Jump to content


Photo

Oswald, Oswald, Oswald... enough of Oswald already!


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 24 July 2014 - 11:41 AM

I had to get a new proctologist.  The old one was talking behind my back.


  • Lavetadut likes this
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#22 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 25 July 2014 - 09:44 AM

Highly probable.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#23 Alan Ford

Alan Ford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted 25 July 2014 - 10:30 AM

Yes, Cliff, after the body was stolen to Bethesda, gone were all the "Cubans", the "rogue agents", Ruby, the Dallas Police, Captain Fritz and Sheriff Decker... in secret replaced with Kellerman, Roberts, McGeorge Bundy, LeMay etc in Washington, while the entire Press had their sights locked in on Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. Of course it was two major operations, perhaps more...

Yes, well said, certainly an apt description indeed in respect to the hasty removal of the president's body from the lawful jurisdiction where a major crime was committed. Have to wonder if the Parkland medical team, if given an opportunity to simply do their jobs, would have blown this whole charade wide open.


The plain simple truth doesn't need 26 volumes


#24 Liam Kelly

Liam Kelly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 23 August 2014 - 08:01 AM

Focusing on which?

Lots of good points made.

I think it is a question of balance.

I also think that ultimately the investigation needs to be broad.

The crime scene/s itself is contradictory and inconclusive in my jugement

and one can only seem to arrive at probabilities based on a broad

understanding of the facts around the incident, the players and the politcal

climate and social context.

To me , the first major clue that screams out skullduggery ..is the rifle.

If a gunman had carried the rifle up to the sixth floor in a paper sack and shot Kennedy

he would have have put it back in the sack along with the shells and if he absolutely

had to hide it somewhere there, he would have put in IN one of the many boxes NOT

next to one.

A gunman who helps the police by leaving shells at the window where he fired from..

just so the police can be sure he was there etc etc...

A gunman who then "hides" the rifle a short distance away...just so the cops find it

...cause you know the gunman left the shells for them..you know...the rifle isnt far away

etc etc.

A gunman who ...... does all that but says..well I've given them some evidence but I sure as

hell dont want them to know who I am ..so wipes all prints from the weapon.

So sheesh, no prints on the weapon or shells.

Smacks of a frame up! dont it!

The shells were where someone wanted them to be.Why? because they pointed to a rifle.

The rifle was where someone wanted it to be.Why? because it pointed to an individual.(mail order etc etc)

The finger prints were where someone wanted them to be.Why? cause they had to be nowhere to be found

because the person who stashed the rifle was not the same individual that the rifle pointed to.

 

And thats where the problem starts for me.

Its simply not believable.

 

And so, we do need to look at Oswald to see if he himself was that bizzarre,

irrational and just plain stupid.

From everything I have learned he was not.



#25 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 23 August 2014 - 09:58 AM

 

Liam Kelly said:

 

And so, we do need to look at Oswald to see if he himself was that bizzarre,

irrational and just plain stupid.

From everything I have learned he was not.

 

Why?

 

Agreed that Oswald himself was not that bizarre, irrational or just plain stupid. However, that is a rather subjective judgment. Although many of us might arrive at the same conclusion, many of us might not. But if we did arrive at the same conclusion, still that proves nothing.

 

Even if Oswald "himself was that bizarre, irrational and just plain stupid" it still has no bearing whatsoever on the remaining facts in this case, including the fact of conspiracy. Again, even IF Oswald was "bizarre, irrational, and just plain stupid" those personality traits have no bearing whatsoever on the implausibility of the MBT, the blow-out to the BACK of JFK's head, the sight and smell of smoke on or near the knoll, the lack of SS protective measures, the stand down of the 112th Military Intelligence Group out of Fort Sam Houston, the botched autopsy or the rewording of the Warren Report by Gerald Ford who changed the "shot in the back" into "the shot in the back of the neck" and so much more.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#26 Bob Prudhomme

Bob Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Locationwestern Canada

Posted 23 August 2014 - 10:38 AM

Charles

 

Would you please elaborate on the elements of the coverup that were noted prior to the ambush taking place?


"He was always cold, but the Land of Gold seemed to hold him like a spell,
Though he'd often say, in his homely way, that he'd "Sooner live in Hell....."

"The Cremation of Sam McGee" by Robert W. Service

#27 Liam Kelly

Liam Kelly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 23 August 2014 - 09:48 PM

Well Greg, 'plain stupid' IS a subjective judgement, but it was used only to emphasize
the first and second adjectives of 'bizzare' and 'irational' which are not.

