Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Why did Oswald go get his revolver?
« Last post by Lance Payette on May 30, 2026, 07:29:08 PM »
Quote from: Zeon Mason on May 30, 2026, 07:12:42 PM
So Oswald using a fake alias name he had used in the USSR and listing that name as an alternate for his own real name P.O. Box and mail ordering a rifle using that fake name and listing that P.O. Box as the address to  send the rifle…was because …

A.He was naturally as Stupid as a box of rocks
B.He was aware of how stupid he was acting but he did not care because he was having marriage problems with Marina even before he became fixated on Walker. It was Oswald’s attempt to shock Marina into paying attention to him.
C. He was mentally disturbed from all the way back to his childhood and so it’s not unexpected that he could be this stupid.
D. He was a schizophrenic and Alek Hidell was his other personality.

There, I think that about covers the LN possible reasons for what appears to be incredibly stupid decisions made by Oswald.

Now any CTs still on this forum, please feel free to criticize those above listed reasons and list some alternative possibilities that are more plausible.

All I know is that in Arizona, and I'm sure in Texas, half the ads in the sporting goods classifeid section of the newspaper were for guns. Buying a gun was no more complex than having the cash and meeting the seller at a mutually convenient location. Almost 15 years after the JFKA, I bought a pristine Remington 30-06 with a very nice 4X Weaver scope for $75. I had no idea who the seller was, he had no idea who I was, no questions asked. In the space of 24 hours before the assassination, Oswald could have had his hands on a far more plausible assassination rifle, completely untraceable to him. It would be interesting to look at the classified sections of the Dallas newspapers for the couple of days before the JFKA.
72
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The JFKA As A Whodunnit
« Last post by Zeon Mason on May 30, 2026, 07:27:37 PM »
In 1978, Oswald would  likely have been found not guilty.
In 1988, Oswald would likely be found guilty
In 1998 Oswald would likely be found not guilty after the Stone movie JFK and the early beginning of internet when the Z film was being seeing by millions of people for the 1st time.
In 2008, Oswald may have been found guilty because of the Beyond Conspiracy documentary and Dale Myers computer skills.
In 2016  Oswald would likely be considered a patsy set up by the Deep State globalists from the Alex Jones Infowars influence. Likely found not guilty by reason of insanity.
In 2026, the jury would be deadlocked due to smart phone AI consultation.

😆
73
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by Lance Payette on May 30, 2026, 07:18:09 PM »
Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on May 30, 2026, 05:25:39 PM
That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.

Philosophically, "free will" is far from a simple concept, complex enough that even the existence of free will is hotly debated in both philosophy and science. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

For purposes of the criminal justice system, we at least have to pretend it exists or no one would be held accountable for anything. However, the insanity defense - which used to require the defendant to be a "wild animal" (the actual terminology) who couldn't understand right from wrong - has now been so watered down that it sometimes seems we are on the verge of no one being held accountable for anything. (There is an interesting question: What psychological defenses would be argued if Oswald were tried today?)

To have empathy for Oswald doesn't require one to think he was a good guy. Empathy is "the ability to understand, share, and recognize the feelings and perspectives of another person." I think I can do this to a large extent with Oswald without thinking he was a good guy. As stated, he was intelligent and idealistic. He could have been steered in positive directions. Ernst Titovets and George de Mohrenschildt, neither of whom was an uncultured dummy, enjoyed his company. But he went off the rails. Some of it was undoubtedly his genetic predisposition, some of it was poverty and circumstances, some of it anger and frustration at his circumstances, some of it just poor choices on his part. This is why it is so difficult to articulate a plausible reason why he would have killed JFK.

Empathy is in the vein of the old saying "There but for the grace of God goes I." Put me in the exact circumstances of Oswald, and I'm not sure I would have turned out much different - possibly not murdering JFK, but easily drifting into pretty serious crime and antisocial behavior.

The venom spewed toward Oswald by people like John is simply beyond me. To be a good little LN soldier, am I required to hate Oswald with every fiber of my being?

It seems to me there is predisposition to make Oswald far more of an "evil monster" than he was because it makes it easier to fit him into the LN narrative. The actual Oswald may fit, but not so easily.
74
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Why did Oswald go get his revolver?
« Last post by Zeon Mason on May 30, 2026, 07:12:42 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on May 30, 2026, 11:20:55 AM
If Oswald had a specific purpose in mind when he ordered the rifle, it was probably General Walker. Killing JFK was a crime of opportunity. I doubt the thought even crossed his mind until he read JFK's motorcade was going to pass right in front of his workplace.

