JFK Assassination Forum

The Hitler comparison mystifies me.  Hitler had two primary political objectives.  Eliminating the Jews and obtaining land in Eastern Europe for colonization.  Hiter murdered millions of Jews.  Trump has a Jewish daughter, grandchildren, and is a strong advocate for Israel.  So much so that anti-Semite liberals who have much more in common with Hitler than Trump often criticize him for it.  Can you imagine Hitler being awarded the Israel Prize?  Such a profound ignorance of history under the guise of politics is pathetic and offensive:

"US President Donald Trump was awarded the Israel Prize, the country’s highest honor, at the annual Independence Day ceremony in Jerusalem on Wednesday.

At Wednesday’s ceremony, Kisch said Trump has been a true friend of the Jewish people and Israel for decades, standing uncompromisingly against manifestations of antisemitism.”

Trump was informed in December by Education Minister Yoav Kisch that he would be awarded the prize in the category of “special contribution to the Jewish people.”

Kisch signed an Israel Prize certificate in honor of the US president on Tuesday, declaring in a video sent to the press that he didn’t think there was “any other person who can mark such amazing achievements and a wonderful connection to the Jewish people except for Trump at this time.”

“His name will be remembered in the annals of our people,” he declared."

Dear Herr Smith.

You're right.

Mussolini is more apt.

My bad.

-- Tom

Anytime we ask ourselves what Oswald was thinking at any given time, we are speculating because he was the only one who knew and he took those secrets to his grave. If you believe in a hereafter and you go to the hot place, maybe you can ask him.

Obviously his decision to kill JFK was not done on the spur of the moment. That took planning and preparation. He made the bag for concealing the gun on Thursday at the latest. His traveling to Irving on a Thursday rather than his normal weekend trip is an indication he went there to fetch his rifle. Had the case gone to trial, those facts would have been used to establish premeditation.

His actions post assassination are another matter. We have no idea what he was thinking from that point on. He probably knew he would be the subject of a manhunt and his decision to get his gun might well have been to arm himself against a cop(s). The fact he killed the first cop who encountered him and tried to kill the second is a strong indication he didn't intend to be taken alive. The cops would have been legally justified in killing him in the theater but chose instead to act with restraint. Did he have a destination in mind? Who knows but with only $13 in his pocket, he wasn't likely to get far. Maybe he would have held up a bank or a liquor store to get more cash. Who knows but it's fun to speculate about, just as it is fun to speculate about his motive for killing JFK.

$13 in 1963 was quite a bit of money, the equivalent of $141 today.

As for your other comments, I recommend you read two articles:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view?usp=sharing

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing

In my experience, many JFK CTers view the evidence against Oswald in a vacuum.  Each individual piece of evidence is addressed without regard to other evidence and circumstances.  Oswald's bag is a great example.  Frazier confirms Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  He indicates that Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Frazier asked Oswald about his lunch and was told he didn't bring it that day.  A long bag was found in the TSBD that had Oswald's prints on it.   No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denied that he carried any bag such as Frazier described when he claimed he took only his lunch.  He denied carrying any curtain rods.  Entirely contrary to what Frazier described including Oswald confirming to him that he did not have his lunch and instead having curtain rods.  But because Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag is off by several inches, they ignore the totality of these circumstances to conclude that the 6th floor bag is not the same one Oswald carried to work.  What happened to the bag they believe he carried as described by Frazier is never addressed.  Why Oswald lied to Frazier about his lunch and the curtain rods is not addressed.  And so forth.  Repeat endlessly.

I have made a similar point numerous times over the years. No single piece of evidence, by itself, proves Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For any given piece of evidence there is a probable explanation and one or more less likely explanation that are theoretically possible. The problem for the Oswald defenders, the probable explanation always points to Oswald. Yes, he was the owner of the murder weapon but theoretically, somebody else could have gotten possession of the weapon by hook or by crook, and used it to kill JFK. But the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle seem to refute that possibility. Again, the probable explanation is that Oswald was the shooter. The far less likely explanation is the person who got possession of Oswald's rifle was wearing the same kind of shirt as Oswald when he fired the shots. The odds of that are extremely remote if it happened by coincidence. If it was deliberate by the conspirators, how did they know which shirt Oswald was going to wear to work that day. Or maybe they had a whole closetful of duplicate Oswald shirts and just picked out the one they saw Oswald wearing that morning. Does anyone think that is even plausible. There are dozens of such pieces of evidence which are probative of Oswald's guilt. It strains credulity to think the least likely explanation is the correct one for each of those dozens of pieces of evidence.

