at the Tippit crime scene are true, then maybe someone did try to frame him for that shooting.
https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/
The conspirators have to be sure he doesn't have an alibi, witnesses who can show he was not at the scene of the crime. If he doesn't have one they can plant the evidence he was there and shot JFK.
He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.
Steve, you’re much smarter than this. What you describe is totally illogical.
Unless you kidnap Oswald and don’t free him until after the assassination, there’s no guarantee that he isn’t seen somewhere else by multiple witnesses at the time of the shooting, which would’ve given him a solid alibi.
Telling him to ‘go to work and wait for further instructions’ serves the purpose of making sure he’s where you need him to be at the time of the shooting and reduces the possibility of a convincing alibi.
-
What has happened to Otto? Do you see him in the mirror?
When everything else fails..... :D
A dead giveaway for Richard getting stuck.... Hilarious!
What's next? The "Europe" thing again?
-
He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.
That would have been a valid argument if Oswald had lived to have his day in court. After he was killed they could come up with any kind of narrative they wanted without an alibi ever coming into play.
Oswald’s alibi was that he was eating lunch at the time of the shooting and there is indirect corroboration for it from other witnesses. But that didn’t matter.
I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
-
(3) a few prints on boxes left behind by a guy who worked in the building and was moving boxes every day.
Here's what you're missing, though...
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
So, the Rolling Readers boxes were in the sniper's nest and used as a gun rest. Oswald's prints were on one of these two smaller boxes. No other employee of the building had their prints found on either of these two Rolling Readers boxes. These two particular boxes wouldn't have been moved there by the floor-laying crew (having been stored about three aisles from the sniper's nest, they weren't in the way, like the bigger boxes over on the west end were).
-
Oswald’s alibi was that he was eating lunch at the time of the shooting and there is indirect corroboration for it from other witnesses. But that didn’t matter.
I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
Does the name Carolyn Arnold ring a bell? And what about the railroading of Vickie Adams and Dorothy Garner being ignored. And just look how easily and based on no evidence at all they just dismissed Buell Wesley Frazier's statements about the size of the bag Oswald had carried.
If even a witness came forward to say he or she saw Oswald outside the TSBD at the time of the shooting, they will just remind us that witness testimony is highly unreliable and that witness was simply mistaken.
-
Oswald’s alibi was that he was eating lunch at the time of the shooting and there is indirect corroboration for it from other witnesses. But that didn’t matter.
I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
Please cite this "indirect corroboration" from other witnesses for Oswald eating lunch at the time of the shooting. Surely, you're not meaning Carolyn Arnold since she didn't say anything about seeing Oswald at 12:30.
-
Here's what you're missing, though...
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
So, the Rolling Readers boxes were in the sniper's nest and used as a gun rest. Oswald's prints were on one of these two smaller boxes. No other employee of the building had their prints found on either of these two Rolling Readers boxes. These two particular boxes wouldn't have been moved there by the floor-laying crew (having been stored about three aisles from the sniper's nest, they weren't in the way, like the bigger boxes over on the west end were).
Nice story, but it doesn't make sense at all....
I am not missing any of that. It's a flawed theory, because even if the Rolling Readers boxes didn't have to be moved that day, they could have been touched by Oswald at their original location earlier. Also, not only were no prints found on the snipers nest boxes of other employees but none were found/identified either of all the law enforcement people that were in and around the so-called snipers nest.
So, in a warehouse full of boxes and books, the only identifiable prints they found belonged to Oswald and nobody else and that doesn't let alarm bells go off with you? What are we to believe? That Oswald did not simply take some of the many boxes close to the window but instead went out of his way to get some boxes from another location, three aisles away (I'll take your word for it), just for the hell of it? That makes sense to you? Really?
-
Nice story, but it doesn't make sense at all....
I am not missing any of that. It's a flawed theory, because even if the Rolling Readers boxes didn't have to be moved that day, they could have been touched by Oswald at their original location earlier. Also, not only were no prints found on the snipers nest boxes of other employees but none were found/identified either of all the law enforcement people that were in and around the so-called snipers nest.
So, in a warehouse full of boxes and books, the only identifiable prints they found belonged to Oswald and nobody else and that doesn't let alarm bells go off with you? What are we to believe? That Oswald did not simply take some of the many boxes close to the window but instead went out of his way to get some boxes from another location, three aisles away (I'll take your word for it), just for the hell of it? That makes sense to you? Really?
A couple things...
First, the Rolling Readers boxes aren't to be confused with the bigger boxes containing books. The boxes that were three aisles away (versus the boxes all the way over on the west end of the floor) were the Rolling Readers boxes. These boxes weren't stored "close to the window".
Second, the method used in lifting the prints tells you that the prints were fairly recent (as opposed to prints being left on the boxes say a week earlier).
-
A couple things...