Whether Oswald was irrational or not,  does not , of itself prove anything.
That is true, but we are dealing with the 'official line' here.
That the gunman did these things (left the evidence but wiped the prints) does
not support a rational hyposthesis unless the gunman was trying to implicate
someone else as the rifle was traceable or unless the gunman was illogical and
irrational or...that the gunman was not aware the rifle was traceable and
considering the serial number was intact , tthe latter being unlikely.
So a look at LHO is important if we trace the crime from the start point.
Not only for that reason but also because he was part of a cover up, unwittingly or otherwise.

 

It raises questions:

Would conspirators use a nut?

Would they prefer a sane but bumbling individual?

Would he make a good 'patsy'? etc.
 
Having said all that, if,  Stefan, your original statement is saying that there is / has been
a "pre-occupation" in some circles with Oswald in certain ways, then I completely agree.
Its almost like a 'feeding' of the parlour game.
Like you said Oswald a 'poor shot' , 'in the doorway' , 'not in the doorway' etc etc.
I very much take your point as i do yours Greg that the ballaistic evidence, the security detail behaviours
the autopsy and much else represent a plethara of evidence in themselves that have no direct

relevance to Oswald's sanity or otherwise.

However my point was more about the 'gunmans' sanity rather than Oswalds if you will allow me

the fine distinction and the improbability it assigns to the government version of events.

It was about one of the govenments earliest deceptions in the case.

In any case, there is only a tiny improbable window for Oswald to be up on the sixth floor and there is also
only a tiny window for anyone else to be up there and escape.
Even so, we do have evidence of other people on the 6th floor, we do have evidence of an
individual/s appearing to flee the TSBD and we do have evidence of a bogus individual
in the grassy knoll car park.

I believe its all important, but if you say that its possible to be too absorbed in one aspect,
such as Oswald himself, then I believe you are correct.



#28 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 24 August 2014 - 09:25 AM

The character traits that define "bizarre and/or irrational" vary, subjectively, from one observer to another unless one is speaking of a clinical diagnosis wherein a mental health professional is using such language in a precise fashion to describe behavior. Even then, such a description assumes agreement as to the definition of the word "irrational" from one mental health professional observer to another.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#29 Bob Prudhomme

Bob Prudhomme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Locationwestern Canada

Posted 24 August 2014 - 10:19 PM

Charles

 

Just in case you didn't see my post, would you please elaborate on the elements of the coverup that were noted prior to the ambush taking place?


"He was always cold, but the Land of Gold seemed to hold him like a spell,
Though he'd often say, in his homely way, that he'd "Sooner live in Hell....."

"The Cremation of Sam McGee" by Robert W. Service

#30 Liam Kelly

Liam Kelly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 25 August 2014 - 02:09 AM

The character traits that define "bizarre and/or irrational" vary, subjectively, from one observer to another unless one is speaking of a clinical diagnosis wherein a mental health professional is using such language in a precise fashion to describe behavior. Even then, such a description assumes agreement as to the definition of the word "irrational" from one mental health professional observer to another.

 

This is true enough.
And also true perhaps, is if we pursue this dialogue then we might end up talking
about the tree falling in the forrest and did it really fall if no-one heard it it.
In other words the objective reality v subjective reality.
Or another- objective jugment v subjective jugement.

 

In fact practically every jugment or assertion assumes agreement somewhere.

You can on the one hand say that any judgement, opinion etc is subjective simply
because it is not a measurable entiry and therefore may be diffrent from one person to the next.
Otherwise of course then it would be an obective fact, like a statistic.
However, when we use descriptive terms we attempt to appeal to a 'norm'
if you will, a norm that is buttressed by logic.
That 'norm' is also a generally accepted and acknowledged reference.

If I say something is "bright" in appearance , that can be subjective and objective.
I found it bright to look at and it IS bright.
In this case the 'norm' might be the range of light we normally experience
each day.
If we were to measure the average intensity of daylight then we would have a figure to
compare it to.
Then if the object I saw exceeded that figure by many lumens or whatever other measurement
we were using then we might label that as bright.
When we are describing bright, we dont say that was xxxxx lumens.
We just say it was bright.Both would be true.
Perfectably acceptable and conveys the subjective meaning but also indicates
an objective reality.(not very well if the people you are speaking to are blind)

 

This 'norm' then takes the place of the 'lumen' above as an acceptable measuring reference.

