41 replies to this topic

[Mike in STL]

Is this a reference to the fatal head shot or am I completely missing the boat here?

Seinfeld reference. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Oswald was not a terrible shot; he was good enough to make the shots from the sixth floor window of the School Book Despository. He fired the three shots in 8.9 seconds, which was plenty of time. Unfortunately, many people's knowledge of the assassination (and I'm not pointing any fingers at you) comes from Oliver Stone's film, which was a smorgasbord of fact and fiction and all blended together with a film maker's skill.

 

I have read many treatises on the Kennedy Assassination, including Jim Marrs, as you mentioned above, Robert Groden, et al. If you want to talk about an industrial complex, the Kennedy assassination has become an industry onto itself. But until someone can show me convincing enough evidence to the contrary, I will always believe that Oswald was the killer and he acted of his own accord. 

Yeah Oswald was the one who fired the fatal shots. Was he also not the one who killed Tippit?? Why was that necessary if its all a conspiracy. The truth is it was a relatively easy shot. Its sad that it was as easy as it was. No top on the motorcade. That it was going that slow. A perfect perch and angle from the Depository. I guess there is some part of me that could buy someone else conspired with Oswald and helped him but Im one who generally believes that its much more likely that its  too damn hard for people to accept that someone as insignificant as Oswald could take out someone as significant as Kennedy.

[mdrunning]

Yeah Oswalt was the one who fired the fatal shots. Was he also not the one who killed Tippit?? Why was that necessary if its all a conspiracy. The truth is it was a relatively easy shot. Its sad that it was as easy as it was. No top on the motorcade. That it was going that slow. A perfect perch and angle from the Depository. I guess there is some part of me that could buy someone else conspired with Oswalt and helped him but Im one who generally believes that its much more likely that its  too damn hard for people to accept that someone as insignificant as Oswalt could take out someone as significant as Kennedy.

Absolutely. But then again, other than John Wilkes Booth, every presidential assassin fit the profile of the ne'er do well type. They were all utterly insignificant. And as you stated, the magnitude of their deeds certainly don't fit that of their personal profiles. One comparison I've read is that of the Holocaust, one in which you have the greatest war criminals in human history linked to the greatest crime. There's at least some balance. 

 

I think that the Tippit murder was a piece that simply didn't fit. But what it does do is belie the belief held by those who claim Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. If he was guiltless, then why did he run in the first place, and why did he feel he needed to kill Officer J.D. Tippit? Innocent people don't flee, and they certainly don't try and shoot their way out of an encounter with a police officer.

 

Where the grist mill for conspiracy started wasn't with Oswald killing Kennedy, but rather, the killing of Oswald two days later by Jack Ruby on national television. Was Ruby part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald? No way, in my opinion. No one in their right mind would have made Ruby part of any conspiracy. Another piece that simply didn't fit. Life happens like that oftentimes. But what people saw were two shocking murders in a span of 48 hours with no explanation. And the longer it took for an explanation to be provided, the more the wheels of conspiracy just kept turning faster and faster.

[Old Man]

People cant keep secrets, if this had truly been a masterpiece plan, then it would have come out by now.

 

We the people love nothing more than a good conspiracy.

[PrimeTime]

Did you ever read the Stephen King book 11/22/63. Fictional of course, but insists that saving JFKs life in fact made life worse today. Nuclear wasteland everywhere, Civil Rights Act never gets passed, etc...

 

I watched the made for TV adaptation on Hulu. I enjoyed it for what it was but disagree vehemently with the direction King took. It's almost like an Operation Mockingbird, CIA propaganda hit piece.

[PrimeTime]

People cant keep secrets, if this had truly been a masterpiece plan, then it would have come out by now.

 

We the people love nothing more than a good conspiracy.

 

The information and most of the details are available, you just have to look for them. The mainstream media has been complicit in the cover-up. See Operation Mockingbird.