For sake of argument, let's say each piece of evidence is only 75% probative of Oswald's guilt. I happen to think it is significantly higher for most of the evidence, but just for his exercise let's go with the 75% value. If one were to cut a deck of playing cards, there is a 75% chance one would not cut to a spade. That means there is a 1 in 4 chance one would cut to a spade. If one cuts the cards twice, there is only a 1 in 16 chance of cutting to a spade on both cuts. If one cuts the cards three times, there is only a 1 in 64 chance of cutting to a spade on all three. Each successive cut of the cards multiplies the chances against cutting to a spade every time by a factor of 4. The odds of cutting to a spade on 10 successive cuts would become astronomical. To believe we could have so many pieces of evidence where the likeliest explanation is Oswald was guilty is not remotely possible if he were actually innocent.

This is why CTs always attack the evidence piecemeal. They can offer a plausible argument for Oswald's innocence by looking at any one piece, but there is no plausible argument for his innocence if one looks at the body of evidence as a whole. Each piece of evidence strengthens every other piece of evidence to the point where there is no possibility of Oswald's innocence. If one takes a single pencil, it's very easy to break it with your bare hands. Put 12 pencils together it becomes very dffiicult to break them. This is why CTs will never try to break more than one pencil at a time.

It's 2-3? minutes after the "event" that took place outside the building where he works. He's having lunch, hears this commotion outside, a police officer confronts him and lets him go, someone says the President was shot or maybe not. This is all he knows.

So he goes outside, sees this absolute chaos taking place, police running around with guns drawn, people yelling and screaming. Many people are going to the grassy knoll, the fence, the overpass. Some say the President was shot. Others say otherwise. It's all confusion.

From this limited information the innocent Oswald determines he's being framed? For what exactly? How can he be framed? He's having lunch. He doesn't know where the shots came from. 

Moreover, during his journey from work to the rooming house he never inquires about what happened. He doesn't talk to any co-workers, he shows no interest in learning about what happened, he ignores the TV that is on as he goes to his room, he doesn't ask Roberts about any news. For a guy thinking he's being framed he sure doesn't want to find out anything that might help exonerate him. Not exactly a Richard Kimble here looking for a one armed shooter.

The very political Oswald shows no interest at all in what happened. In this world, none of this makes sense. In Oswald defender world it's all assumptions and suppositions.

As in the lunchroom encounter with Baker, Oswald seems to have been in a weird dissociative state. With Baker, Whaley and Roberts, it would seem that feigned astonishment would have served his interests: "What? The President was shot? What happened? I was eating lunch and missed the whole thing." With Roberts and Whaley, he might even have asked questions that would have aided his escape: "Do they know who did it? Have they captured anyone?" Instead, literally nothing. But then in the theater and in custody, he snaps out of it and is the typical Oswald. Very odd, or at least it seems so to me.

The Baker encounter is really bizarre. Baker rushes into the building in search of a suspect. He encounters this zombie in the lunchroom who seems oblivious to everything that has happened and doesn't even ask "What's this all about?" when a gun is stuck in his stomach. Then Baker just blithely accepts Truly's word that the zombie works in the building, as though someone who works in the building couldn't still be a suspect. That might be plausible if the zombie were sitting at a table munching on a sandwich and reading a newspaper, but under the circumstances the whole thing seems bizarre to me.

In my experience, many JFK CTers view the evidence against Oswald in a vacuum.  Each individual piece of evidence is addressed without regard to other evidence and circumstances.  Oswald's bag is a great example.  Frazier confirms Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  He indicates that Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Frazier asked Oswald about his lunch and was told he didn't bring it that day.  A long bag was found in the TSBD that had Oswald's prints on it.   No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denied that he carried any bag such as Frazier described when he claimed he took only his lunch.  He denied carrying any curtain rods.  Entirely contrary to what Frazier described including Oswald confirming to him that he did not have his lunch and instead having curtain rods.  But because Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag is off by several inches, they ignore the totality of these circumstances to conclude that the 6th floor bag is not the same one Oswald carried to work.  What happened to the bag they believe he carried as described by Frazier is never addressed.  Why Oswald lied to Frazier about his lunch and the curtain rods is not addressed.  And so forth.  Repeat endlessly.