The Silent Conspiracy

[Martin Weidmann]

You don't think Castro would have loved implicating the anti-Castro groups in the assassination of JFK? If he had any evidence of it I am quite sure he would have been promoting it. Hell, his people - Fabian Escalate among others - were and have been making the claim for years without showing any evidence. And of course the Soviets were spreading disinformation about the assassination too.

I see zero credible evidence that Castro or his agents that infiltrated these groups had any knowledge of Oswald's attempt. Yes, it was Oswald. The evidence he did it plus the implausibility of alternative explanations plus fifty plus years of little (to me) evidence to the contrary leads me to believe it was him. I mean, good grief, he didn't bring curtain rods with him to work that day. And he didn't leave right after the shooting because he thought he would have the day off. He was fleeing.

You don't think Castro would have loved implicating the anti-Castro groups in the assassination of JFK? If he had any evidence of it I am quite sure he would have been promoting it. Hell, his people - Fabian Escalate among others - were and have been making the claim for years without showing any evidence. And of course the Soviets were spreading disinformation about the assassination too.

I see zero credible evidence that Castro or his agents that infiltrated these groups had any knowledge of Oswald's attempt.

Agreed, but better not tell Charles Collins because he doesn't want to understand that.


Yes, it was Oswald. The evidence he did it plus the implausibility of alternative explanations plus fifty plus years of little (to me) evidence to the contrary leads me to believe it was him.

Fair enough. I can see how you could make that argument, although I have another take on it. I don't find the evidence against Oswald sufficiently credible, as there are too many assumptions that need to be made and too much conflicting evidence that needs to be ignored to come to a conclusion about Oswald one way or the other.

As far as the implausibility of alternative explanations goes, one should never forget that absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense and in this case it hasn't been particularly easy or even possible to get to the actual evidence buried in the National Archives. Not that I think there will be any kind of smoking gun in the so far unreleased documents. I'm talking more about the inaccessibility of crucial physical evidence of independent testing.

I mean, good grief, he didn't bring curtain rods with him to work that day.

He probably didn't, but the problem is that we will never know for sure what he did bring. As far as I know, the TSBD was never searched for curtain rods and even if they did search it, Oswald would have had all morning to dispose of whatever was in the bag he brought. In my opinion, the curtain rods story could well have been  nothing more that a white lie told to Frazier so that Oswald would not have to explain to this 19 year co-worker that he was really going to try to make up with his wife and convince her to live together again. In fact, that is was Marina and Ruth Paine testified they believed was his reason for the trip to Irving.

If Oswald really went to Irving to get his rifle, why would he go through the trouble of making a paper bag at the TSBD and conceal it for Frazier on Thursday, when he could just as easily have used one of his duffle bags to conceal the rifle in on Friday morning?

And he didn't leave right after the shooting because he thought he would have the day off. He was fleeing.

This again is one of those mysteries in this whole saga. We only have the WC version for Oswald's fast departure from the TSBD, which on so many levels doesn't make any sense. Why would he run so quickly after he had just been cleared by Truly and Baker? He worked there, so he had a good reason for being there. Instead of instantly running and call attention to himself, he could have stayed for at least a while.

The WC version of events does imply a consiousness of guilt, but none of it really adds up or makes sense. If Oswald was indeed on the run, why did he offer his taxi to a lady who needed one? Why would he return to the roominghouse when he could have taken a bus out of Dallas? The WC version of him letting the taxi stop a distance from the roominghouse raises more questions than it answers. Why would he risk going back to the roominghouse at all, if he feared police would already be there. What could have been so important for him to return to the roominghouse? When he got there, all he did was change his clothes and... if the official narrative is true, he picked up a revolver, but for what purpose? To go to a suburban go-nowhere neighborhood and kill a policeman? Too many questions have remained completely unanswered.

[Jon Banks]

No one said that the coverage was more intense. However, it was intense. The antagonistic words between Castro and JFK were getting more personal.

Well it seemed like you were implying that things were more intense between Kennedy and Castro in 1963 than prior years.