Person A says "that makes no sense"
Person B says "thats only your subjective opinion and is not neccessarily fact"

All judgements are just that, judgments.
Question is are they valid and can they be said to be objective?
Certainly.

Generally, rational behaviour is accepted as behaviour where a person reasons and
applies logic to proposed actions to maximise benifit to himself or accomplish some purpose.
When it is dicovered that there is a lack of the reasoning process we can say that the person is
behaving irrationaly.Without reasoning or the use of logic.

So..in this case:
With an assumption that a criminal normally wants to escape after his crime, preferably
undetected....
What was the gunman's purpose in leaving shells behind?
Perhaps there was none.
In that case, assuming he did not want to be caught then leaving the shells behind is irrational
for the above assumption.
Perhaps there was some other reason unknown to us.
Well in that case thats where it ends then..in our ignorance,unless we start speculating.
Perhaps he wanted to accomplish a purpose and perhaps that purpose was to show that
a rifle had been used there.
I personally like that reasoning but remember his ultimate pupose is to escape undetected.
So what about the rifle?
Same thing, the pupose was to indicate a rifle was used and here it is.
What about the prints?
Well he has to wipe them to achive his final goal as he had reasoned.
He may very well have another important purpose if he knows the rifle can be traced.
A serial number intact tells him of that likelyhood if not least any knowledge about postal orders.
So..he's framing someone.
The actions are consistant with the use of reason and logic to achieve a purpose.
That is , the framing of the person to whom the rifle could be traced to.
All sounds reasonable.

What if he wanted to shoot the president and escape and thats all there is to it.
In that case his actions can said to be at cross purposes with his goal and therefore irrational
or at the very least , his actions were put into place without reason and logic and that is irrational.
If he did act in this way then our description of him as irrational is valid.
It is not just subjective because  the use of reason and logic to achive the goal as we understand them is absent.

Now if he also constructed a barrier made from boxes to partially shield his activities from view we have
another paradox that is hard to explain.
That is, the use of reason and logic to acheive the purpose of concealing himself but then the abandonment
of this reason re the shells and rifle.
Again..irrational

Actually when you analize it, the alleged actions of the gunman are extremely inconsistant and seemingly irrational,
the only solution which includes rational and logical behavior is that his purpose was one of the following:

1 - shoot the president, escape and incriminate someone else in the process.
2 - not shoot the present but just plant the shells and rifle there to incriminate someone else and then escape..

Two things are clear:
He knowingly and purposefully left evidence at the scene.
He knowingly and purposefully wiped all potentially self identifying prints from the rifle.


I think that we have the right to claim objectivity in a judgement of a behaviour  when we are using an accepted 'norm'
or reference on which to base that judgment and when we can clearly show that the actions departed significantly
from that 'norm' or that those actions appear to lack reason and logic.

And allthough this is just  discussion it really does highlight just how strange
the official version is and just how incredible that it was accepted by learned men.








 



#31 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 25 August 2014 - 09:57 AM

Now if he also constructed a barrier made from boxes to partially shield his activities from view we have

another paradox that is hard to explain.

That is, the use of reason and logic to acheive the purpose of concealing himself but then the abandonment
of this reason re the shells and rifle.
Again..irrational

Actually when you analize it, the alleged actions of the gunman are extremely inconsistant and seemingly irrational,
the only solution which includes rational and logical behavior is that his purpose was one of the following:

1 - shoot the president, escape and incriminate someone else in the process.
2 - not shoot the present but just plant the shells and rifle there to incriminate someone else and then escape..

Two things are clear:
He knowingly and purposefully left evidence at the scene.
He knowingly and purposefully wiped all potentially self identifying prints from the rifle.


I think that we have the right to claim objectivity in a judgement of a behaviour  when we are using an accepted 'norm'
or reference on which to base that judgment and when we can clearly show that the actions departed significantly
from that 'norm' or that those actions appear to lack reason and logic.

And allthough this is just  discussion it really does highlight just how strange
the official version is and just how incredible that it was accepted by learned men.

 

How about I make it simple for you.

 

There was no "he" to which you refer. Therefore there is no "he" for us to judge as rational or irrational; no "he" who could have acted bizarrely; no "he" who did anything.

 

There was a "group" whose individual members took various actions in support of a larger goal. All of these actions were highly rational in the sense that they followed a well reasoned plan. None of these actions were bizarre by any stretch of the imagination.