First, the Rolling Readers boxes aren't to be confused with the bigger boxes containing books. The boxes that were three aisles away (versus the boxes all the way over on the west end of the floor) were the Rolling Readers boxes. These boxes weren't stored "close to the window".
Second, the method used in lifting the prints tells you that the prints were fairly recent (as opposed to prints being left on the boxes say a week earlier).
First, the Rolling Readers boxes aren't to be confused with the bigger boxes containing books. The boxes that were three aisles away (versus the boxes all the way over on the west end of the floor) were the Rolling Readers boxes. These boxes weren't stored "close to the window".
I think you missed the point I was making. There were boxes all over the place, so why would Oswald go three aisles away to get some when other boxes were much closer to the sniper nest corner? That simply doesn't make sense.
What also doesn't make sense is that Williams was on the 6th floor until roughly 12.20 / 12.25, which of course limits the time Oswald, or anybody else, had to go down several aisles away to get some boxes and thus risk being noticed.
Second, the method used in lifting the prints tells you that the prints were fairly recent (as opposed to prints being left on the boxes say a week earlier).
I am aware of that, Bill. Oswald could have touched those boxes earlier that morning or the day before. Having said that, the fact that prints on those boxes don't hold long doesn't explain why there wasn't a single print identified for all the TSBD employees [somebody build the sniper's nest, right?] and/or the law enforcement officers who were in and around the sniper's nest before Fritz, Day and Studebaker arrived. There are photos showing those men climbing all over stacks of boxes but in and around the sniper's nest they left not a single print, really?
-
First, the Rolling Readers boxes aren't to be confused with the bigger boxes containing books. The boxes that were three aisles away (versus the boxes all the way over on the west end of the floor) were the Rolling Readers boxes. These boxes weren't stored "close to the window".
I think you missed the point I was making. There were boxes all over the place, so why would Oswald go three aisles away to get some when other boxes were much closer to the sniper nest corner? That simply doesn't make sense.
The smaller Rolling Readers boxes weren't "all over the place".
Oswald, if he wanted smaller boxes (the Rolling Readers boxes) for the gun rest portion of the nest, would have to go three aisles away to get them, since that's where they were stored.
-
What also doesn't make sense is that Williams was on the 6th floor until roughly 12.20 / 12.25, which of course limits the time Oswald, or anybody else, had to go down several aisles away to get some boxes and thus risk being noticed.
So you think it's impossible that Oswald had already moved these particular boxes in place before Williams ever arrived up on the sixth floor?
-
Second, the method used in lifting the prints tells you that the prints were fairly recent (as opposed to prints being left on the boxes say a week earlier).
I am aware of that, Bill. Oswald could have touched those boxes earlier that morning or the day before. Having said that, the fact that prints on those boxes don't hold long doesn't explain why there wasn't a single print identified for all the TSBD employees [somebody build the sniper's nest, right?] and/or the law enforcement officers who were in and around the sniper's nest before Fritz, Day and Studebaker arrived. There are photos showing those men climbing all over stacks of boxes but in and around the sniper's nest they left not a single print, really?
Somebody had to build the sniper's nest, yes. But that is not to say that members of the floor laying crew didn't move the boxes from the west end to the east end a few days before and by the time Friday comes around, their prints could no longer be lifted.
May I see photos of law enforcement personnel climbing all over stacks of boxes in the sniper's nest?
-
The smaller Rolling Readers boxes weren't "all over the place".
Oswald, if he wanted smaller boxes (the Rolling Readers boxes) for the gun rest portion of the nest, would have to go three aisles away to get them, since that's where they were stored.
So, by your logic, none of the boxes other that the Rolling Readers ones were suitable for use?
So you think it's impossible that Oswald had already moved these particular boxes in place before Williams ever arrived up on the sixth floor?
Of course that's not impossible, but just because something isn't impossible doesn't mean it happened.
Somebody had to build the sniper's nest, yes. But that is not to say that members of the floor laying crew didn't move the boxes from the west end to the east end a few days before and by the time Friday comes around, their prints could no longer be lifted.
May I see photos of law enforcement personnel climbing all over stacks of boxes in the sniper's nest?
Somebody had to build the sniper's nest, yes. But that is not to say that members of the floor laying crew didn't move the boxes from the west end to the east end a few days before and by the time Friday comes around, their prints could no longer be lifted.
True. Too bad it's pure speculation, unless you can show that the floor laying crew did in fact move those boxes (and thus build the sniper's nest) "a few days before". Can you?
May I see photos of law enforcement personnel climbing all over stacks of boxes in the sniper's nest?
I didn't say that they were climinng over stacks of boxes "in the sniper's nest". Nice try, though...
-
Oswald prints pointing the box right down Elm places Oswald at that window, with intent.
The possibility of anything other than that happening are astronomical
-
First, the Rolling Readers boxes aren't to be confused with the bigger boxes containing books. The boxes that were three aisles away (versus the boxes all the way over on the west end of the floor) were the Rolling Readers boxes. These boxes weren't stored "close to the window".
