JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on February 04, 2025, 10:05:01 AM
-
Why did Oswald kill JFK?
To become famous?
Because he was angry at Marina?
Because he was a Marxist and wanted to "advance the Dialectic" (which it now appears that he did)?
-
Why did Oswald kill JFK?
To become famous?
Because he was angry at Marina?
Because he was a Marxist and wanted to "advance the Dialectic" (which it now appears that he did)?
We will never know why with any certainty. But I think that recent news reports had indicated to LHO that JFK was a threat to Castro. General Walker had also spoken out against Castro. And the opportunity to take a shot at JFK from the TSBD was just too tempting for him to resist.
-
Oswald was a malcontent who blamed others for his marginalized life. He thought he was smarter than others who he viewed as sheep accepting their pathetic roles in life. That created resentment and a desire to show them who he was. He turned to Marxism for attention as a counterpoint to the mainstream American political establishment and to stick it to those who had ignored him. The assassination was a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt. His own personal resentment fueled an anti-hero perspective of himself in which he could be someone important. That much worked. What he didn't bargain on was someone else with a similar mentality who would gun him down.
-
Oswald was a malcontent who blamed others for his marginalized life. He thought he was smarter than others who he viewed as sheep accepting their pathetic roles in life. That created resentment and a desire to show them who he was. He turned to Marxism for attention as a counterpoint to the mainstream American political establishment and to stick it to those who had ignored him. The assassination was a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt. His own personal resentment fueled an anti-hero perspective of himself in which he could be someone important. That much worked. What he didn't bargain on was someone else with a similar mentality who would gun him down.
If he wanted to "show them who he was" or give "a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt", why the hell would he flatly deny having shot anyone and shout out that he was just "the patsy"?
-
If he wanted to "show them who he was" or give "a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt", why the hell would he flatly deny having shot anyone and shout out that he was just "the patsy"?
That's obvious. Oswald didn't know that he was going to be killed within 48 hours of the assassination. He thought he had months or even years to play this game and bargain his confession to avoid the death penalty. Admitting his guilt was the one card he still had to play in the legal context. It is also consistent with his malcontent personality. Oswald was a pathological liar during his life. He probably got a kick out of making the police "figure it out." He wasn't going to help them. Oswald wanted historical credit for the assassination, but he wasn't going to help the police send him to the electric chair. He knew he had assassinated the president. That alone made him a person of significance whether he confessed or not. He also knew that the police had the evidence to link him to the crime. So he could milk this for attention. Play the victim. Once he confessed, he would be thrown in a cage and no longer be of as much interest. Had Oswald lived, he likely would have gone the James Earl Ray direction of trading his confession to avoid the death penalty and then spending the rest of his life suggesting there was something more to the story to con gullible conspiracy theorists into paying attention to him.
-
I believe it is explainable as a perfect storm of factors.
It's clear from Oswald's own writings and statements to Marina that he had an exalted view of himself. Yet he found himself a complete nobody in the USSR (to his great surprise) and a complete nobody upon his return to the US (to his great surprise), now working at a demeaning, dead-end, temporary, minimum-wage job in the TSBD. At every turn, his life had been failure upon failure.
I believe his last hope was what he expressed to Marina: He would be a hero to Castro and the Cuban people in the "Marxist utopia" of Cuba. All of his activities in the months preceding the assassination suggest a concerted effort to establish his Marxist credentials for presentation to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Alas, his trip to Mexico City was yet another failure.
To top it all off, his marriage was failing and Marina rebuffed his attempt at reconciliation. Had Marina given him another chance that Thursday evening, I dont't believe the assassination would have occurred. I believe the Thursday visit was a last-ditch attempt at a normal life, and Marina's rejection was the last straw. When Oswald saw the route of JFK's motorcade, and realized it would pass right in front of the building where he happened to be working, it must have seemed that Fate was speaking to him, but I believe it was Marina's rejection that sealed the deal.
It is not at all difficult to believe that he would have viewed the assassination of JFK as his ticket to Cuba or at least as validating his authenticity as a genuine Marxist revolutionary. My guess is that he expected the assassination to be the proverbial "suicide by cop" and was astounded to find himself surviving the lunch room encounter and boarding a bus outside the TSBD. Nothing in the immediate pre- or post-assassination events suggests serious, careful planning. Finding himself outside the TSBD must have seemed almost too good to be true, and I believe his objective was probably to get back to the Cuban consulate in MC.
His silence after his arrest demands an explanation. He was quite politically savvy, and having survived the assassination I believe his objective was to maximize the theatrical aspect. He realized that by denying everything he would ensure a lengthy, high-publicity trial in which his Marxist political genius (in his own mind, anyway) could be expressed for all the world to see. Hence his hope for John Abt to represent him.
I don't completely discount any possibiity of a conspiracy. If there was one, however, it would have related to events in Mexico City. Someone may have promised safe passage if he made it across the border or even safe haven in Cuba. Any such conspiracy would have been so small and ill-defined as to scarcely qualify as a conspiracy - certainly nothing that would satisfy the conspiracy theorists who demand an elaborate, high-level conspiracy involving numerous agencies, organizations and individuals. In every conspiracy scenario I've studied, Oswald is a cardboard figure who bears no resemblance to the real Oswald of history.
Oswald's "patsy" statement is surely the most misused statement in history. If he'd been suggesting he was an innocent patsy in someone else's conspiracy, he would've blabbed his head off to anyone who would listen, including the press. His actual statement that he was a patsy of the DPD, arrested only because he had lived in the USSR, does not even vaguely suggest an assassination conspiracy and fits perfectly with what I believe to have been his actual objective of turning the future trial into Marxist theater. I'd be fascinated - I'd love it - if the JFKA was the product of a massive conspiracy involving LBJ, the CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence, DPD, Mafia, et al., but I believe it's pure fantasy.