I'm familiar with Latell's book. I think it's plausible that low levels of Cuban Intelligence might've been aware of and in contact with LHO in 1963.

I'm unconvinced though that Castro had foreknowledge of any plot to kill JFK.

[Jon Banks]

You don't think Castro would have loved implicating the anti-Castro groups in the assassination of JFK? If he had any evidence of it I am quite sure he would have been promoting it. Hell, his people - Fabian Escalate among others - were and have been making the claim for years without showing any evidence. And of course the Soviets were spreading disinformation about the assassination too.

I see zero credible evidence that Castro or his agents that infiltrated these groups had any knowledge of Oswald's attempt. Yes, it was Oswald. The evidence he did it plus the implausibility of alternative explanations plus fifty plus years of little (to me) evidence to the contrary leads me to believe it was him. I mean, good grief, he didn't bring curtain rods with him to work that day. And he didn't leave right after the shooting because he thought he would have the day off. He was fleeing.

We know the DGI had spies in the radical Alpha 66 group, the Cuban Exile group that had operatives in Dallas (Oak Cliff) at the time of Kennedy's assassination.

'Leader of Exile Group Tells of Spying for Cuba'
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/11/us/leader-of-exile-group-tells-of-spying-for-cuba.html

Were they aware of or in contact with Oswald? Possibly (If the witness accounts of Oswald visiting the Harlandale Safe House are true.)

Oswald's lack of a motive and other problems with the evidence are why I remain open to the possibility that there was a Conspiracy. 

[Charles Collins]

Well it seemed like you were implying that things were more intense between Kennedy and Castro in 1963 than prior years.

I'm familiar with Latell's book. I think it's plausible that low levels of Cuban Intelligence might've been aware of and in contact with LHO in 1963.

I'm unconvinced though that Castro had foreknowledge of any plot to kill JFK.

The bay of pigs resulted in JFK refusing to commit further involvement of U.S. military troops. LHO probably liked that aspect of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in a removal of the missiles without an invasion of Cuba. And with Castro and his revolution still intact. LHO probably liked those aspects of it. But the covert war against Castro and his revolution in the fall of 1963 was a very real threat.

LHO read the socialist papers that he subscribed to. And he listened to Cuban radio broadcasts on his shortwave radio. Michael Paine says in his manuscript: “One time I asked Lee what his socialist papers meant to him. He replied that he could ‘read between the lines and tell what they wanted him to do’.”

What do you think LHO thought “they wanted him to do” when he read and heard Castro threatening U.S. leaders during the height of the covert war?

[Jon Banks]

The bay of pigs resulted in JFK refusing to commit further involvement of U.S. military troops. LHO probably liked that aspect of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in a removal of the missiles without an invasion of Cuba. And with Castro and his revolution still intact. LHO probably liked those aspects of it. But the covert war against Castro and his revolution in the fall of 1963 was a very real threat.

Oswald's Fair Play For Cuba activism in 1963 (if it was genuine. I suspect it was a psyop) at least suggests that he was aware that the US under Kennedy was still hostile towards Cuba.

Despite that, Oswald still told people he liked JFK after his arrest in New Orleans.

What do you think LHO thought “they wanted him to do” when he read and heard Castro threatening U.S. leaders during the height of the covert war?

I think that's a gigantic leap.

To suggest that Oswald was radicalized by Communist and Cuban media.

The Tell for me that Oswald was not an ISIS-like "Extremist" is the fact that he claimed he was innocent.

A true Radical/Extremist would proudly take credit for accomplishing his mission (ie Timothy McVeigh). 

Oswald's claim of innocence means either: A) he was really just a patsy or B) he wasn't motivated by ideology. Something else motivated him.

[Charles Collins]

Oswald's Fair Play For Cuba activism in 1963 (if it was genuine. I suspect it was a psyop) at least suggests that he was aware that the US under Kennedy was still hostile towards Cuba.

Despite that, Oswald still told people he liked JFK after his arrest in New Orleans.

I think that's a gigantic leap.