I think you missed the point I was making. There were boxes all over the place, so why would Oswald go three aisles away to get some when other boxes were much closer to the sniper nest corner? That simply doesn't make sense.
The smaller Rolling Readers boxes weren't "all over the place".
Oswald, if he wanted smaller boxes (the Rolling Readers boxes) for the gun rest portion of the nest, would have to go three aisles away to get them, since that's where they were stored.
So, by your logic, none of the boxes other that the Rolling Readers ones were suitable for use?
It's not about me.
My logic is that Oswald wanted the smaller Rolling Readers boxes to act as the gun rest.
-
It's not about me.
My logic is that Oswald wanted the smaller Rolling Readers boxes to act as the gun rest.
Your "logic" is nothing more than 100% self serving speculation that simply doesn't make any sense.
-
What also doesn't make sense is that Williams was on the 6th floor until roughly 12.20 / 12.25, which of course limits the time Oswald, or anybody else, had to go down several aisles away to get some boxes and thus risk being noticed.
So you think it's impossible that Oswald had already moved these particular boxes in place before Williams ever arrived up on the sixth floor?
Of course that's not impossible, but just because something isn't impossible doesn't mean it happened.
Agreed.
But you implied that "Oswald, or anybody else" couldn't have moved the boxes in place until once Williams left the sixth floor.
-
Your "logic" is nothing more than 100% self serving speculation that simply doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make sense that Oswald wanted the bigger box to sit on and the smaller Rolling Readers boxes (sitting atop one of the bigger boxes) to act as the gun rest?
You're not very open-minded.
-
Second, the method used in lifting the prints tells you that the prints were fairly recent (as opposed to prints being left on the boxes say a week earlier).
I am aware of that, Bill. Oswald could have touched those boxes earlier that morning or the day before. Having said that, the fact that prints on those boxes don't hold long doesn't explain why there wasn't a single print identified for all the TSBD employees [somebody build the sniper's nest, right?] and/or the law enforcement officers who were in and around the sniper's nest before Fritz, Day and Studebaker arrived. There are photos showing those men climbing all over stacks of boxes but in and around the sniper's nest they left not a single print, really?
May I see photos of law enforcement personnel climbing all over stacks of boxes in the sniper's nest?
I didn't say that they were climinng over stacks of boxes "in the sniper's nest". Nice try, though...
Yes, you kinda did.
-
Agreed.
But you implied that "Oswald, or anybody else" couldn't have moved the boxes in place until once Williams left the sixth floor.
I didn't imply anything. I just said that to me it doesn't make sense. That's all
-
I didn't imply anything. I just said that to me it doesn't make sense. That's all
Deny all you wish, but you implied it.
-
It doesn't make sense that Oswald wanted the bigger box to sit on and the smaller Rolling Readers boxes (sitting atop one of the bigger boxes) to act as the gun rest?
You're not very open-minded.
It doesn't make sense that Oswald wanted the bigger box to sit on and the smaller Rolling Readers boxes (sitting atop one of the bigger boxes) to act as the gun rest?
No, what doesn't make sense to me is that the assassin would go look for smaller boxes than those already near the sniper's nest. He wasn't decorating the place, was he now?
You're not very open-minded.
That's only true when you consider anybody who doesn't instantly agree with you as not having an open-mind. How about your own open-mindedness?
Yes, you kinda did.
If you say so... :D
Deny all you wish, but you implied it.
Again, if you say so.... it must be so, right? :D
But seriously, as I am the one who wrote it, I'm probably the best person who knows what I was saying, don't you think? It's not really my problem if you don't understand it or if you want to make something out of nothing.
-
Look.
Oswald walked three whole aisles (crazy, I know) to get two of the smaller Rolling Readers boxes to use as the gun rest in the sniper's nest. Oswald was the only employee who's prints were on those boxes and the prints were recent. The floor laying crew would have no reason to move those boxes since they were not over on the west end of the floor (like they did with the bigger boxes containing books). The two Rolling Readers boxes, being three aisles away from the sniper's nest, had no business in the sniper's nest other than to be used as a gun rest.
Whoever shot from up there most likely had the boxes in place before Bonnie Ray Williams arrived. So the point that Williams was up there until 12:20 or 12:25 (which itself is debatable) and therefore created an extra risk for the shooter to move boxes around AFTER Williams left, is most likely invalid.
There is no photographic evidence of law enforcement personnel climbing all over boxes in the sniper's nest, despite what has been claimed here in this thread.
-
Look.
Oswald walked three whole aisles (crazy, I know) to get two of the smaller Rolling Readers boxes to use as the gun rest in the sniper's nest. Oswald was the only employee who's prints were on those boxes and the prints were recent. The floor laying crew would have no reason to move those boxes since they were not over on the west end of the floor (like they did with the bigger boxes containing books). The two Rolling Readers boxes, being three aisles away from the sniper's nest, had no business in the sniper's nest other than to be used as a gun rest.
