Recent Posts
Example of CTer logic. Ignore the overwhelming evidence linking Oswald to the crime.
The late Robert Oswald (he died last December), Lee's brother, on the assassination, and his brother: “It is my belief, my conviction, no one but Lee was involved - period.....
Further: "People need to look at what transpired before [the assassination]. Everything – you’ve got to come all the way from childhood on up and especially that last year of his life, and understand what transpired in his life. He was a lonely boy, needing attention but not getting it.“ [In 1963], he had problems at home, he had problems on his job, he was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This is not excusing what he did, this is understanding what he did. He wanted to be somebody and this opportunity came about coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothing organized. It happened that way. It’s one of those happenstances of history.”
I think Robert's comment about his brother's life in 1963, that last year, is particularly instructive. Oswald's life was completely unraveling. When the Cubans rejected him - after he spent that summer working on Castro's behalf - he was stunned. His reaction at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City where, according to the KGB agents who met him over two days, was one of a desperate broken person.
Where was he going to go? What was he going to do? Fill orders for $1.25 an hour for the rest of his life? He hated the US, hated the Soviet Union and was now turned down by the Cubans. He had no other options left.
Mark, you're trying to reason with fanatics, with people who are unwilling or incapable of thinking fairly and logically.
They've been asked before what type/amount of evidence would be needed to show, for example, that Oswald owned the rifle used to kill JFK. They won't answer it.
No amount of evidence would be sufficient. If we had 100 people saying they saw Oswald with the rifle they would say prove it was THAT rifle. If Oswald was filmed with that rifle - and it was identified as the rifle - they would say the film is faked or the identification was wrong. If Oswald was caught with the rifle they would say prove he used THAT rifle to kill JFK. Or the rifle was planted.
Not all nuts are assassins but most assassins are nuts. Oswald was clearly a few fries short of a happy meal. It is going down the CTer rabbit hole, however, to use his mental state as a means of proving guilt since there is no conclusive way to demonstrate any connection.
The rifle is the definitive piece of evidence in this case. It is linked to Oswald and the assassination.
There is no good work around for that for CTers except preposterous theories that involve dozens of folks from different walks of life all somehow conspiring to link Oswald to the rifle.
Including old Lee himself since he helpfully posed for photos with it,
carried a false ID in the same alias as used to purchase it,
put his prints on it,
and made an unexpected visit to the location where he kept it the night before the assassination
Why are you trying to distract from the issue that you raised with this kind of rambling political nonsense? How about you provide some of these "details" from your "research." The details that you have thus far failed to provide. You are implying that Powell's actions were sinister but haven't provided or even speculated with a CTer's wild penchant for fantasy what his sinister role was in taking some pictures of the motorcade. If he was on some type of secret mission related to the assassination as you seem to imply, why wouldn't he just disappear into the crowd instead of making himself known so that some CTer could speculate for all eternity about why he took the day off from work? It is laughable. I hope you don't honestly believe any of your own nonsense. It reminds me of those ghost hunter reality shows where they all run about in the dark and shout "did you hear that!" You have also failed to acknowledge your demonstrably false premise that it was somehow sinister that Powell took a picture of the TSBD when others like Dillard did so as well. Were they all "in on it" or not?
How would you characterize his behavior in Mexico City when he met the Soviet KGB officers in the Soviet consulate? They all described him as very emotional, distraught, on the verge of some sort of nervous breakdown (and they all said the man they met was indeed Lee Oswald and not an impostor).
Let's remember the evidence that shows that he repeatedly beat Marina (and it''s not just her accounts).
The late Robert Oswald (he died last December), Lee's brother, on the assassination, and his brother: “It is my belief, my conviction, no one but Lee was involved - period.....
Further: "People need to look at what transpired before [the assassination]. Everything – you’ve got to come all the way from childhood on up and especially that last year of his life, and understand what transpired in his life. He was a lonely boy, needing attention but not getting it.“ [In 1963], he had problems at home, he had problems on his job, he was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This is not excusing what he did, this is understanding what he did. He wanted to be somebody and this opportunity came about coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothing organized. It happened that way. It’s one of those happenstances of history.”
I think Robert's comment about his brother's life in 1963, that last year, is particularly instructive. Oswald's life was completely unraveling. When the Cubans rejected him - after he spent that summer working on Castro's behalf - he was stunned. His reaction at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City where, according to the KGB agents who met him over two days, was one of a desperate broken person.
Where was he going to go? What was he going to do? Fill orders for $1.25 an hour for the rest of his life? He hated the US, hated the Soviet Union and was now turned down by the Cubans. He had no other options left.
Frontline: Did he talk about the Russian system and the American system and comparing the two?
Robert: 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.
Frontline: So you’re saying, in a sense, he is the ultimate pragmatist?
Robert: I think it says that he is very pragmatic, and he’s going to go with the punches. He’s going to fit in to where he needs to fit in to accomplish what he needs to accomplish … what is very essential to get by with, to be somebody. That’s what it comes down to — he wanted to be unique, by whatever it took…