-
Oswald was a malcontent who blamed others for his marginalized life. He thought he was smarter than others who he viewed as sheep accepting their pathetic roles in life. That created resentment and a desire to show them who he was. He turned to Marxism for attention as a counterpoint to the mainstream American political establishment and to stick it to those who had ignored him. The assassination was a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt. His own personal resentment fueled an anti-hero perspective of himself in which he could be someone important. That much worked. What he didn't bargain on was someone else with a similar mentality who would gun him down.
A problem trying to figure out the "Why?" question involves how he pulled it off, the ad hoc nature of the act. Using a cheap rifle - he had money to buy a better one - a weapon that he retrieved only the day before the assassination (that he apparently didn't practice with for weeks). He goes back to his rooming house for his revolver. He leaves behind incriminating evidence. Et cetera. There was little planning, little forethought involved: it was last minute. As you know, it's argued that had Marina agreed to move back in with him and find an apartment then he may have not gone through with the act. Something that simple.
How do we fit this spur of the moment act into this explanation of a larger purpose behind it? Viz., his hatred of the US, his support for Castro, his opposition to America? Someone driven by those grievances doesn't act, it seems to me, so hastily. He plans things out.
This is where Ruby's act was so awful, so indefensible. Besides the vigilantism of it, the denial of Oswald's rights, it denied the world a fuller explanation. Had Oswald lived I don't think any of us would be here. He would have admitted - implicitly if not explicitly - to the crime. He wouldn't be able to answer all of these questions about the rifle, the photos, his post-assassination behavior. But all of that was denied by Ruby's act. Ruby wanted to punish Oswald, hold him accountable when in reality he helped him avoid accountability.
-
A problem trying to figure out the "Why?" question involves how he pulled it off, the ad hoc nature of the act. Using a cheap rifle - he had money to buy a better one - a weapon that he retrieved only the day before the assassination (that he apparently didn't practice with for weeks). He goes back to his rooming house for his revolver. He leaves behind incriminating evidence. Et cetera. There was little planning, little forethought involved: it was last minute. As you know, it's argued that had Marina agreed to move back in with him and find an apartment then he may have not gone through with the act. Something that simple.
How do we fit this spur of the moment act into this explanation of a larger purpose behind it? Viz., his hatred of the US, his support for Castro, his opposition to America? Someone driven by those grievances doesn't act, it seems to me, so hastily. He plans things out.
This is where Ruby's act was so awful, so indefensible. Besides the vigilantism of it, the denial of Oswald's rights, it denied the world a fuller explanation. Had Oswald lived I don't think any of us would be here. He would have admitted - implicitly if not explicitly - to the crime. He wouldn't be able to answer all of these questions about the rifle, the photos, his post-assassination behavior. But all of that was denied by Ruby's act. Ruby wanted to punish Oswald, hold him accountable when in reality he helped him avoid accountability.
I believe we explain it quite easily by my post above. His infatuation with the "real Marxism" of Castro and his hope to finally achieve his destiny in Cuba were genuine. The failure of his trip to MC, the collapse of his marriage, and his dead-end job at the TSBD left him in near-desperation. Then Fate seemed to hand him a golden opportunity in the form of JFK's motorcade route. He went to Ruth Paine's on Thursday as a last-ditch effort at reconciliation with Marina. When she rebuffed him, this confirmed that Fate was indeed speaking and his destiny was confirmed. He carried out a near spur-of-the-moment assassination with an unlikely weapon that just happened to be highly successful. I see no reason to make things more complicated than this.
-
I believe we explain it quite easily by my post above. His infatuation with the "real Marxism" of Castro and his hope to finally achieve his destiny in Cuba were genuine. The failure of his trip to MC, the collapse of his marriage, and his dead-end job at the TSBD left him in near-desperation. Then Fate seemed to hand him a golden opportunity in the form of JFK's motorcade route. He went to Ruth Paine's on Thursday as a last-ditch effort at reconciliation with Marina. When she rebuffed him, this confirmed that Fate was indeed speaking and his destiny was confirmed. He carried out a near spur-of-the-moment assassination with an unlikely weapon that just happened to be highly successful. I see no reason to make things more complicated than this.
Okay, but that still doesn't add up to me (I'm going in circles here admittedly). If he was driven by his deep hatred of America, his support for Castro and his view that JFK was an enemy of "the revolution", then why wait until the last day to strike back? All of those reasons are deep, substantive, long-standing. The idea that all of them would disappear if Marina had simply agreed to find an apartment and move back together simply doesn't make sense to me. No pasaran, comrades! Unless Marina moves in with me? Some revolutionary he is. And contrast this planning, or lack of it, versus the planning in the Walker attempt. It doesn't add up to me but that may be just my problem.
Just one on MC: He told Marina after returning that he had given up on Castro, that his treatment by the Cuban bureaucrats was just like the Soviet system. Both systems, for him, failed to meet his vision of a true Marxist society and not worth defending. Now, he may have been lying; I think he was. I find it hard to believe that his long time support for Castro ended because some bureaucrats failed to give him his transit visa. That failure means the entire system, "the Revolution", was a lie? No, there's something in MC that, I think, is involved in his act.
-
Okay, but that still doesn't add up to me (I'm going in circles here admittedly). If he was driven by his deep hatred of America, his support for Castro and his view that JFK was an enemy of "the revolution", then why wait until the last day to strike back? All of those reasons are deep, substantive, long-standing. The idea that all of them would disappear if Marina had simply agreed to find an apartment and move back together simply doesn't make sense to me. No pasaran, comrades! Unless Marina moves in with me? Some revolutionary he is. And contrast this planning, or lack of it, versus the planning in the Walker attempt. It doesn't add up to me but that may be just my problem.
