JFK Assassination Forum

No president in the history of the country was elected by popular vote.  All but two were elected via the electoral college. Two were elected by the House of Representatives. This is what our Constitution specifies. The popular vote does not matter. Never has.. Never will.

The Democrats who think Hillary deserved to be POTUS apparently the Democrats fail to grasp the rules of the game. Football games are won by the team that scores the most points. They are not won by the teem that gains the most yards or the most first downs. Likewise, US presidential elections are won by the candidate tat gets a majority of electoral college votes, not the candidate that gets the most popular votes.

Hillary's campaign strategy made no sense. She wasted time and money trying to win Arizona and Uta. states she didn't need and had little chance of winning. She all but ignored the vital states of Wisconsin and Michigan, states she couldn't afford to lose.

Yes, the electoral college was a stroke of absolute genius. Yet I have highly intelligent friends who have no clue as to the rationale for the electoral college and think it's "unfair" that the election isn't decided by popular vote.

I believe 100% it was a mob hit, and yes Oswald was involved and killed Tippit. The problem with most CT's they believe Oswald was setup and 100% innocent. They are dead wrong.

That is definitely a source of confusion, with the CT community comprising those who think (1) Oswald was a totally innocent patsy; (2) Oswald was involved but not a gunman; (3) Oswald was a lone gunman but part of a conspiracy; and (4) Oswald was one of two or more gunmen. What they each do with the evidence and try to prove is completely different - hence my term "hopeless mishmash."

LP--

That LHO had high IQ seems established, but he also may have been mentally ill.

Hard to estimate what such a man would do or plan, in such unusual circumstances.

Possibly, LHO expected a ride away from the TSBD, a ride that did not materialize, for many reasons, including traffic.

LHO's immediate escape plan from the TSBD seemed good enough and actually worked. He ran down the back stairs quickly and feigned innocence.

An interesting question is why LHO hid the M-C carbine or short rifle rather than leave it in situ. Maybe LHO thought that would buy him time in terms of minutes or hours, but not much longer than that. That indicates he expected to be able to escape the country, possibly on 11.22 or 11.23. But again, LHO was mentally troubled, in may layman's assessment, so who knows what he was thinking.

The JFKAC was likely a shoestring, ad hoc op. Like the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot up the US Capitol, or who tried to assassinate Truman, the JFKA perps may have seen Job 1 as the act, and Job 2 as escaping. They may have had little money, and few, in any, institutional resources. But they were zealots.

I am confident the JFKA, including the GK smoke-and-bang show, required more than a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt action rifle. The "bang...bang-bang" cadence alone makes the SBT LNT theorizing...well, those theories require a suspension of disbelief.





 

Dear Sonderführer Storing,

8 November 2016:

Hillary Clinton: 65,853,514 votes (48.18%)
Donald Trump: 62,984,828 votes (46.09%)

-- Tom

No president in the history of the country was elected by popular vote.  All but two were elected via the electoral college. Two were elected by the House of Representatives. This is what our Constitution specifies. The popular vote does not matter. Never has.. Never will.

The Democrats who think Hillary deserved to be POTUS apparently the Democrats fail to grasp the rules of the game. Football games are won by the team that scores the most points. They are not won by the teem that gains the most yards or the most first downs. Likewise, US presidential elections are won by the candidate tat gets a majority of electoral college votes, not the candidate that gets the most popular votes.

Hillary's campaign strategy made no sense. She wasted time and money trying to win Arizona and Uta. states she didn't need and had little chance of winning. She all but ignored the vital states of Wisconsin and Michigan, states she couldn't afford to lose.

So, perhaps Oswald put two and two together (whatever those two's were) when Baker pointed his gun at him and he simply got a hunch and wanted to clear it up, by leaving the TSBD as fast as he could and go to that person. In such a scenario it would be surprising that he first went to pick up his revolver, just to be on the safe side.

But then we bump up against the Tippit murder, which is presumably why Belin called it the Rosetta Stone of the JFKA. The Tippit murder seemingly flies in the face of any theory that Oswald was an escaping patsy who got his revolver for protection. The two CT gambits here are, of course, either that Oswald didn't kill Tippit at all or that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy that had framed him and shot Tippit before Tippit shot him.

But then we bump up against the Texas Theater. Here, the CT gambit is that what supposedly took place inside the theater is not what actually took place. (I do find Oswald's protests about "I'm not resisting arrest!" kind of odd if he had actually pulled his gun on McDonald.)

I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.

I don't think I've said that you did

No big deal, but you did say "If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?"

Personally, I think it is possible that Oswald used to curtain rods story as an excuse in order to avoid telling a 19 year old co-worker that he was really going to try and safe his marriage.

Yes, that has occurred to me.

I can't really figure out why anybody would come up with the idea to construct a bag when there were all sorts of other options available.

I've repeatedly said the same thing. It's not impossible, but it's certainly odd.

In further response to John's complaint that I'm overthinking things, I would again point out that Oswald's behavior is evidence, regardless of what he was thinking. Every lawyer knows you need some "theory of the case" to give context to what you present to the jury. I believe Oswald's behavior would be the foundation of a defense theory of the case and might go a long way toward creating reasonable doubt.

Did he ever say or write anything suggesting animosity toward JFK? No.

In the days leading up to the JFKA, and particularly the night before in Irving, did he act like a man who was planning a Presidential assassination or give any clue that he was? No.

The morning of the JFKA, did he exhibit unusual behavior? No.

Two minutes after the JFKA, did he act like a man who had just shot the President? No.

Was this demeanor consistent with the way Oswald acted in other stressful situations? No.

In that context, the various holes that CTers try to poke in the Dealey Plaza evidence would likely carry more weight toward convincing a jury he was a mere patsy than they would without such context. Even to me, Oswald's behavior is the most troubling aspect of the LN narrative.

But then, alas for Oswald, we bump up against Tippit, the Texas Theater and his behavior in custody - and the innocent patsy argument becomes a tough sell.