So Oswald using a fake alias name he had used in the USSR and listing that name as an alternate for his own real name P.O. Box and mail ordering a rifle using that fake name and listing that P.O. Box as the address to  send the rifle…was because …

A.He was naturally as Stupid as a box of rocks
B.He was aware of how stupid he was acting but he did not care because he was having marriage problems with Marina even before he became fixated on Walker. It was Oswald’s attempt to shock Marina into paying attention to him.
C. He was mentally disturbed from all the way back to his childhood and so it’s not unexpected that he could be this stupid.
D. He was a schizophrenic and Alek Hidell was his other personality.

There, I think that about covers the LN possible reasons for what appears to be incredibly stupid decisions made by Oswald.

Now any CTs still on this forum, please feel free to criticize those above listed reasons and list some alternative possibilities that are more plausible.
75
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The JFKA As A Whodunnit
« Last post by Lance Payette on May 30, 2026, 06:46:59 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on May 30, 2026, 02:55:43 PM
Can you cite another case in which an individual was given separate trials for two murders committed a short time apart and in close proximity to each other. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here. I've just never heard of such a case. I'm going from memory hear, but I believe Charles Manson and family were given a single trial for the the Tate and Labianca murders committed on separate nights. I didn't remember this but when I looked it up there were two other murders committed the previous month that Manson and his family were tried and convicted for. The spree has usually been called the Tate-Labianca  murders, ignoring the first two victims.
It's impossible to really say. OJ was tried for both murders, but they were at the same scene at the same time. I would think that in Oswald's case if he were tried for JFK first the judge would allow evidence up to and including his visit to the room on Beckley and getting his revolver, as well as his arrest in the theater. Overlapping the two cases would be highly prejudicial to Oswald in the JFK case unless he had been convicted of the Tippit murder. I believe a judge would be extremely careful about not allowing that to happen. The most straightforward way would be to try him for Tippit first. AI agrees with me, which i'm not sure I should find comforting: "Under Texas criminal procedure, a defendant must be tried separately for each distinct, unrelated offense unless the charges stem from the exact same criminal act (e.g., a single bomb that kills two people). Because the Tippit shooting and the Kennedy assassination were two separate events involving different victims at different locations, they would have required two distinct trials."

Like it or not, the criminal justice system exists to protect the accused. The deck is heavily stacked in favor of the accused in almost every way. In the hands of a really skillful criminal defense team, Oswald's trial likely would have looked far different from how most LNers picture it looking - and the outcome, IMO, would have been far less certain.
76
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by Lance Payette on May 30, 2026, 06:27:51 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on May 30, 2026, 03:01:16 PM
Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.

You are the one who said he "wanted notoriety." He prepared anticipated reporters' questions and his answers before arriving back in the U.S. from Russia. He spent money to have his "historical diary" typed up (at least $10 worth). He spent considerable time on his "Athenian system" manuscript. He had FPCC materials printed up and handed out Corliss Lamont's booklets. He was eager to appear on radio on behalf of the FPCC. He at least left a note before the Walker attempt.

But the JFKA, supposedly the "crowning notoriety" of his life? NOTHING. Nothing before, nothing after.

I don't think that's a red herring. I think that's a legitimate puzzle.
77
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on May 30, 2026, 05:25:39 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on May 30, 2026, 11:38:46 AM
Lot's of people come from broken homes and unhappy childhoods. Most of them do not assassinate Presidents. I don't care what problems Oswald faced during his life, he chose to become an assassin and a cop killer. He deserved what he got and wouldn't have if not for Jack Ruby. Even though Oswald probably expected he would be sentenced to death, I doubt he even cared. I'll bet he was looking forward to the notoriety he would receive for what he did. He was finally going to be somebody important. Jack Ruby robbed him of that. Thanks, Jack.

Empathy for Oswald? I feel more empathy when I swat a fly.
Oswald had agency, made his decisions (however limited they were) on his own, they weren't forced on him. He had two brothers who also grew up in the same (roughly) environment. They turned out not only to not be bad men they turned out to be good ones.

He disgraces himself in the Marines (among other things twice court-martialed), he defects to the Soviet Union and tells his family to get lost but then asks for help when he needs them. He brutally beats Marina. He prevents her from learning English so that she's dependent on him. He tries to kill Walker and in doing so would abandon his family on their own. He then tries to defect to Cuba and again is abandoning his family including a seven months pregnant Marina (he told Marina to find her way to Cuba on her own). Instead of providing for him family he thinks he's some type of historic figure. Then of course he kills JFK. And a police officer. Both men with families and small children.