Just one on MC: He told Marina after returning that he had given up on Castro, that his treatment by the Cuban bureaucrats was just like the Soviet system. Both systems, for him, failed to meet his vision of a true Marxist society and not worth defending. Now, he may have been lying; I think he was. I find it hard to believe that his long time support for Castro ended because some bureaucrats failed to give him his transit visa. That failure means the entire system, "the Revolution", was a lie? No, there's something in MC that, I think, is involved in his act.
Oswald had already crossed the Rubicon with the Walker attempt. He was ready and willing to kill a public figure for political reasons. Not many people fall into that bucket. Fate simply dealt him JFK. Oswald was a malcontent with a chip on his shoulder. Willing to commit political murder with his rifle. One day he finds out JFK, as the representative of the society that he detests, is going to drive right by his building. That must have been like finding the golden ticket to him. No bigger statement than to assassinate the president in broad daylight riding through a US city.
Oswald was actively trying to send Marina back to Russia while he made efforts to get to Cuba. So I don't think his marital status played much of a role in his decision. The lack of planning in the JFK situation was a function of the timeline. Oswald doesn't find out until Tuesday that JFK is coming to town. He has plenty of time to assess the steps to be taken. My guess on Mexico City is that Oswald might have told the Cubans that he had or was willing to commit a violent act on behalf of the cause to impress them with his dedication. Did he tell them about the Walker attempt? Maybe but probably not. He more likely implied something along those lines but without specifying. If he kills the president and makes it back to the Cuban embassy, maybe he thinks he will be welcomed as a hero. The Cubans think he is a nut or CIA plant when he comes to MC. They take his story with a grain of salt. After the JFK assassination, they still think that maybe Oswald was sent to them as a pretext for an invasion (i.e. they had foreknowledge that Oswald had or would commit some assassination). As a result, they never mention it. Killing the president is not a rational act. There is no neat and tidy explanation to answer every question. It's doubtful even Oswald could explain it in a way that makes any sense.
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.
I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."
-
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.
I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."
It's difficult to ignore Oswald's life long support for "The Revolution", his deep repeated devotion to Castro (Marina said he used to sings songs to "Fidel" and that he wanted to name their first child after him) from his act, from any "Why" answer. The assassination was a political act and I don't think Oswald suddenly became apolitical on November 22, 1963.
Remember that five days before the assassination in an address widely reported (it was in the Dallas papers) that JFK essentially called for the removal of the Castro government. He said this:
"It is important to restate what now divides Cuba from my country and from the other countries of this hemisphere. It is the fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American Republics. This, and this alone, divides us. As long as this is true, nothing is possible. Without it, everything is possible. Once this barrier is removed, we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which a few short years ago stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the hemisphere."
"Once this barrier is removed"? What else can that be but a call for the removal of Castro? And the "barrier" that needed removal was the "small band of conspirators" who took over the country. That's the Castros and Che et al. I don't think Oswald, let's say, liked hearing call from JFK. The radical publications that Oswald read were filled with stories about the attacks on Cuba. Oswald knew what JFK was doing to "The Revolution." For Oswald, there was no difference between a fascist like Walker and a liberal democrat like JFK. They were both, in different ways of course, enemies of his cause (in fact, Oswald wrote that there was no difference between Christian democrats and conservatives and monarchists and others versus Marxists; you were either one or the other).
Or this was all done by the "deep state" and it's been covered up by multiple generations of Americans in government and outside it for 60 years. People like Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner, Earl Warren and Robert Blakey, Frank Church, the NY Times and Washington Post, Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings, Robert Caro and well, my fingers are getting tired. If you believe the latter then good lord, don't get out of the bed in the morning. "They" are going to get you.
-
Okay, but that still doesn't add up to me (I'm going in circles here admittedly). If he was driven by his deep hatred of America, his support for Castro and his view that JFK was an enemy of "the revolution", then why wait until the last day to strike back? All of those reasons are deep, substantive, long-standing. The idea that all of them would disappear if Marina had simply agreed to find an apartment and move back together simply doesn't make sense to me. No pasaran, comrades! Unless Marina moves in with me? Some revolutionary he is. And contrast this planning, or lack of it, versus the planning in the Walker attempt. It doesn't add up to me but that may be just my problem.
Just one on MC: He told Marina after returning that he had given up on Castro, that his treatment by the Cuban bureaucrats was just like the Soviet system. Both systems, for him, failed to meet his vision of a true Marxist society and not worth defending. Now, he may have been lying; I think he was. I find it hard to believe that his long time support for Castro ended because some bureaucrats failed to give him his transit visa. That failure means the entire system, "the Revolution", was a lie? No, there's something in MC that, I think, is involved in his act.
I understand your point, and it's a legitimate one. I don't believe the assassination can be explained purely in terms of Marxism. I believe that was a secondary factor in the assassination - basically Oswald's way of justifying to himself what he was doing. But I believe the primary cause was that he had psychologically cracked - reached the point where reality had set in and life was no longer worth living. That is what I, at least, believe was happening - basically an attempt at "suicide by cop" with the Marxist/Cuba angle as a psychological justification for it being something more heroic than a suicide. When he found himself outside the TSBD, I believe he was astounded and a whole new narrative began to form. Now he realized he could extend the Marxist theater for perhaps years and become an actual Marxist hero in history.
As you seem to recognize, nothing about the assassination suggests any sort of careful planning or preparation. It seems to me very much of a spur-of-the-moment, what the hell, my life is over anyway, I'll go out with a bang sort of event. This to me cuts decisively against any serious conspiracy; no conspirators this side of the Three Stooges would have allowed the events of Thursday and Friday to occur as they did. It's certainly possible that some half-assed discussions technically qualifying as a conspiracy may have occurred in MC.
