Author Topic: Framing a patsy  (Read 42491 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Colin Crow

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6486
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2012, 10:20:32 PM »
I'm somewhat confused about the LN view of Oswald. Some seem to suggest that the only reason JFK was shot by him is because the Pres just happened to drive by. Just bad luck for JFK that Oswald didn't get a job elsewhere.

This is the same Oswald that planned and travelled to the home of Walker to shoot at him? Surely he has proved to you to be a mobile assassin hasn't he?

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4809
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2012, 10:43:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Following from JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters James Douglass
George de Mohrenschildt was called to testify before the HSCA - he was murdered before he could testify (officially a suicide, grand jury listened to a tape that included the gunshot, but jury commented hearing a house alarm sound just moments before the gunshot was heard, which signified the presence of an intruder in the house)

Holy Romney-Is-One-Dumb-Git!

James W. Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable" may be the most error-laden CT book since Carl Oglesby's 1991 gem "Who Killed JFK? (The Real Story Series)."

The "alarm system" beeped when a door or window opened. The "beep" before the shot was Miss Romanic, the cook, going out in the backyard for a break. The gunshot was 23 seconds later. Five minutes later, the "beep" goes again, this time Mrs. Viisola, in the kitchen, went out the back door to take out garbage. Mrs. Viisola was Mrs. de Mohrenschildt's maid, who had set up the audio tape to record a soap for her.

Neither Romanic, Viisola or Coley Wimbley, the gardener in the backyard, heard the shot. George de Mohrenschildt had an history of mental illness.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm somewhat confused about the LN view of Oswald. Some seem to suggest that the only reason JFK was shot by him is because the Pres just happened to drive by. Just bad luck for JFK that Oswald didn't get a job elsewhere.

That's the characterization from CTs as to how conspirators would have wanted Oswald's set-up to be interpreted.

The LN view is more complicated, involving more than happenstance and luck. For example, I see a progression in Oswald's boldness and self-importance by the increased statushood of his potential victims: Gen. Walker, then former VP Nixon and finally the President.

Also, Oswald lived in a city which liked guns and where newspapers were printing some nasty critical things about Kennedy.

This leads us to the Hunts being involved and one of them living outside the States for awhile after the assassination. In fact, one early line of suspicion of a conspiracy centered on it being well-placed oil barons from Dallas. A bit of this got into the movie "Executive Action".

Offline Bob Mady

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3149
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2012, 11:37:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lincoln had a secratary named Kennedy. Kennedy had asecratary named Lincoln etc.......................................
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck  etc.......................................


Offline Ron Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2012, 11:41:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To think Colin, that had Oswald planned to collect the shells and had planned to hide the rifle in a good hiding place beforehand where it would be difficult to discover, he may have bought himself a lot more time. I always wondered where he hid the rifle before he shot it? It must have been in a good hiding spot cause no one saw it. Why not put it back there? If he had taken his time to work out where best to hide it, he may have even gotten away with it.
The Walker shooting shows what he is capable of doing. Some LN's even suggest he may have buried the rifle somewhere. It that is the case why didn't he do the same thing when he planned to shoot JFK?
2 different assassins.
Well Paul, nobody was looking for a rifle before the assassination. I guess he couldn't bury the rifle behind a pergola without some pesky cop sayin"say boy! watchoo doin??"

Offline John Murray

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • That phrase at the beginning of "The X-Files"...
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2012, 11:59:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to the WC the lifts were locked on 5. According to the WC there was someone on the floor between the lifts and the stairwell. According to the WC there was someone between the lifts and the stairwell on the second floor too. They were found there a minute or so after the shots. Not a bad way to control movement around the 6th floor is it?

You're forgetting, that according to the WC, Oswald did it alone too.  So if you're believing them on all of this, you must be an LN now, right? :) 

Just kidding, dude.

Offline John Murray

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • That phrase at the beginning of "The X-Files"...
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2012, 12:11:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    (Hypothetically) If Oswald read from the Communist literature he had and the socialist newspapers he received, he would have been fed notions like:

    • left-leaners are routinely "shot" while on the way to the police station
    • that all "authorities" are monolithically ultra-right and to be resisted
    • in America--one with a political motivation should seek out the ACLU
    • having a political motivation justifies the action and reduces the victim to a symbol
    • demand your "rights" (Oswald even mentioned his hygienic rights)
    • deny all involvement (why help the dreaded authorities and ruin the ACLU's case?)

    The Warren Commission couldn't promote too much of that interpretation because it was inconclusive and many Americans identified with some of what Oswald represented and some supported the ACLU (for example: Bob Dylan got into hot water with an Oswald comment in 1964).

    In 1970, a writer named Albert H. Newman released his book "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why" that did explore the influence of the literature on Oswald. Newman added something else: that Oswald was listening to Radio Havana in Dallas (Newman found that Oswald's radio had a shortwave band and that the English-language broadcasts began at 9 and 11 evenings CST and reached Dallas; he suggested this was why Oswald liked to be alone in his boardinghouse room).

    Newman:

"A personal listening check in the summer of 1966 with the cheapest shortwave transistor portable I could find (it was under $12) disclosed that in the Dallas area Radio Havana was consistently the strongest signal in the forty-nine-meter band (at 6.135 megacycles), registering two or three times the strength observable in New York."

It was suggested that Oswald would not have gone out without a plan and exit strategy on the scale of the Walker shooting. But, if we believe Marina, one interpretation of an April 1963 incident has Oswald taking his pistol and saying he's going after Nixon because of the headline in that morning's Dallas paper: "Nixon Calls for Decision to Force Reds Out of Cuba". There are other interpretations of the incident, but that one would suggest that Oswald was willing to throw caution to the wind, act impulsively and take his chances.

Seems his targets were escalating as he became emboldened with having avoided consequences: Gen. Walker, former-VP Nixon, and finally Kennedy.

If he was set-up, Marina revealing the hotheaded Nixon episode to, say, one of the deMohrenschildts would put him further onto the conspirators' radar. They now knew he capable of going after a national leader.[/list]

I appreciate what you say, but thinking of him as an impulsive type that escalated his way to this action - go and watch his press conference a couple of times.  If he's the hothead that this theory suggests, I really doubt he'd be playing the evasive game.  With all we've been led to believe over the years - most people here either lean towards innocent patsy or lone nut.  If he's a lone nut, he probably figures once he's caught, he's a dead man...so why deny a thing?  Why not say, sure, I killed the rotten bas*ard and I'd do it again if he walked in here right now.  And if he's innocent, why be so evasive?  Why not desperately plead innocence, like a truly innocent man with a young family would do?

The press conference to me, solidifies two things:  (1) He's got a very significant role in the assassination of the President and (2) He's hiding something fairly big.

Offline John Murray

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • That phrase at the beginning of "The X-Files"...
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2012, 12:15:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm somewhat confused about the LN view of Oswald. Some seem to suggest that the only reason JFK was shot by him is because the Pres just happened to drive by. Just bad luck for JFK that Oswald didn't get a job elsewhere.

This is the same Oswald that planned and travelled to the home of Walker to shoot at him? Surely he has proved to you to be a mobile assassin hasn't he?

Agree totally with this.  Pretty convenient, to me, that the motorcade went right by LHO's place of employment, though...I mean, the motorcade didn't HAVE to go along Elm - it could have jumped the Main St. curb to get on to the Stemmons.  And that would be a minor issue, because there would be a lot more security ease on Main St than Elm.  For now-obvious reasons.