Whoever shot from up there most likely had the boxes in place before Bonnie Ray Williams arrived. So the point that Williams was up there until 12:20 or 12:25 (which itself is debatable) and therefore created an extra risk for the shooter to move boxes around AFTER Williams left, is most likely invalid.
There is no photographic evidence of law enforcement personnel climbing all over boxes in the sniper's nest, despite what has been claimed here in this thread.
Oswald walked three whole aisles (crazy, I know) to get two of the smaller Rolling Readers boxes to use as the gun rest in the sniper's nest.
Please show us the evidence for this claim.
Oswald was the only employee who's prints were on those boxes and the prints were recent.
Kinda strange in a warehouse where multiple employees were moving boxes on a daily bases, don't you think?
The floor laying crew would have no reason to move those boxes since they were not over on the west end of the floor (like they did with the bigger boxes containing books).
If you say so...
The two Rolling Readers boxes, being three aisles away from the sniper's nest, had no business in the sniper's nest other than to be used as a gun rest.
Again, if you say so. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Whoever shot from up there most likely had the boxes in place before Bonnie Ray Williams arrived. So the point that Williams was up there until 12:20 or 12:25 (which itself is debatable) and therefore created an extra risk for the shooter to move boxes around AFTER Williams left, is most likely invalid.
Most likely?
There is no photographic evidence of law enforcement personnel climbing all over boxes in the sniper's nest, despite what has been claimed here in this thread.
I never said there was...and I most certainly never claimed that in this thread. Why do you need to make this up?
-
Please cite this "indirect corroboration" from other witnesses for Oswald eating lunch at the time of the shooting. Surely, you're not meaning Carolyn Arnold since she didn't say anything about seeing Oswald at 12:30.
OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes.
(WR, p.613)
Yes, Arnold and other witnesses indirectly corroborated that Oswald came downstairs for lunch.
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize.
(WR, p.622)
James 'Junior' Jarman and Harold Norman entered TSBD together and walked past the Domino Room around 12:20. Oswald had to be in the vicinity of the Domino Room to know that.
If he acted alone, there's no way he could've known that Kennedy's motorcade was running a few minutes late. So why wasn't he on the sixth floor at that time?
-
Oswald was the only employee who's prints were on those boxes and the prints were recent.
Kinda strange in a warehouse where multiple employees were moving boxes on a daily bases, don't you think?
Not strange at all if Oswald was the only employee who touched those two boxes in the past couple days. Seriously, what don't you get about this?
-
OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes.
(WR, p.613)
Yes, Arnold and other witnesses indirectly corroborated that Oswald came downstairs for lunch.
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize.
(WR, p.622)
James 'Junior' Jarman and Harold Norman entered TSBD together and walked past the Domino Room around 12:20. Oswald had to be in the vicinity of the Domino Room to know that.
If he acted alone, there's no way he could've known that Kennedy's motorcade was running a few minutes late. So why wasn't he on the sixth floor at that time?
None of that is corroboration that Oswald was eating his lunch at the time of the shooting.
-
Not strange at all ifOswald was the only employee who touched those two boxes in the past couple days. Seriously, what don't you get about this?
"if"?
Btw, are you going to provide evidence for your claim that "Oswald walked three whole aisles (crazy, I know) to get two of the smaller Rolling Readers boxes to use as the gun rest in the sniper's nest."?
-
The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest.
There’s no evidence that the Rolling Readers boxes were “taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest”. Or that they were even used as a gun rest.
-
None of that is corroboration that Oswald was eating his lunch at the time of the shooting.
It's indirect corroboration for Oswald's claim that he came downstairs for lunch. And he had to have been down there as late as 12:15-12:20 if the witnesses were correct about the timeframes.
While it's possible that he went upstairs just minutes before the motorcade passed by, would that have been enough time for him to assemble the rifle and build the sniper's nest? All the while he couldn't have been aware that the motorcade was running late???
-------------------
OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes.
(WR, p.613)
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize.
(WR, p.622)
-
It's indirect corroboration for Oswald's claim that he came downstairs for lunch. And he had to have been down there as late as 12:15-12:20 if the witnesses were correct about the timeframes.
While it's possible that he went upstairs just minutes before the motorcade passed by, would that have been enough time for him to assemble the rifle and build the sniper's nest? All the while he couldn't have been aware that the motorcade was running late???
-------------------
OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes.
(WR, p.613)
OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize.
(WR, p.622)
OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon (This does not mean that he started eating his lunch at that time.....He merely said that he started his lunch break at approximately noon) and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room,( and while he was eating his lunch in the Domino room he saw Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walk by the lunch room. Jarman and Norman testified that they walked by the Domino room at approximately 12:26 ) however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. ( Lee Oswald was in fact in that second floor lunchroom at approximately 12:31, where DPD officer Marion Baker saw him and talked to him)
OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes.