-
That's obvious. Oswald didn't know that he was going to be killed within 48 hours of the assassination. He thought he had months or even years to play this game and bargain his confession to avoid the death penalty. Admitting his guilt was the one card he still had to play in the legal context. It is also consistent with his malcontent personality. Oswald was a pathological liar during his life. He probably got a kick out of making the police "figure it out." He wasn't going to help them. Oswald wanted historical credit for the assassination, but he wasn't going to help the police send him to the electric chair. He knew he had assassinated the president. That alone made him a person of significance whether he confessed or not. He also knew that the police had the evidence to link him to the crime. So he could milk this for attention. Play the victim. Once he confessed, he would be thrown in a cage and no longer be of as much interest. Had Oswald lived, he likely would have gone the James Earl Ray direction of trading his confession to avoid the death penalty and then spending the rest of his life suggesting there was something more to the story to con gullible conspiracy theorists into paying attention to him.
Nope. Not even a nice try. You're really trying (in vain) to stretch your argument to fit your assumption. You are putting yourself inside Oswald's head, assuming his thoughts. Wow, impressive (but you are only impressing yourself with that hogwash).
-
Nope. Not even a nice try. You're really trying (in vain) to stretch your argument to fit your assumption. You are putting yourself inside Oswald's head, assuming his thoughts. Wow, impressive (but you are only impressing yourself with that hogwash).
EVERY attempt to explain the JFKA requires putting oneself inside Oswald's head. There is no escaping this reality. The events from Thursday to Sunday don't fit tidily into any narrative. The tidiest of them, I believe, does involve a major shift in Oswald's thinking when he surprisingly found himself alive after the assassination. The "theater" of the FPCC episode in New Orleans is a good indication that he was perfectly capable of thinking in "theatrical" terms. It makes entire sense that after the assassination he would have realized "Fate has handed me yet another golden opportunity. I'm going to connect with John Abt, be the central figure in the trial of the century, and enter into history as a major Marxist hero." The problem with elaborate conspiracy theories is that they require being inside the head of someone who bears little or no resemblance to the actual Oswald.
-
EVERY attempt to explain the JFKA requires putting oneself inside Oswald's head. There is no escaping this reality. The events from Thursday to Sunday don't fit tidily into any narrative. The tidiest of them, I believe, does involve a major shift in Oswald's thinking when he surprisingly found himself alive after the assassination. The "theater" of the FPCC episode in New Orleans is a good indication that he was perfectly capable of thinking in "theatrical" terms. It makes entire sense that after the assassination he would have realized "Fate has handed me yet another golden opportunity. I'm going to connect with John Abt, be the central figure in the trial of the century, and enter into history as a major Marxist hero." The problem with elaborate conspiracy theories is that they require being inside the head of someone who bears little or no resemblance to the actual Oswald.
Like Richard, you're trying to think like Oswald in order to validate your theory. You also seem to be incorrectly assuming that a conspiracy has to be "elaborate". Have you considered to possibility that nobody with "the government" was involved? That it wasn't an "inside job"?
If I observe Oswald's behaviour (without trying to say what he's actually thinking), he look perplexed, confused. Rather than looking like he has triumphed by getting back at others, "sticking a finger up", he looks stunned - denying that he shot anyone and shouting "I'm the patsy!!". Then comes the hopeless LNer argument: "he was nuts". ::)
-
Nope. Not even a nice try. You're really trying (in vain) to stretch your argument to fit your assumption. You are putting yourself inside Oswald's head, assuming his thoughts. Wow, impressive (but you are only impressing yourself with that hogwash).
The underlying question assumes that Oswald killed JFK. It literally says "Why did Oswald kill JFK"? In that context there is no assumption as to Oswald's guilt. What is being discussed is WHY he did it. There are plenty of thread to discuss baseless conspiracy theories about WHETHER he did it. This is not one of them, however.
-
The underlying question assumes that Oswald killed JFK. It literally says "Why did Oswald kill JFK"? In that context there is no assumption as to Oswald's guilt. What is being discussed is WHY he did it. There are plenty of thread to discuss baseless conspiracy theories about WHETHER he did it. This is not one of them, however.
As we have seen throughout this forum, there is no proof that Oswald killed JFK. Therefore, the premise of this thread is absurd - as is, saying what was going through Oswald's mind at a particular time.
-
Like Richard, you're trying to think like Oswald in order to validate your theory.
I really don't have a theory to which I am anything like irrevocably wedded. In my opinion, the evidence and reasonable inferences overwhelmingly point oward Oswald as being directly involved in the JFKA. This is true regardless of whether he was a lone assassin or involved in a conspiracy. The popular notion that he was entirely innocent, in my opinion, is completely untenable. Hence, I do indeed try to make sense of his actions and statements on the basis of his direct involvement and what may have been going on inside his head,
You also seem to be incorrectly assuming that a conspiracy has to be "elaborate". Have you considered to possibility that nobody with "the government" was involved? That it wasn't an "inside job"?
I don't assume that at all. See the thread I just started, "Is this a plausible conspiracy?" The fact is, the JFKA conspiracy community is, to a large extent, addicted to preposterously elaborate and untenable theories from Harvey & Lee on down. These theories, without exception, require the reinvention of Oswald into someone bearing no resemblance to the real man. These theories are driven, not by a wish to explain the JFKA, but by a wish to validate a particular political perspective to which the JFKA is only marginally related.