  • Jim Hackett II likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#32 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 25 August 2014 - 11:32 AM

:unsure: The strange thing to me about Lee H Oswald's actions on 11/22/63, is his leaving the TexasSchoolBookDepository building, where he was employed, without conferring with his supervisor. At least I don't recall any reference made to him checking with his supervisor before leaving. And, for me it is especially concerning considering what had just happened. As for a placed incriminating rifle, I would think it was handled  by gloved hands.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#33 Brian Kelshaw

Brian Kelshaw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • LocationWolverhampton, UK.

Posted 25 August 2014 - 12:59 PM

It is highly improbable that Lee was unaware of what was going to happen to the President that day, to a greater or lesser degree. It is therefore even more improbable that when it actually happened his first thought would have been to ask "please sir, I presume you won't be needing me today" Or put another way, what had just happened quite clearly explained why he didn't confer with anyone.

#34 Liam Kelly

Liam Kelly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 25 August 2014 - 11:34 PM

It's not necessary to make it "simple" for me Greg.

I am quite capable of a reasonably complex analysis as well as following multiple

ideas at once.

The 'he' to which I refer is a hypothetical character put forward by the official

line who was responsible for certain actions, again. hypothetically although, of

course the government presented those actions as fact.

My posts make that very clear.

Analysing the official line where you mention its metrics  is not the same as proposing it, and

the posts are not about establishing the facts of the conspiracy.

The government line was to portray actions that would make the individual accredited with

those actions , irrational, that is if one accepted the official line in the first place.

Which of course we don’t.

So its not a matter of me saying there WAS a 'he' but rather me saying that the official line

puts forward a 'he'.

Whether there was a group or an individual has got nothing to do with my point.

Which is that the government said there was an individual and he did these actions .

My assertion is that if this were true then the individual was irrational.

And I made the very clear point that there is only one rational explanation for the rifle

being wiped and then left at the scene and that was to frame someone.

And as Oswald appears to me to be an essentially rational person...it doesn’t fit.

So we are not at odds with that.

If on the other hand Oswald had a provable history of doing extraordinary things

with out any rational basis and for which there was no apparent explanation

then we might look at the possibly more closely, in spite of

the fact of a number of witness seeing people (not Oswald) on the sixth floor

and despite there being an unidentified fingerprint in the collection of so called evidence.

But despite the fact that Oswald had a seemingly contradictory existence in some ways, that irrational

history is just simply not there from what we know.

So even just from this anaysis alone, (not to mention other evidence), I conclude that it is almost

impossible for Oswald to have been the person who placed the rifle next to the boxes by the stair well.



#35 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 26 August 2014 - 04:21 AM

The relevance of Lee Oswald. IMO.

The preassassination "setup" of an intell asset named Lee Oswald matters.

Carcano and Revolver are by now proven to have NO valid connection to Lee Oswald or "A. Hidell" for that matter.

 

More relevant than anything in the Warren Commission Report are the things left out that we know now.

Guy Banister, Mike and Ruth Paine and the like. Only slight mention of the other assets in the Fable ver. 1.0 or 2.0.

I emphasize the before the fact nature of events. Events that contradict the Fables.

 

A founder here, Ms. Adele Edisen can educate us about before the fact naming of the patsy and other ominous details.

Those events are footprints unerased from the ground that lead back to the Enemies of freedom.

 

To me all else of the Fable is just that.

Stashing the rifle was in fact PLANTING the weapon, emplacing the foundation of the Fable backstopped with the fake backyard photos.

An assassin that flees the scene of the crime on public transportation! More Fable.

Just my Opinion.

 

However it sucks that for years back when the Fable was fresh I believed it all.

It took even Jim Garrison years to awaken too.



#36 Brian Kelshaw

Brian Kelshaw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • LocationWolverhampton, UK.

Posted 26 August 2014 - 12:23 PM

The backyard photos, found on Saturday, when the eeevil Ruth Payne obligingly left the DPD to search her house, with no one else present, whilst she "had to go grocery shopping".

Every time I read the description of a kindly Quaker miss goody goody I wanna throw up. I could cheerfully strangle her.

#37 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 22 October 2014 - 09:26 PM

No point in doing harm to assets.

They are easily replaced by new lackeys.

 

Exposure is the way to do this.....

Everytime she "appears" or stars in another "TV" discovery/disney special:

Someone should ask her AND MIKEY about the "We both know who is responsible for this...." phone conversation of Nov. 22, 1963.

Ok Ma'am you and Mikey know who was responsible, so tell us too,

 

"Ask the question!" as was said before....

Jackasses..dancing between the raindrops

Jim






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com