(At the time that Captain Fritz asked Lee where he was when the President passed by the TSBD, Lee was simply telling Fritz where he was when JFK passed by...... He had not be accused of shooting JFK and in fact there is no evidence that he knew that JFK had been murdered at the time that Fritz asked him that question.)
-
I think William Manchester might have summed up LHO’s political view and suggested a motive when he wrote the following:
His subsequent movements became a matter of intense interest after his death, but after the chaff had been sifted only two significant facts remained: he had stumbled from failure to failure, and he had finally returned to Dallas, Texas.
Much of the later confusion was to arise from his political pretensions. Oswald liked to characterize himself as a Marxist. Really he hadn’t the ideals of a cat, and in his lucid moments he knew it. He was against democracy, Communism, the world. In an autobiographical sketch written before his return to America he acknowledged “a mean streak of indepence brought on by negleck,” and during his voyage home he wondered what would happen if somebody—obviously himself—would
“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 socially. I have heard and read of the resugent Americanism in the U.S., not the ultra-right type, but rather the polite, seemingly pointless Americanism expressed by such as the “American fore group” and the freedom foundation, and yet even in these vieled, formless, patriotic gestures, their is the obvious axe being underground by the invested intrests of the sponseres of there expensive undertaking. To where can I turn? to factional mutants of both systems, to odd-ball Hegelian idealists out of touch with reality religious groups, to revisinist or too abserd anarchism. No!”
His ravings stamp him as an incoherent hater, nothing more. Looking for doctrine in them is like looking for bone in a polyp.
-
Not strange at all if Oswald was the only employee who touched those two boxes in the past couple days. Seriously, what don't you get about this?
Oswald must have been the most unlucky guy in history that day according to the resident contrarians. He takes a singular trip for him on Thursday instead of the normal Friday to the location where his wife confirms he kept a rifle on the day before the assassination. He carries his lunch to work in bag over two feet long. He lies to Frazier about having his lunch that morning for some unknown reason. He just happens to be the only TSBD to leave his prints on the SN boxes and the long bag next to the SN. He is not in the presence of any other person at the moment of assassination and also declines to go out on the street to watch the motorcade even though he has read JFK's book and is likely the TSBD employee most interested in politics. Thus, he has no credible alibi. Then he decides to knock off for the day even after a cop pulls a gun on him without asking what is going on. It's off to the movies! But you need a gun for that. So he gets his pistol and (unlucky again!) he passes the scene of the only shooting of a DPD officer in a couple years on this way to the movies. And it gets worse. He looks so much like the shooter that multiple witnesses will ID him as the killer. Not only that but he just happens to have the same two brands of ammo as the killer! Then he pauses for a little window shopping and draws the attention of a busy body who works there. But now he catches a break. The ticket seller is not paying attention so Old Ozzie sneaks into the theater saving himself a dime. When the police approach him in the movie theatre, he does the logical thing instead of waiting to see what they want he attempts to kill them. HA HA HA. His rights are being violated so it's shooting time.
-
I think William Manchester might have summed up LHO’s political view and suggested a motive when he wrote the following:
The dude was only 23 years old and was married with two children. How many people view themselves as a "failure" at 23 years old? His life was just beginning. And going from being a dyslexic kid to mastering the Russian language is quite and accomplishment.
What social pressure existed to make him feel that way? He wasn't materialistic and doesn't seem to have been super concerned about money.
-
The dude was only 23 years old and was married with two children. How many people view themselves as a "failure" at 23 years old? His life was just beginning. And going from being a dyslexic kid to mastering the Russian language is quite and accomplishment.
What social pressure existed to make him feel that way? He wasn't materialistic and doesn't seem to have been super concerned about money.
How many people view themselves as a "failure" at 23 years old?
No one said that LHO considered himself a failure. Manchester said that he had “stumbled from failure to failure.”
-
How many people view themselves as a "failure" at 23 years old?
No one said that LHO considered himself a failure. Manchester said that he had “stumbled from failure to failure.”
As do most people before they "grow up" or mature emotionally. Not many people consider themselves "successful" at 23.
He seems to have had financial problems but they don't seem to have bothered him. Like if he really wanted to have a steady job and income, that was within his reach. He just chose to do some odd and inexplicable things in his short life. (Inexplicable outside of the context of his potentially being an intelligence asset).
-
The dude was only 23 years old and was married with two children. How many people view themselves as a "failure" at 23 years old? His life was just beginning. And going from being a dyslexic kid to mastering the Russian language is quite and accomplishment.
What social pressure existed to make him feel that way? He wasn't materialistic and doesn't seem to have been super concerned about money.
Oswald was 24, for what it's worth.
-
As do most people before they "grow up" or mature emotionally. Not many people consider themselves "successful" at 23.