If I observe Oswald's behaviour (without trying to say what he's actually thinking), he look perplexed, confused. Rather than looking like he has triumphed by getting back at others, "sticking a finger up", he looks stunned - denying that he shot anyone and shouting "I'm the patsy!!". Then comes the hopeless LNer argument: "he was nuts". ::)
If any of us had had the three hours I believe Oswald had from noon to 3 PM on 11-22, I think we'd be looking a bit stunned, perplexed and confused. The fact is, he was by all accounts astonishingly composed, arrogant, hostile and spouting preposterous lies during intense interrogation. His patsy comment had nothing to do with any conspiracy and was in furtherance of his Marxist theme (the DPD only picked me up because I went to Russia).
I don't believe he was "nuts" at all. Psychologically disturbed, yes. I believe he realized his life had reached a dead-end and all his dreams were going nowhere. He was no more "nuts" than any other suicide or assassin. He committed a desperate act, was astonished to find he had survived it, and now the wheels were turning as to how this might be played out as Marxist theater. It's always surprising to me, given Oswald's demonstrated propensity to lie and lie and lie, from job applications to personal relationships, that so many CTers are willing to believe his claims of innocense were truthful.
-
I really don't have a theory to which I am anything like irrevocably wedded. In my opinion, the evidence and reasonable inferences overwhelmingly point oward Oswald as being directly involved in the JFKA. This is true regardless of whether he was a lone assassin or involved in a conspiracy. The popular notion that he was entirely innocent, in my opinion, is completely untenable. Hence, I do indeed try to make sense of his actions and statements on the basis of his direct involvement and what may have been going on inside his head,I don't assume that at all. See the thread I just started, "Is this a plausible conspiracy?" The fact is, the JFKA conspiracy community is, to a large extent, addicted to preposterously elaborate and untenable theories from Harvey & Lee on down. These theories, without exception, require the reinvention of Oswald into someone bearing no resemblance to the real man. These theories are driven, not by a wish to explain the JFKA, but by a wish to validate a particular political perspective to which the JFKA is only marginally related.If any of us had had the three hours I believe Oswald had from noon to 3 PM on 11-22, I think we'd be looking a bit stunned, perplexed and confused. The fact is, he was by all accounts astonishingly composed, arrogant, hostile and spouting preposterous lies during intense interrogation. His patsy comment had nothing to do with any conspiracy and was in furtherance of his Marxist theme (the DPD only picked me up because I went to Russia).
I don't believe he was "nuts" at all. Psychologically disturbed, yes. I believe he realized his life had reached a dead-end and all his dreams were going nowhere. He was no more "nuts" than any other suicide or assassin. He committed a desperate act, was astonished to find he had survived it, and now the wheels were turning as to how this might be played out as Marxist theater. It's always surprising to me, given Oswald's demonstrated propensity to lie and lie and lie, from job applications to personal relationships, that so many CTers are willing to believe his claims of innocense were truthful.
Publicly he acted confused, perplexed - "I don't know what this is all about." Privately, during the interrogations he was confrontational, belligerent, uncooperative. He was acting (it's why in part that he wanted the Marxist lawyer John Abt; he was going to play the victim defense and Abt was good at using that defense).
In any case, for a political person, someone who supposedly liked JFK, he showed no interest or concern in what happened to JFK from the moment he left the TSBD shortly after the shooting to the moment he was arrested in the theater. He leaves work without permission, he doesn't inquire about this incredible event that happened outside the building where he worked (it's chaos, people running around and he's not interested in what the heck happened?), he doesn't discuss the shooting with anyone, he doesn't stop and watch the news coverage on TV when he goes to his rooming house, he doesn't call Marina to talk about this tragedy, he's in a movie theater an hour after the shooting completely uninterested in what happened.
If you don't find that suspicious then you don't want to think it is.
Was it more than him? Did it end there? We can argue whether there was more, it was Oswald plus. But to suggest he was completely innocent, just some guy working is simply ignoring all of the evidence otherwise.
-
I really don't have a theory to which I am anything like irrevocably wedded. In my opinion, the evidence and reasonable inferences overwhelmingly point oward Oswald as being directly involved in the JFKA. This is true regardless of whether he was a lone assassin or involved in a conspiracy.
Bingo! Hence his behaviour, which screams "Oh f**k, the bastards have set ME up!"
-
Publicly he acted confused, perplexed - "I don't know what this is all about." Privately, during the interrogations he was confrontational, belligerent, uncooperative. He was acting (it's why in part that he wanted the Marxist lawyer John Abt; he was going to play the victim defense and Abt was good at using that defense).
In any case, for a political person, someone who supposedly liked JFK, he showed no interest or concern in what happened to JFK from the moment he left the TSBD shortly after the shooting to the moment he was arrested in the theater. He leaves work without permission, he doesn't inquire about this incredible event that happened outside the building where he worked (it's chaos, people running around and he's not interested in what the heck happened?), he doesn't discuss the shooting with anyone, he doesn't stop and watch the news coverage on TV when he goes to his rooming house, he doesn't call Marina to talk about this tragedy, he's in a movie theater an hour after the shooting completely uninterested in what happened.
If you don't find that suspicious then you don't want to think it is.
Was it more than him? Did it end there? We can argue whether there was more, it was Oswald plus. But to suggest he was completely innocent, just some guy working is simply ignoring all of the evidence otherwise.
See my above comment.
-
Nope. Not even a nice try. You're really trying (in vain) to stretch your argument to fit your assumption. You are putting yourself inside Oswald's head, assuming his thoughts. Wow, impressive (but you are only impressing yourself with that hogwash).
"Richard" has a magic crystal ball in the basement of his mom's house where he lives.
-
The underlying question assumes that Oswald killed JFK. It literally says "Why did Oswald kill JFK"? In that context there is no assumption as to Oswald's guilt. What is being discussed is WHY he did it. There are plenty of thread to discuss baseless conspiracy theories about WHETHER he did it. This is not one of them, however.
Why does "Richard Smith" beat his wife? Aren't loaded questions fun?
