The number two CT nightmare question ...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent 

I agree.

It seems obvious to us that if these powerful groups that allegedly needed to silence him, to prevent him from exposing their conspiracy, then he never would have been arrested alive. He would have been "accidentally" shot in the theater. Or on the street.

They certainly wouldn't have let him talk to his family and others. And meet with the press. And make phone calls. No one can seriously suggest that they needed to silence him and then they let him do all of these things. It's illogical.

This is all speculation but we are discussing a controversial historic event. That always engenders speculation. Even "non-controversial" events have people speculating about specifics.

The Oswald defenders and conspiracy believers don't like these types of questions. They get very upset. That's because they can't logically answer them. It causes conspiracy cognitive dissonance - facts contradict their conspiracy beliefs - so they want to avoid them. It's understandable: if they are forced to confront them their conspiracy beliefs fall apart.

[Jerry Freeman]

  I think that you know that Lee was NOT an "UNAWARE CITIZEN"..... 

Mr. LIEBELER - Did Oswald say anything about having been a Marine?
Mr. BLALOCK - Yes, sir; he did, and he explained that he took training in guerrilla warfare, and he told us how to blow up bridges, derail trains, make zip guns, make homemade gunpowder.
Mr. LIEBELER - He told you about this in detail?
Mr. BLALOCK - He told us how to blow up the Huey P. Long Bridge.

                                                       

Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say that he knew how to make gunpowder?
Mr. BLALOCK - Yes, sir; he told us the formula, and I--saltpeter and nitrate some formula--I don't remember.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say anything about guns?
Mr. BLALOCK - About zip guns, how to make them out of tubing and a plunger.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say something to the effect that he knew all about guns?
Mr. BLALOCK - No; he told us he had a manual that explained all about guns, a Marine manual, and that he had training in guns, trained with guns. 

Lee Harvey Oswald...Navy Seal wannabe.
More.....    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/blalock.htm
 

[Walt Cakebread]

I agree.

It seems obvious to us that if these powerful groups that allegedly needed to silence him, to prevent him from exposing their conspiracy, then he never would have been arrested alive. He would have been "accidentally" shot in the theater. Or on the street.

They certainly wouldn't have let him talk to his family and others. And meet with the press. And make phone calls. No one can seriously suggest that they needed to silence him and then they let him do all of these things. It's illogical.

This is all speculation but we are discussing a controversial historic event. That always engenders speculation. Even "non-controversial" events have people speculating about specifics.

The Oswald defenders and conspiracy believers don't like these types of questions. They get very upset. That's because they can't logically answer them. It causes conspiracy cognitive dissonance - facts contradict their conspiracy beliefs - so they want to avoid them. It's understandable: if they are forced to confront them their conspiracy beliefs fall apart.

They certainly wouldn't have let him talk to his family and others. And meet with the press. And make phone calls. No one can seriously suggest that they needed to silence him and then they let him do all of these things. It's illogical.

This statement reveals a shallow naive mind......  The conspirators were confident that Lee would never ever reveal that he was a undercover intel agent.

Just minutes before he was murdered by Ruby, Lee was talking to a man who he thought was a contact .....  And somehow Lee got the idea that the transfer from the city jail to the county jail was a ploy that was intended to allow him to escape.   He said something like..."oh. so that is now the plan?" he then was lead to his lynching......

[Martin Weidmann]

My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent 

I agree to some extend.

However, even if he was totally innocent (and I am not saying he was), he would still be able to explain or at least try to explain his version of what happened. For instance, if we assume he was manipulated into ordering the rifle from Klein's and being photographed with it, he could point towards the person(s) involved. If we assume he was manipulated into picking up "curtain rods" or whatever else it was and bringing them with him on Friday morning in a paper bag, he could explain what happened to the package. If he gave it to somebody during the morning hours, he could identify that person. He could explain where he really was, during the time that they say he was in Mexico and he could explain his connection to David Ferrie etc etc....

Whether anybody would listen to him or believe him is another matter. Similar to a sting operation, he could have been unaware of the conspiracy and being manipulated in individual instances, only to put it all together in his mind after Kennedy was shot.

Better be safe than sorry and finish him off as quickly as possible.

[Gerry Down]

If we assume he was manipulated into picking up "curtain rods" or whatever else it was and bringing them with him on Friday morning in a paper bag, he could explain what happened to the package. If he gave it to somebody during the morning hours, he could identify that person.

You'd think such a person would have given him the correct length curtain rods?

[Martin Weidmann]

You'd think such a person would have given him the correct length curtain rods?

You're missing the point

[Jorn Frending]

Martin and Gerry, the shooting of Oswald is to me still a CT nightmare question and gives me a hard time being a CT.

If Oswald shot JFK then  there would be no conspirators to want to Kill him. If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders. Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.

However, had Oswald somehow participated believing that something else was going to happen and that the plan had been to finish him off earlier then perhaps a lot of things would be easier to explain. That's the reason for me to suggest that CTs may consider the possibility of Oswald being an intelligence asset (not necessarily exactly how Walt would explain it but close enough)

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin and Gerry, the shooting of Oswald is to me still a CT nightmare question and gives me a hard time being a CT.

If Oswald shot JFK then  there would be no conspirators to want to Kill him. If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders. Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.

However, had Oswald somehow participated believing that something else was going to happen and that the plan had been to finish him off earlier then perhaps a lot of things would be easier to explain. That's the reason for me to suggest that CTs may consider the possibility of Oswald being an intelligence asset (not necessarily exactly how Walt would explain it but close enough)

Jorn,

You are repeating yourself and, it would seem, are pushing towards your preferred conclusion that Oswald was an intelligence asset. You may well be right, but Oswald is such an enigma that anything is possible. There are so many things going on with that guy which can in no way be associated with the penniless loser he was made out to be.

If he was totally innocent how could you have guaranteed him keeping out of sight at the right moment of time (by the minute) in two successive murders.

First of all, it has been a question of debate for over half a century if Oswald was indeed at, or anywhere near, 10th/Patton when Tippit was killed. Some claim he was, others point to the timing problem and conclude he physically couldn't have been.

As for the Kennedy murder, if Oswald was set up by a conspiracy it wouldn't really matter where he was, because that kind of information could "disappear" during a cover up, provided Oswald was no longer around to dispute it.

Furthermore I would not give Jack Ruby even 50 percent chance of killing Oswald under those desperate circumstances. It could not have been planned that way.

Maybe, but it could have been a back up plan, after the original plan failed.