That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.

So who or what "forced" him to do this (from "Marina and Lee")?


78
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by Jarrett Smith on May 30, 2026, 03:59:50 PM »
At 24 years of age why would Oswald want to spend the next 60+ years behind bars?
79
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by John Corbett on May 30, 2026, 03:01:16 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on May 30, 2026, 01:15:34 PM
DELLA: Minor problem, Perry. That doesn't fit ANYTHING he said or did. No manifesto. No note. No hint in custody. Nada, zilch. Is this a problem, Perry?

MASON: Not at all, Della. Give me a week or so to think about it.

DELLA: Possibly, Perry, he was saving it all for a theatrical trial in which he would at last strut his stuff?

MASON: Nice work, Della. I like it.

DELLA: And yet, Perry, the operation was so fraught with risk that he couldn't reasonably have expected to survive for a trial. Is this a problem, Perry?

MASON: Not at all, Della. Shirley was actually Ted in a latex mask, the dog actually belonged to Bob, and it all stemmed from a confrontation between Shirley and Babs on a summer vacation in Istanbul back in college.

DELLA and DRAKE (in unison): Genius, Perry.

Roll the credits.

One of the psychological explanations for elaborate conspiracy theories is that believers need an assassination worthy of JFK, not a one-off by some "little commie punk" (Jackie).

John seems to be the mirror image of this: to be worthy of JFK, Oswald had to be an "evil monster," the Worst Person In the World.

Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.
80
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The JFKA As A Whodunnit
« Last post by John Corbett on May 30, 2026, 02:55:43 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on May 30, 2026, 01:13:13 PM
In my humble opinion, in the real world the murders would have required bifurcated trials. It would be extremely prejudicial to Oswald and confusing as hell to have them at the same time. What an absolute mess if the jury had convicted him of Tippit and acquitted him of JFK! With Gacy, the crimes weren't connected - one wasn't supposedly showing consciousness of guilt of the other.

Speaking of Sirhan, Jim DiEugenio approvingly posted today Lisa Pease's diatribe against the LA Times for a program about the RFK murder, about which I know nothing other than that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it:


Can you cite another case in which an individual was given separate trials for two murders committed a short time apart and in close proximity to each other. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here. I've just never heard of such a case. I'm going from memory hear, but I believe Charles Manson and family were given a single trial for the the Tate and Labianca murders committed on separate nights. I didn't remember this but when I looked it up there were two other murders committed the previous month that Manson and his family were tried and convicted for. The spree has usually been called the Tate-Labianca  murders, ignoring the first two victims.

Nothing reveals the conspiracy mindset better than Sirhan's murder of RFK. He shot RFK and several other people in a crowded pantry infront of numerous witnesses and there are still people who insist he wasn't the lone gunman. They point to the factoid that there were more bullet holes than Sirhan's gun held (8). This ignores the fact that a single bullet can make multiple strikes. The pantry had a drop ceiling with a concrete ceiling about it. A bullet could bounce off the concrete ceiling and come back through the drop ceiling. There is also some question as to whether some of the marks were actually bullet holes.

Another argument for a second gunman is that the head shot was fired at almost point blank range and witnesses (you gotta love 'em) said Sirhan never got closer than 3 feet from RFK with his gun. This begs the obvious question whether those witnesses saw another gunman fire a point blank shot into RFK's head. That means whoever fired the shot got close enough to RFK to shoot him at point blank without the witnesses seeing that shot. Given the other testimony, a reasonable reconstruction is that Sirhan fired the first shot into RFK's head before anyone was observing him. He was quickly push back but continued firing over the shoulders of his subduers. By the time the various witnesses turned toward the sound of the gunfire, Sirhan had been pushed back away from RFK.

In 1968, the Secret Service did not provide protection for presidential candidates. The RFK campaign employed form Olympic gold medal decathlete Rafer Johnson and form Rams/Giants defensive tackle Rosey Grier to be RFK's body guards. It was Grier who wrestled the gun from Sirhan's hand but not before he had enptied the gun into the crowd.

Ironically, Vincent Bugliosi was an early CT when it came to the RFKA. He was one who believed there were more than 8 shots fired. The source materials I found seem to suggest Bugliosi may have had a change of mind later but didn't say so explicitly.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10