-
The fact is, he was by all accounts astonishingly composed, arrogant, hostile and spouting preposterous lies during intense interrogation.
"Lie" defined as a statement contrary to what you'd prefer to believe is true.
-
Bingo! Hence his behaviour, which screams "Oh f**k, the bastards have set ME up!"
What "behavior" was that? If Oswald was set up, he was given ample opportunity to name names to the world press or the police.
-
I'll toss my 2 cents into this discussion by quoting from an Internet post concerning this topic that I wrote exactly ten years ago this week:
--------------------------------------
"All we can do is guess. And I think the best guess is that Lee Harvey Oswald probably killed JFK because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).
But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963. But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives. And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.
As far as the JFK murder, I've said in the past that it's my belief that Oswald simply took advantage of a golden opportunity to do something on a "grand scale" when that perfect opportunity was presented to him on a platter on November 22, 1963.
He realized that with very little effort and preparation on his part, he could easily be in the right place at the right time when JFK passed by the building where he worked. And if conditions were such so that he could secrete himself in a corner of that warehouse known as the School Book Depository without anyone in the building being aware of his presence in that corner, he might have a chance to change history and make up for the fact he was unsuccessful in his earlier attempt in April to kill another political figure. I think it's quite possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in effect, daring himself to take those shots at President Kennedy from his sixth-floor sniper's perch that Friday in Dallas.
However, I also think Oswald's mind was very muddled on November 21st...and I think Marina's account of the events at Ruth Paine's house on the night of Nov. 21 indicates that Lee would have likely been happy to go out and search for a new apartment "tomorrow" (the word Marina said Lee used on 11/21/63) had Marina agreed to get back together with Lee right away.
So unless Lee was just putting on a little "act" for Marina's benefit (or to throw people off), it would seem as if Lee Oswald, as of the night of November 21st, had every intention of hunting for lodgings for himself and his family on November 22nd rather than take his rifle to work and shoot the President.
And I doubt he could have been silly enough to think he could have performed BOTH of those tasks on 11/22/63. Lee Oswald was a very strange character with a twisted mind, yes, but I doubt very much that even his warped mind could have possessed the following thoughts in tandem with each other --- I'll shoot at President Kennedy at around noontime; I'll then leave the building and go search for that apartment, just as I promised Marina I would do last night. I doubt I'll be missed at work because of all the commotion that will follow the assassination attempt that I am also planning for tomorrow.
I think Oswald definitely had a MOTIVE--whatever that might have been--for shooting President Kennedy PRIOR to ever visiting Marina on Thursday night, November 21st. (That's obvious to me because of the "curtain rods" lie he told to Buell Wesley Frazier on Thursday morning.) But his plans to shoot at the President were not fixed in stone as of Thursday night--not until after he talked to Marina.
That scenario might sound way too simplistic (and, frankly, crazy) to many conspiracy theorists (especially those who don't think Oswald ever fired a shot at JFK), but it's what I think is the truth nonetheless.
Can I prove any of the above? No, of course I can't. But, conversely, no conspiracist can prove that Lee Oswald had NO MOTIVE at all for wanting to shoot John F. Kennedy either. The "motive" vs. "no motive" argument is endless--and it goes nowhere. The only one who could possibly answer the "motive" question is Lee Harvey Oswald. And he can't say very much now." -- DVP; February 2015 (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Lee-Harvey-Oswald
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. -- Hi Lance! It is so good to see you posting on a JFK forum once again! I have missed your thoughtful and on-target posts ever since you decided to leave The Education Forum. (I was reinstated there in June 2022 after a three-year exile.)
-
What "behavior" was that? If Oswald was set up, he was given ample opportunity to name names to the world press or the police.
Simple- one can imagine that if any member of the group squealed, their wives and families would be killed. One could understand Oswald's predicament and behaviour.
There is also the theory that he was in liaison with the CIA to infiltrate said group - hence his asking for a phone connection to the region of Langley.
-
Simple- one can imagine that if any member of the group squealed, their wives and families would be killed. One could understand Oswald's predicament and behaviour.
There is also the theory that he was in liaison with the CIA to infiltrate said group - hence his asking for a phone connection to the region of Langley.
One can imagine a lot of things about the anomaly-replete JFKA which was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and there are lots of theories about the anomaly-replete JFKA which was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
That's how the KGB* was able to "make hay" out of it (and other things like the AIDs epidemic and the crack cocaine epidemic) to make cynical and apathetic our body politic to the point that "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin was able to install his "useful idiot" (or worse) as our (are you from UK?) president in 2017 and 2025.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I'll toss my 2 cents into this discussion by quoting from an Internet post concerning this topic that I wrote exactly ten years ago this week:
--------------------------------------
"All we can do is guess. And I think the best guess is that Lee Harvey Oswald probably killed JFK because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).
But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963. But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives. And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.
As far as the JFK murder, I've said in the past that it's my belief that Oswald simply took advantage of a golden opportunity to do something on a "grand scale" when that perfect opportunity was presented to him on a platter on November 22, 1963.
He realized that with very little effort and preparation on his part, he could easily be in the right place at the right time when JFK passed by the building where he worked. And if conditions were such so that he could secrete himself in a corner of that warehouse known as the School Book Depository without anyone in the building being aware of his presence in that corner, he might have a chance to change history and make up for the fact he was unsuccessful in his earlier attempt in April to kill another political figure. I think it's quite possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in effect, daring himself to take those shots at President Kennedy from his sixth-floor sniper's perch that Friday in Dallas.
However, I also think Oswald's mind was very muddled on November 21st...and I think Marina's account of the events at Ruth Paine's house on the night of Nov. 21 indicates that Lee would have likely been happy to go out and search for a new apartment "tomorrow" (the word Marina said Lee used on 11/21/63) had Marina agreed to get back together with Lee right away.