To suggest that Oswald was radicalized by Communist and Cuban media.

The Tell for me that Oswald was not an ISIS-like "Extremist" is the fact that he claimed he was innocent.

A true Radical/Extremist would proudly take credit for accomplishing his mission. 

Oswald's claim of innocence means either: A) he was really just a patsy or B) he wasn't motivated by ideology. Something else motivated him.

Oswald's claim of innocence means either: A) he was really just a patsy or B) he wasn't motivated by ideology. Something else motivated him.

Now that’s a gigantic leap. The Centennial Olympic Park bomber was a radical who didn’t claim responsibly or plead guilty until over 5-years after the bombing. And even after he was apprehended he waited until his attorney came up with a plea bargain that kept him from being sentenced to death.

So, LHO’s claim doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means...

[Jon Banks]

Oswald's claim of innocence means either: A) he was really just a patsy or B) he wasn't motivated by ideology. Something else motivated him.

Now that’s a gigantic leap. The Centennial Olympic Park bomber was a radical who didn’t claim responsibly or plead guilty until over 5-years after the bombing. And even after he was apprehended he waited until his attorney came up with a plea bargain that kept him from being sentenced to death.

So, LHO’s claim doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means...

The Olympic Park Bomber may be the rare exception. I don't know enough about that case.

If you're arguing that Oswald was motivated by pro-Castro/Communist ideology, then his refusal to claim responsibility does go against the pattern of terrorists or killers who are motivated by ideology.

It seems that you're suggesting that Oswald was radicalized by Communist propaganda and a die hard believer.

Generally, people who commit violence for political motives claim responsibility for their actions. Sometimes they leave behind a manifesto.   

FWIW, I think Oswald was prepared to claim responsibility for shooting Gen. Walker if he succeeded and got caught. Hence the backyard photos and the "Hunter of Fascists" stuff.

Oswald even mentioned Walker in one of the letters he wrote to his cousin in 1963.

Unlike the Walker example, Oswald left behind no pattern of animosity or disagreement with Kennedy. The Warren Commission found no evidence that he disliked Kennedy.

It doesn't appear that the hostilities between the US and Cuba from 1961 to 1963 angered Oswald enough for him to say anything negative about JFK. But he said plenty of negative things about Walker. And I believe it was Walker's Reactionary rhetoric on de-Segregation that angered Oswald, not Walker's rhetoric on Cuba.

[Charles Collins]

The Olympic Park Bomber may be the rare exception. I don't know enough about that case.

If you're arguing that Oswald was motivated by pro-Castro/Communist ideology, then his refusal to claim responsibility does go against the pattern of terrorists or killers who are motivated by ideology.

It seems that you're suggesting that Oswald was radicalized by Communist propaganda and a die hard believer.

Generally, people who commit violence for political motives claim responsibility for their actions. Sometimes they leave behind a manifesto.   

FWIW, I think Oswald was prepared to claim responsibility for shooting Gen. Walker if he succeeded and got caught. Hence the backyard photos and the "Hunter of Fascists" stuff.

Oswald even mentioned Walker in one of the letters he wrote to his cousin in 1963.

Unlike the Walker example, Oswald left behind no pattern of animosity or disagreement with Kennedy. The Warren Commission found no evidence that he disliked Kennedy.

It doesn't appear that the hostilities between the US and Cuba from 1961 to 1963 angered Oswald enough for him to say anything negative about JFK. But he said plenty of negative things about Walker. And I believe it was Walker's Reactionary rhetoric on de-Segregation that angered Oswald, not Walker's rhetoric on Cuba.

If you're arguing that Oswald was motivated by pro-Castro/Communist ideology, then his refusal to claim responsibility does go against the pattern of terrorists or killers who are motivated by ideology.

Another one: Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, didn’t immediately proclaim his responsibilities upon being incarcerated...

What you appear to be ignoring, is that Jack Ruby’s murder of LHO prevented any chances that LHO might have claimed responsibility for JFK and Walker after he had obtained an attorney. Opinions on that possibility (predictably) vary...