He seems to have had financial problems but they don't seem to have bothered him. Like if he really wanted to have a steady job and income, that was within his reach. He just chose to do some odd and inexplicable things in his short life. (Inexplicable outside of the context of his potentially being an intelligence asset).
'As do most people before they "grow up" or mature emotionally'
_You do know that Mommy Dearest bathed him until he 'matured' at age 11, don't you..
-
Oswald was 24, for what it's worth.
And working at a dead end job - at $1.25 an hour (in today's dollars that minimum wage or less) - that had no possibilities of advancement. He kept getting fired, couldn't hold a manual job, got fired from the one job - the photography one - that he thought had potential. He defected to the USSR, came back, failed at everything he tried, tried to defect to Cuba. He entered the Marines in 1956 as a PFC and left three years later as a PFC. Wife, two kids who have to live apart from him because he couldn't provide for them. He's 24 not 18.
He wants to leave the US because he can't make it here. He's a failure by any measure - he speaks Russian? - but he blamed society, the US, the FBI, for it.
-
Shortly after being fired from the Reily Coffee Company due to poor work (as a greaser of the machines), Marina found him one evening in the kitchen sobbing in despair. He didn't know what they were going to do, where he was going to find work, money. This man is failing in life, failing to meet the basic needs of a man and a husband (remember Marina and Oswald had to live apart for long stretches):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9751073531/Keyboy80s6tuix4/sobs one.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9751073537/Key0olmg30n9qge/sobs two.JPG)
-
And working at a dead end job - at $1.25 an hour (in today's dollars that minimum wage or less) - that had no possibilities of advancement. He kept getting fired, couldn't hold a manual job, got fired from the one job - the photography one - that he thought had potential. He defected to the USSR, came back, failed at everything he tried, tried to defect to Cuba. He entered the Marines in 1956 as a PFC and left three years later as a PFC. Wife, two kids who have to live apart from him because he couldn't provide for them. He's 24 not 18.
He wants to leave the US because he can't make it here. He's a failure by any measure - he speaks Russian? - but he blamed society, the US, the FBI, for it.
he blamed society, the US
_Thanks for the support
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxxXZLX2/340-TUXEDO-AMERICA.png)
Bill Chapman
Dead Oswald Tour
-
he blamed society, the US
_Thanks for the support
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxxXZLX2/340-TUXEDO-AMERICA.png)
Bill Chapman
I set 'em up and you knock them down. Just as our masters at Langley instructed us.
-
I set 'em up and you knock them down. Just as our masters at Langley instructed us.
I knew that already because the WC told me so
and you obviously got that memo as well
-
Oswald must have been the most unlucky guy in history that day according to the resident contrarians. He takes a singular trip for him on Thursday instead of the normal Friday to the location where his wife confirms he kept a rifle on the day before the assassination. He carries his lunch to work in bag over two feet long. He lies to Frazier about having his lunch that morning for some unknown reason. He just happens to be the only TSBD to leave his prints on the SN boxes and the long bag next to the SN. He is not in the presence of any other person at the moment of assassination and also declines to go out on the street to watch the motorcade even though he has read JFK's book and is likely the TSBD employee most interested in politics. Thus, he has no credible alibi. Then he decides to knock off for the day even after a cop pulls a gun on him without asking what is going on. It's off to the movies!
There’s nothing “unlucky” about any of that. Only people who are hopelessly indoctrinated and incapable of independent thought consider any of these things to be evidence of murder.
But it does give you yet another chance to spew the same old tired and contrived narrative as if all of the claims in it are factual.
-
Shortly after being fired from the Reily Coffee Company due to poor work (as a greaser of the machines), Marina found him one evening in the kitchen sobbing in despair.
Looks like an excerpt from Priscilla Johnson McMillan‘s novel.
-
And working at a dead end job - at $1.25 an hour (in today's dollars that minimum wage or less) - that had no possibilities of advancement. He kept getting fired, couldn't hold a manual job, got fired from the one job - the photography one - that he thought had potential. He defected to the USSR, came back, failed at everything he tried, tried to defect to Cuba. He entered the Marines in 1956 as a PFC and left three years later as a PFC. Wife, two kids who have to live apart from him because he couldn't provide for them. He's 24 not 18.
He wants to leave the US because he can't make it here. He's a failure by any measure - he speaks Russian? - but he blamed society, the US, the FBI, for it.
He reportedly got a better paying job offer at the airport before taking the Book Depository job.
Why he chose to work that low paying job at the Book Depository, we don't know. But what evidence is there that he couldn't have gotten a better paying job?
How many Americans who were fluent in Russian language during the Cold War would be "unemployable"?
And again I ask, is it normal for someone to view themselves as a "failure" at such a young age? He didn't know he would be killed at 24.
It seems like you guys are projecting your own biases onto Oswald. Including the conservative implication that his being raised by a single mother somehow turned him into a sociopath. Being raised poor by a single parent isn't easy but 99% of people who grow up like that don't become violent criminals. So it looks like you guys are grasping at straws again...