So unless Lee was just putting on a little "act" for Marina's benefit (or to throw people off), it would seem as if Lee Oswald, as of the night of November 21st, had every intention of hunting for lodgings for himself and his family on November 22nd rather than take his rifle to work and shoot the President.
And I doubt he could have been silly enough to think he could have performed BOTH of those tasks on 11/22/63. Lee Oswald was a very strange character with a twisted mind, yes, but I doubt very much that even his warped mind could have possessed the following thoughts in tandem with each other --- I'll shoot at President Kennedy at around noontime; I'll then leave the building and go search for that apartment, just as I promised Marina I would do last night. I doubt I'll be missed at work because of all the commotion that will follow the assassination attempt that I am also planning for tomorrow.
I think Oswald definitely had a MOTIVE--whatever that might have been--for shooting President Kennedy PRIOR to ever visiting Marina on Thursday night, November 21st. (That's obvious to me because of the "curtain rods" lie he told to Buell Wesley Frazier on Thursday morning.) But his plans to shoot at the President were not fixed in stone as of Thursday night--not until after he talked to Marina.
That scenario might sound way too simplistic (and, frankly, crazy) to many conspiracy theorists (especially those who don't think Oswald ever fired a shot at JFK), but it's what I think is the truth nonetheless.
Can I prove any of the above? No, of course I can't. But, conversely, no conspiracist can prove that Lee Oswald had NO MOTIVE at all for wanting to shoot John F. Kennedy either. The "motive" vs. "no motive" argument is endless--and it goes nowhere. The only one who could possibly answer the "motive" question is Lee Harvey Oswald. And he can't say very much now." -- DVP; February 2015 (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Lee-Harvey-Oswald
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. -- Hi Lance! It is so good to see you posting on a JFK forum once again! I have missed your thoughtful and on-target posts ever since you decided to leave The Education Forum. (I was reinstated there in June 2022 after a three-year exile.)
Thanks, DVP! I just came out of the woodwork because I was getting all excited that I had finally encountered a rational conspiracy book in The Oswald Puzzle. It is a very worthwhile book that even a Lone Nutter can love, although as I've said it goes completely off the cliff (IMO) at the end, with LHO having no knowledge or role at all in the JFKA. I think this is what a CTer pretty much has to do to posit a conspiracy that is consistent with the actual Oswald and his actual life. That's why I liked my little theory - it's not only consistent with the real Oswald but entirely consistent with the Lone Nut perspective and all the evidence supporting it. (Purely speculative, of course.)
I had never heard of this forum. I was doing something and Google brought it up. It appears to be distinctly more LN-friendly, eh? Talk about going off the cliff - if someone had told me utter wackos like Sandy and Niedernut would one day be MODERATORS, I would said that was impossible. You demote Sandy and replace him with ... Niedernut and over-the-hill Bulman??? Holy God, why not just pull the plug?
Your view of Oswald's motivations seems entirely in line with mine. I think by the time of the Thursday visit he definitely thought Fate had put JFK directly in his sites and it was Marina's rejection that convinced him the JFKA was his destiny. It may not have been an entirely rational thought process, but surely those were the key factors.
-
Simple- one can imagine that if any member of the group squealed, their wives and families would be killed. One could understand Oswald's predicament and behaviour.
There is also the theory that he was in liaison with the CIA to infiltrate said group - hence his asking for a phone connection to the region of Langley.
The conspirators were going to kill Oswald's wife and family? Don't you think that those murders might raise some questions about the involvement of others? And they would do this only AFTER Oswald ratted them out? Makes perfect sense. LOL.
-
The conspirators were going to kill Oswald's wife and family? Don't you think that those murders might raise some questions about the involvement of others? And they would do this only AFTER Oswald ratted them out? Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Ruby was blackmailed into rubbing out Oswald out before he ratted them out.
-
If he wanted to "show them who he was" or give "a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt", why the hell would he flatly deny having shot anyone and shout out that he was just "the patsy"?
That's a good question to interject into ramblings about Oswald's psyche...
-
I think Oswald's mind was very muddled on November 21st...and I think Marina's account of the events at Ruth Paine's house on the night of Nov. 21 indicates that Lee would have likely been happy to go out and search for a new apartment "tomorrow" (the word Marina said Lee used on 11/21/63) had Marina agreed to get back together with Lee right away.
Related discussion:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhySGldPUcfy8iufXw98-HRPYxbGrs9Vc0CZ3d9tzDHQvLzltsNAeetv1DQ4aOvghfcxHM0XYdRSZT2eqc-EvoPIVVB7bAaSlRaritZ6SfWnQxFXgEZECmMp-Aonj6s2PTiBVWCUG5JLkgm-1Zu2uwpnyyMG-d_Ltt2U3hMcXWhj9qDSA5eg_le0yqN8LU/s555/LHOs-Decision-To-Shoot-JFK-Article-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html)
-
Related discussion:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhySGldPUcfy8iufXw98-HRPYxbGrs9Vc0CZ3d9tzDHQvLzltsNAeetv1DQ4aOvghfcxHM0XYdRSZT2eqc-EvoPIVVB7bAaSlRaritZ6SfWnQxFXgEZECmMp-Aonj6s2PTiBVWCUG5JLkgm-1Zu2uwpnyyMG-d_Ltt2U3hMcXWhj9qDSA5eg_le0yqN8LU/s555/LHOs-Decision-To-Shoot-JFK-Article-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html)
:D Hilarious mind-reading nonsense.
"We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning..." :D
"Obviously, he must have had a motive for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon." :D
"But Lee Harvey's assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night." :D
Also, if he was transporting the disassembled rifle (highly debated already here) that doensn't prove him to be the shooter. It could also prove that he was... part of a conspiracy. Particularly as there is no evidence that proves he was the shooter (highly debated already here!!).
