Oswald's Motive

[Robert Reeves]

It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.

It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.

But the famous quote says ''History is written by the victors. And Oswald's entire persona, his legend, has been written by the very agencies that clearly played a role in the coverup of JFK's assassination reality.

The hilarious thing is you mention Oswald's ''exchange with the Soviet/KGB'' like any of that wouldn't have seriously bleeped on the radars of the various agencies tasked with protecting JFK, leading up to Dallas. The same guy comes back to Texas from Russia and doesn't even undergo any CIA or any other agency debriefing, that we know of -- seeing the documents are still mostly withheld. Oswald just struts his stuff plotting to murder the president of USA, gets a job on the parade route, so the secret service never got suspicious about one of the most notorious men in the nation navigating into such a position to assassinate the POTUS. FBI removed Oswald from the watch list prior to the assassination. Boom!

You are lying to yourself.

[Richard Smith]

But the famous quote says ''History is written by the victors. And Oswald's entire persona, his legend, has been written by the very agencies that clearly played a role in the coverup of JFK's assassination reality.

The hilarious thing is you mention Oswald's ''exchange with the Soviet/KGB'' like any of that wouldn't have seriously bleeped on the radars of the various agencies tasked with protecting JFK, leading up to Dallas. The same guy comes back to Texas from Russia and doesn't even undergo any CIA or any other agency debriefing, that we know of -- seeing the documents are still mostly withheld. Oswald just struts his stuff plotting to murder the president of USA, gets a job on the parade route, so the secret service never got suspicious about one of the most notorious men in the nation navigating into such a position to assassinate the POTUS. FBI removed Oswald from the watch list prior to the assassination. Boom!

You are lying to yourself.

Oswald didn't "get a job on the parade route."  In fact, that was impossible under the known timeline.   There was no parade route when Oswald obtained his job.  Oswald did not "strut his stuff plotting to murder the President."  He didn't even know that JFK was coming to Dallas until just a couple of days before the event.   He didn't make any threats or discuss his intention to assassinate JFK with any other person.  He just did it.  There was nothing to uncover to suggest he was intending to assassinate JFK.  The FBI knew only that he had pro-Communist political views.  What difference would it make to remove Oswald from the watch list if the FBI and CIA were in on the plot?  That doesn't make any sense.  What were they going to do?  Arrest the guy they planned to frame for the crime? 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald didn't "get a job on the parade route."  In fact, that was impossible under the known timeline.   There was no parade route when Oswald obtained his job.  Oswald did not "strut his stuff plotting to murder the President."  He didn't even know that JFK was coming to Dallas until just a couple of days before the event.   He didn't make any threats or discuss his intention to assassinate JFK with any other person.  He just did it.  There was nothing to uncover to suggest he was intending to assassinate JFK.  The FBI knew only that he had pro-Communist political views.  What difference would it make to remove Oswald from the watch list if the FBI and CIA were in on the plot?  That doesn't make any sense.  What were they going to do?  Arrest the guy they planned to frame for the crime?

Oswald's "history" comes, in part, from people like Marina, Kerry Thornley, Michael Paine, Robert Oswald, Soviet/KGB agents and others. If someone thinks this "history" was concocted, created by "the government" - that those people read from scripts (even the KGB agents?) to frame Oswald - then what can you do to counter this? Whatever evidence you produce will be dismissed as part of the fake history made by "the government" in their efforts to kill JFK and frame Oswald.

Item: We have the account by the KGB/Embassy people of a irrational Oswald who feels persecuted by the US. This is not a well man, this is not someone, for me, the CIA or anyone could rely upon. He's unstable. But to the conspiracy believers this was really not Oswald; it was an impostor. So where do we take this?

As to the job: As you pointed out, Ruth Paine, on Marina's request after they learned from a friend (Frazier's sister) that a job might be available, got him an interview. That was it. After that it was out of her hands. Oswald showed up and applied for it. He made the impression. He took the job. Truly hired him. Oswald performed the job. He showed up for work. Who was able to control all of this? We see chance, fate, terrible luck taking place. Conspiracy believers see invisible or not so invisible (Ruth Paine) hands directing all of this. It's crazy.

If you ask 15 different conspiracy believers/hobbyists to give your their story as to what happened, their theory, their explanation, you get 15 different explanations. They don't agree on who killed JFK. Was it the CIA? A rogue element? The Pentagon? FBI? Rich Texas oilmen? The mob? Anti-Castro Cubans? Who? And what about Oswald? Was he a willing participant who was used? Or an innocent bystander? Or something in between? There's no agreement on any of this. They are all over the conspiracy map with their explanations.