-
Looks like an excerpt from Priscilla Johnson McMillan‘s novel.
Marina and Johnson's credibility problems don't ever get taken into consideration for some reason.
Johnson lied about her relationship with the CIA while she was alive (declassified docs proved that she had a relationship with the agency). Marina lied to the Warren Commission on a number of occasions.
-
Bill omitted the fact that everyone who knew Oswald personally said he liked JFK and agreed with Kennedy's pro-Civil Rights policies (unlike General Edwin Walker who was a bigot and pro-Segregation).
Even after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile crisis, LHO had a favorable opinion of JFK. That speaks volumes.
While it's fair to argue that Oswald had political motives for targeting Gen. Walker ("if" he targeted Walker), there is no evidence that LHO held a grudge towards JFK.
Bill omitted the fact that Oswald reportedly told Capt. Fritz that he didn't think Lyndon Johnson's policies towards Cuba would be different from Kennedy's.
Bill omitted the fact that LHO had no known friends who were Marxists. Nearly everyone whom he associated with was anti-communist. His Fair Play For Cuba organization was fake. There were no members. Oswald's real intentions for setting up the fake FPFC chapter remain ambiguous.
Lastly, politically motivated assassins and terrorists tend to take credit for their work. So it would be highly unusual for a political assassin or terrorist to deny responsibility if the act was motivated by politics.
His Fair Play For Cuba organization was fake. There were no members. Oswald's real intentions for setting up the fake FPFC chapter remain ambiguous.
It looks to me like Lee Oswald was trying to impress Castro., and win acceptance into Castro's Island bastion.... There can be no doubt that Lee Oswald was trying to win acceptance by Castro. Was it genuine or was it a scheme ? Based on his infiltration of the USSR in 1959 ( as an agent of the US Government ) I believe Lee's actions of forming the NO chapter of the FPFCC, and the distribution of pro Castro leaflets, as well as the radio debate, were all simply a scheme.....in a effort to win entry into Cuba.
We can discuss WHY Lee wanted to gain entry into Cuba later.......
-
He reportedly got a better paying job offer at the airport before taking the Book Depository job.
Why he chose to work that low paying job at the Book Depository, we don't know. But what evidence is there that he couldn't have gotten a better paying job?
How many Americans who were fluent in Russian language during the Cold War would be "unemployable"?
And again I ask, is it normal for someone to view themselves as a "failure" at such a young age? He didn't know he would be killed at 24.
It seems like you guys are projecting your own biases onto Oswald. Including the conservative implication that his being raised by a single mother somehow turned him into a sociopath. Being raised poor by a single parent isn't easy but 99% of people who grow up like that don't become violent criminals. So it looks like you guys are grasping at straws again...
How can you possibly let a sicko mother like that off the hook
-
I think William Manchester writes an interesting passage on page 86 of his book “Death of a President”:
The bleak truth was that he couldn’t do anything right. He hadn’t even been able to hold a job as a greaser of coffee machinery. Bit by bit the sickening truth was emerging: no one wanted him, no one had ever wanted him. He had sailed to the U.S.S.R. to escape his disappointments in his own country. Thwarted there, too, he had sailed back. The month before Truly employed him he had tried to run to Havana, which was on bad terms with both Moscow and Washington, but in Mexico City the Cubans wouldn’t even grant him a visa. By then Lee Harvey Oswald had become the most rejected man of his time. It is not too much to say that he was the diametric opposite of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Oswald was aware of this. Significantly, he attributed the President’s success to family wealth; as he saw it, Kennedy had had all the breaks. Like many delusions this one had a kernel of truth. The President was ten times a millionaire. But that was only one of a thousand differences between them. One man had almost everything and the other almost nothing. Kennedy, for example, was spectacularly handsome. Although Oswald’s voice hadn’t yet lost its adolescent tone, he was already balding, and he had the physique of a ferret. The President had been a brave officer during the war, and while strapped to a bed of convalescence he had written a book which won a Pulitzer Prize. Oswald’s record in the peacetime service had been disgraceful, and he was barely literate. As Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, Kennedy was all-powerful. Oswald was impotent. Kennedy was cheered, Oswald ignored. Kennedy was noble, Oswald ignoble. Kennedy was beloved, Oswald despised. Kennedy was a hero; Oswald was a victim.
Since childhood Oswald had been threatened by a specific mental disease, paranoia. In the end the paranoiac loses all sense of reality. He is overpowered by a monstrous feeling of personal resentment and a blind craving for revenge. No one can predict what will trigger the catastrophe in any given case. But we now know that the firestorm in Lee Oswald’s head ignited on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963.