-
:D Hilarious mind-reading nonsense.
"We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning..." :D
"Obviously, he must have had a motive for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon." :D
"But Lee Harvey's assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night." :D
Also, if he was transporting the disassembled rifle (highly debated already here) that doensn't prove him to be the shooter. It could also prove that he was... part of a conspiracy. Particularly as there is no evidence that proves he was the shooter (highly debated already here!!).
Jim: Lone assassin believers hear all sorts of mind reading explanations from conspiracy believers about why the conspirators killed JFK. My favorite: Ruth Paine was a lesbian who framed Oswald because she wanted to steal Marina from him. Ruth Paine as a lesbian CIA assassin?
We see conspiracist mind-reading about the motives and thinking of: LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Allen Dulles, the Pentagon, the Mob, Marcello, anti-Castro Cubans, the Mossad, Ruby and on and on and on. There's lots of mind reading about Oswald's post assassination actions too, right? "He knew he was going to be framed and that's why he left" sort of thing. Seems to me that lone assassin believers are amateurs at mind reading compared to the conspiracy crowd. True, not all speculation is equal; but it comes from all sides on this event.
As to the shooting itself: If you think a complete stranger walked unnoticed into the TSBD, then went unnoticed to the sixth floor, then waited unnoticed by people inside (but seen by people outside), then shot JFK, then left unnoticed....if you believe this rather than Oswald as then shooter then who is really engaging in strained speculation?
-
As to the shooting itself: If you think a complete stranger walked unnoticed into the TSBD, then went unnoticed to the sixth floor, then waited unnoticed by people inside (but seen by people outside), then shot JFK, then left unnoticed....if you believe this rather than Oswald as then shooter then who is really engaging in strained speculation?
Why would it have to be a "complete stranger"? And don't you believe that Oswald left unnoticed?
-
Ruth Paine as a lesbian CIA assassin?
More likely a KGB agent helping KGB-agent Marina.
-
:D Hilarious mind-reading nonsense.
"We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning..." :D
"Obviously, he must have had a motive for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon." :D
"But Lee Harvey's assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night." :D
Every single thing I said in THIS POST (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html) resides squarely in the "Reasonable Inferences" category, and all sensible people know it.
I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists are so afraid of facing up to reasonable inferences?
And why are Internet CTers so anxious to have LHO completely innocent of doing any shooting on 11/22/63?
Very curious indeed.
For many more reasonable inferences, go here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html
-
Every single thing I said in THIS POST (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html) resides squarely in the "Reasonable Inferences" category, and all sensible people know it.
I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists are so afraid of facing up to reasonable inferences?
And why are Internet CTers so anxious to have LHO completely innocent of doing any shooting on 11/22/63?
Very curious indeed.
For many more reasonable inferences, go here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html
David, are you the one who decides what inference is "reasonable"?
-
David, are you the one who decides what inference is "reasonable"?
Each person, of course, decides for himself what he thinks qualifies as "reasonable".
Most conspiracy theorists, naturally, think all (or most) of my "reasonable inferences" are unreasonable. Just as I think all (or most) of a CTer's inferences are unreasonable (with many of them being downright preposterous and silly).
And the JFKA merry-go-round continues to spin. And it always will.
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men."
-- John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961
-
Each person, of course, decides for himself what he thinks qualifies as "reasonable".
Most conspiracy theorists, naturally, think all (or most) of my "reasonable inferences" are unreasonable. Just as I think all (or most) of a CTer's inferences are unreasonable (with many of them being downright preposterous and silly).
And the JFKA merry-go-round continues to spin. And it always will.
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men."
-- John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961
So, what's the point of having a discussion that goes nowhere?
-
So, what's the point of having a discussion that goes nowhere?
Beats me. But you're in the very same "goes nowhere" boat.
-
Beats me. But you're in the very same "goes nowhere" boat.
Only because, when I try to have an open minded discussion with a LN I always run into a wall build by people who have made up their mind and are not prepared to have an honest conversation about the actual evidence.
All I can do is keep trying until I find a reasonable LN who is open for an honest discussion.
-
When I try to have an open-minded discussion with a LN I always run into a wall build by people who have made up their mind and are not prepared to have an honest conversation about the actual evidence.
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Couple hundred?
-
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Couple hundred?
Was I talking to you?
Perhaps you missed it, but I don't care if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy.
So, why are you asking me this pathetic question?
Do you have conclusive evidence for Oswald's guilt or are you just blowing hot air?
-
And why are Internet CTers so anxious to have LHO completely innocent of doing any shooting on 11/22/63?
I for one don't believe that he was completely innocent - more like involved, voluntarily or not.
Even the Warren Commission knew that he part of a conspiracy (shooter or not).
-
I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists are so afraid of facing up to reasonable inferences?
"Sensible" and "reasonable" defined as "agrees with DVP".
What's curious is that you are seemingly unaware of your own bias.
-
Was I talking to you?
Graves loves to inject that strawman into every conversation.
-
Graves loves to inject that strawman into every conversation.
John Iacoletti, the anti-Trump guy who doesn't realize he helped put him in office by wittingly or unwittingly encouraging, for many years, body politic-destroying tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories which are based on the irrational premise that JFK was NOT killed by the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist known as Lee Harvey Oswald, and therefore must have been killed by the evil, evil, CIA, the evil, evil FBI, or the evil, evil [fill in the blank].
Vladimir Putin cherishes you for what for what you do, John!
Keep up the good work, Comrade!
-
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Couple hundred?
Remember, the assassination plot and the aftermath cover-up are two totally separate things, executed by two separate entities.