It's like some weird game, "JFK: The Assassination" where the participants try to score the most points by coming up with the most novel and innovative claim. If it's just a hobby, then fine (I guess). But some of these people are very serious. That's no so fine.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

But the famous quote says ''History is written by the victors. And Oswald's entire persona, his legend, has been written by the very agencies that clearly played a role in the coverup of JFK's assassination reality.

The hilarious thing is you mention Oswald's ''exchange with the Soviet/KGB'' like any of that wouldn't have seriously bleeped on the radars of the various agencies tasked with protecting JFK, leading up to Dallas. The same guy comes back to Texas from Russia and doesn't even undergo any CIA or any other agency debriefing, that we know of -- seeing the documents are still mostly withheld. Oswald just struts his stuff plotting to murder the president of USA, gets a job on the parade route, so the secret service never got suspicious about one of the most notorious men in the nation navigating into such a position to assassinate the POTUS. FBI removed Oswald from the watch list prior to the assassination. Boom!

You are lying to yourself.

When Oswald returned from the USSR he was briefed/questioned by the FBI. Twice. Then followed - but sloppily - afterwards.

Where did Oswald "strut his stuff" about murdering the president? How did you come to this idea? As to the Soviet Embassy. How did anyone in the government know what he talked about? They learned that he contacted the embassy. They also learned that he visited it and talked to a Kostin. Other than that, they knew nothing. He was a blip on the radar. What did they know about the incident that should have led to them arresting Oswald? The account by the KGB officers came out in 1993 after the dissolution of the USSR. In any case, James Hosty, the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds, did go to talk to him. He interviewed Marina but failed to interview Oswald. Incompetency not design.

Here's the gap, the chasm: You see "the government" operating behind all of this and pulling strings and pushing buttons and their perceived failure to act is, in your view, evidence of complicity. Such as Oswald being "placed" in the TSBD and parade route. We see a bureaucracy filled with different agencies and divisions and people and all of the confusion and disarray and incompetency that comes with it (Hoover punished 17 agents for their failures to keep track of Oswald: was that all a lie?). There is no way of bridging this. We say "A" and you say "not A".

One question: Wasn't there anyone in the government who liked JFK? Who wouldn't go along with this act of treason? Nobody? Everyone agreed during the planning? During the execution? During the coverup? All of these people you have carrying this out and no one said no? Had second thoughts? And all of these investigations were coverups as well? These were smart people; why didn't they see what you clearly do? How crazy does this get?

[Jon Banks]

Oswald didn't "get a job on the parade route."  In fact, that was impossible under the known timeline.   There was no parade route when Oswald obtained his job. 

Between the 1940s and 1960s, Dealey Plaza was a routine part of parade routes in downtown Dallas.

Meaning, once JFK’s visit to Dallas was announced by September of 1963, it would’ve been relatively easy for conspirators to predict that his motorcade would pass through Dealey Plaza.

I haven’t seen any evidence that Oswald intentionally looked for jobs along the parade route but if there was a conspiracy, it’s plausible that the potential conspirators could have predicted that JFK would pass through Dealey Plaza again as he did in 1960 as a Presidential candidate...

If you ask 15 different conspiracy believers/hobbyists to give your their story as to what happened, their theory, their explanation, you get 15 different explanations. They don't agree on who killed JFK. Was it the CIA? A rogue element? The Pentagon? FBI? Rich Texas oilmen? The mob? Anti-Castro Cubans? Who? And what about Oswald? Was he a willing participant who was used? Or an innocent bystander? Or something in between? There's no agreement on any of this. They are all over the conspiracy map with their explanations.

Most Americans believe that there was a conspiracy but among that group, yes, not everyone can agree on "who" was responsible. The reason is because the history of the JFK assassination is incomplete. There are lots of questions remaining. At best, it's an inconclusive case, not "case closed" in my opinion.

Even if you are 100% convinced that no one but Oswald was involved, I don't believe you're being honest if you say that we know everything that happened and "why". That's obviously not true because even LN'ers disagree on some details like "Oswald's potential motive" for example. The forensic evidence is another area of disagreement among LN'ers. And if I'm remembering correctly, Vincent Bugliosi, was a critic of Gerald Posner.

So like I've been saying, well informed people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions or interpretations. Very few historical events are documented to the point where there's no room for debate about the historical facts. The Kennedy assassination is no exception.

[Jon Banks]

One question:

Wasn't there anyone in the government who liked JFK? Who wouldn't go along with this act of treason? Nobody? Everyone agreed during the planning? During the execution? During the coverup? All of these people you have carrying this out and no one said no? Had second thoughts? And all of these investigations were coverups as well? These were smart people; why didn't they see what you clearly do? How crazy does this get?

I'm pretty sure that Robert Kennedy liked JFK. And he believed there was a conspiracy.