Robert Oswald read Manchester’s book and only wrote about disagreeing with part of Manchester’s description of LHO’s funeral. So, it appears that Robert Oswald didn’t disagree with this assessment…
-
I think William Manchester writes an interesting passage on page 86 of his book “Death of a President”:
The bleak truth was that he couldn’t do anything right. He hadn’t even been able to hold a job as a greaser of coffee machinery. Bit by bit the sickening truth was emerging: no one wanted him, no one had ever wanted him. He had sailed to the U.S.S.R. to escape his disappointments in his own country. Thwarted there, too, he had sailed back. The month before Truly employed him he had tried to run to Havana, which was on bad terms with both Moscow and Washington, but in Mexico City the Cubans wouldn’t even grant him a visa. By then Lee Harvey Oswald had become the most rejected man of his time. It is not too much to say that he was the diametric opposite of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Oswald was aware of this. Significantly, he attributed the President’s success to family wealth; as he saw it, Kennedy had had all the breaks. Like many delusions this one had a kernel of truth. The President was ten times a millionaire. But that was only one of a thousand differences between them. One man had almost everything and the other almost nothing. Kennedy, for example, was spectacularly handsome. Although Oswald’s voice hadn’t yet lost its adolescent tone, he was already balding, and he had the physique of a ferret. The President had been a brave officer during the war, and while strapped to a bed of convalescence he had written a book which won a Pulitzer Prize. Oswald’s record in the peacetime service had been disgraceful, and he was barely literate. As Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, Kennedy was all-powerful. Oswald was impotent. Kennedy was cheered, Oswald ignored. Kennedy was noble, Oswald ignoble. Kennedy was beloved, Oswald despised. Kennedy was a hero; Oswald was a victim.
Since childhood Oswald had been threatened by a specific mental disease, paranoia. In the end the paranoiac loses all sense of reality. He is overpowered by a monstrous feeling of personal resentment and a blind craving for revenge. No one can predict what will trigger the catastrophe in any given case. But we now know that the firestorm in Lee Oswald’s head ignited on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963.
Robert Oswald read Manchester’s book and only wrote about disagreeing with part of Manchester’s description of LHO’s funeral. So, it appears that Robert Oswald didn’t disagree with this assessment…
Persecution complex, paranoia...the same general "The world is out to get me" view. His mother held the same sort of view. It's one that, again, I think Marxism made clearer to him, filled in the details. That view divides the world between oppressor and oppressed, the capitalist owners and the ordinary workers. Oswald was one of the latter. But he also mocked the workers, viewed them as dumb and ignorant and unable to see how they were exploited. Thus the loner behavior.
What is remarkable, as I said elsewhere, is the conspiracy believers think we are insane. Or incredibly stupid. We don't see that this was all an act, a "history" created by the powerful government, this powerful "they" that can do almost anything. All of this evidence of the man is really a lie that we fall for. The radical views he held when 16 and 17 before joining the Marines? All acts. The defection? Faked. The pro-Castro work? His legend and acts directed by his handlers - Joannides or Phillips or DeMohrenschildt or someone.
-
How can you possibly let a sicko mother like that off the hook
Oswald was murdered. How is getting murdered being "let off the hook"?
-
Persecution complex, paranoia...the same general "The world is out to get me" view. His mother held the same sort of view. It's one that, again, I think Marxism made clearer to him, filled in the details. That view divides the world between oppressor and oppressed, the capitalist owners and the ordinary workers. Oswald was one of the latter. But he also mocked the workers, viewed them as dumb and ignorant and unable to see how they were exploited. Thus the loner behavior.
I think "contrarian" is a better description of Oswald's personality and his contradictory views.
Contrarian: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
And his brother Robert basically said something along the lines of Lee wanting to be "different" and viewing Marxism as a way to achieve that.
What would have been the appeal to him about something like Marxism?
The appeal to Lee of something like that Marxism, communism, socialism, would be something unique, something different — not [an] everyday occurrence.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-robert-oswald/
-
What is remarkable, as I said elsewhere, is the conspiracy believers think we are insane. Or incredibly stupid. We don't see that this was all an act, a "history" created by the powerful government, this powerful "they" that can do almost anything. All of this evidence of the man is really a lie that we fall for.
“All of this evidence”. LOL.
-
I think "contrarian" is a better description of Oswald's personality and his contradictory views.
Contrarian: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
And his brother Robert basically said something along the lines of Lee wanting to be "different" and viewing Marxism as a way to achieve that.
What would have been the appeal to him about something like Marxism?
The appeal to Lee of something like that Marxism, communism, socialism, would be something unique, something different — not [an] everyday occurrence.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-robert-oswald/
And his brother Robert basically said something along the lines of Lee wanting to be "different" and viewing Marxism as a way to achieve that.
You may recall that Lee talked to his brother on Saturday and told Robert that he shouldn't believe the news accounts of the assassination.... Because there were "things " going on behind the scenes that he could talk about.... That must really have alarmed the eavesdroppers who heard him tell Robert not to believe the BS that was being presented in News reports, because Lee was shot to death less that 24 hours after he told Robert.