I'm pretty sure that George Burkley, JFK's physician, liked JFK. And HE believed there was a conspiracy (he saw JFKs body at both Parkland and Bethesda and signed the death certificate, so he was in a position to know if there were multiple shooters).

I'm pretty sure that JFK's friends like Washington Post chief, Ben Bradlee, liked him. And he too thought there was a conspiracy.

The people that I mentioned and others in the government and news media who weren't convinced that it was a "lone gunman", had varying reasons for expressing their true opinions in private only (which indirectly helped the cover-up). It wasn't that they hated JFK. It likely had more to do with national security or their own personal ambitions.

It's one thing to intuitively believe that there was a conspiracy. But you don't go public with that sort of thing unless you can present hard evidence and have no fear of losing everything (including your life) when you piss off the wrong people. 

Only a small number of people are needed to execute a conspiracy, but yes, a coverup requires hundreds, if not thousands, of people deciding to stay silent about what they know or what they saw.

There are many of examples of that happening in the JFK assassination. People telling the truth to family and friends but not going public due to the fears of hurting their own careers and personal ambitions, or maybe worse things happening to them.

And I can't believe that you're not aware of the pattern of those types of stories in the Kennedy assassination aftermath...

[Robert Reeves]

When Oswald returned from the USSR he was briefed/questioned by the FBI. Twice. Then followed - but sloppily - afterwards.

Where did Oswald "strut his stuff" about murdering the president? How did you come to this idea? As to the Soviet Embassy. How did anyone in the government know what he talked about? They learned that he contacted the embassy. They also learned that he visited it and talked to a Kostin. Other than that, they knew nothing. He was a blip on the radar. What did they know about the incident that should have led to them arresting Oswald? The account by the KGB officers came out in 1993 after the dissolution of the USSR. In any case, James Hosty, the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds, did go to talk to him. He interviewed Marina but failed to interview Oswald. Incompetency not design.

Here's the gap, the chasm: You see "the government" operating behind all of this and pulling strings and pushing buttons and their perceived failure to act is, in your view, evidence of complicity. Such as Oswald being "placed" in the TSBD and parade route. We see a bureaucracy filled with different agencies and divisions and people and all of the confusion and disarray and incompetency that comes with it (Hoover punished 17 agents for their failures to keep track of Oswald: was that all a lie?). There is no way of bridging this. We say "A" and you say "not A".

One question: Wasn't there anyone in the government who liked JFK? Who wouldn't go along with this act of treason? Nobody? Everyone agreed during the planning? During the execution? During the coverup? All of these people you have carrying this out and no one said no? Had second thoughts? And all of these investigations were coverups as well? These were smart people; why didn't they see what you clearly do? How crazy does this get?

Just read everything you type. It's all subterfuge intrigue. Oswald's adult existence revolved around blatantly obvious agency(s) manipulation of his life. To just be so solemnly convinced a person pulled off the shots with that rifle is laughable horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. Let alone all the blatant oddities with what happened after the assassination of JFK. Jack Ruby, the 'strip club owner' stalks his victim and waits for the most perfect moment to wipe out the only man that knew if he really fired the gun that blow JFK's brains to pieces. Case closed. It was him, and that is all folks. I would rather part of the millions and millions each with their own theory of what happened to JFK. To be part of the small group that stubbornly believe ONLY Oswald pulled the trigger and only he was consciously plotting to kill the POTUS is far more irrational than all the many millions that know the government lied on many occasions and covered up the real truth. Obviously, proofs in the documents situation that was brought in to seal up the truth long enough for the plotting committee to die.

[Martin Weidmann]

Just read everything you type. It's all subterfuge intrigue. Oswald's adult existence revolved around blatantly obvious agency(s) manipulation of his life. To just be so solemnly convinced a person pulled off the shots with that rifle is laughable horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. Let alone all the blatant oddities with what happened after the assassination of JFK. Jack Ruby, the 'strip club owner' stalks his victim and waits for the most perfect moment to wipe out the only man that knew if he really fired the gun that blow JFK's brains to pieces. Case closed. It was him, and that is all folks. I would rather part of the millions and millions each with their own theory of what happened to JFK. To be part of the small group that stubbornly believe ONLY Oswald pulled the trigger and only he was consciously plotting to kill the POTUS is far more irrational than all the many millions that know the government lied on many occasions and covered up the real truth. Obviously, proofs in the documents situation that was brought in to seal up the truth long enough for the plotting committee to die.

This has become a highly entertaining thread, where fanatical LN zealots speculate about Oswald's motives for killing Kennedy when, in fact, none of them can get beyond "the WC said so" and provide the actual conclusive evidence for his guilt. They can't even provide a shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.