[PrimeTime]

Absolutely. But then again, other than John Wilkes Booth, every presidential assassin fit the profile of the ne'er do well type. They were all utterly insignificant. And as you stated, the magnitude of their deeds certainly don't fit that of their personal profiles. One comparison I've read is that of the Holocaust, one in which you have the greatest war criminals in human history linked to the greatest crime. There's at least some balance. 

 

I think that the Tippit murder was a piece that simply didn't fit. But what it does do is belie the belief held by those who claim Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. If he was guiltless, then why did he run in the first place, and why did he feel he needed to kill Officer J.D. Tippit? Innocent people don't flee, and they certainly don't try and shoot their way out of an encounter with a police officer.

 

Where the grist mill for conspiracy started wasn't with Oswald killing Kennedy, but rather, the killing of Oswald two days later by Jack Ruby on national television. Was Ruby part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald? No way, in my opinion. No one in their right mind would have made Ruby part of any conspiracy. Another piece that simply didn't fit. Life happens like that oftentimes. But what people saw were two shocking murders in a span of 48 hours with no explanation. And the longer it took for an explanation to be provided, the more the wheels of conspiracy just kept turning faster and faster.

 

Officer Tippit's murder is not an open and shut case by any means. None of the witnesses ID'd Oswald as the shooter. The woman closest to the shooting, Aquilla Clemons, was sitting on her front porch and told police she saw 2 men fleeing the seen. She was never even taken to a line up. Oswald had a revolver but the police found shell casings at the scene. Why would Oswald shoot Tippit and then expel the casings to leave evidence behind? And of course the Tippit murder was a perfect way to build the legend of Oswald as the assassin because why else would he shoot a policeman unless he feared arrest? 

 

Ruby and Oswald knew each other. Several of Ruby's employees at his Carousel Club saw Oswald and Ruby together in the fall of '63. Beverly Oliver was introduced to Oswald by Ruby himself. If you look at Jack Ruby in the days following the assassination, he was om the mix everywhere. He was at the Oswald press conference, despite not being a member of the press. AP reporter Seth Kantor spoke to Ruby at Parkland Hospital on Friday afternoon as news of Kennedy's grave condition was breaking. Some have even theorized that Ruby may have slipped the bullet onto the stretcher at the hospital that became the infamous WC exhibit 399 or "the magic bullet". Either way, Ruby was not some patriotic night club owner that murdered Oswald to spare Jackie the pain of a trial. 

[mdrunning]

To believe that someone else killed J.D. Tippit would have to believe that Oswald just happened to show up wielding a gun when the murder took place. You'd also have to believe that someone else just happened to be running away from the crime scene while at the same time ejecting shells and re-loading his pistol. Oh, and he would have to have looked like Oswald. No way. No how.

 

Nine witnesses didn't see actual bullets strike Tippit from Oswald's gun, but they all said they saw a man who looked like Oswald running away from 10th and Patten with a gun in his hand. Two other witnesses saw Oswald walk around the patrol car to where Tippit lay dying and then shoot the stricken officer once in the head. Oswald is not only guilty beyond any reasonable doubt; he is guilty beyond any and all doubt. 
 

In the end, it really doesn't matter whether or not Ruby knew Oswald--although there is no physical evidence to suggest this was the case. Ruby was an attention-seeker with a violent streak who thought that killing Oswald would make him a hero. In fact, when word spread through the Dallas streets that Oswald had been killed, several hundred people simultaneously broke out into cheers. Ruby did not act at the behest of organized crime or anyone else. It was all personal motivation from a man with a hair-trigger temper.

 

There was no magic bullet, by the way. Computer re-enactments have demonstrated that the shot which struck Kennedy's throat and subsequently hit John Connally was the same bullet. The trajectory of the bullet is directly in line with the two men back to the sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. 

 

Had Oswald shot his brother-in-law from the sixth floor of the Depository, he'd have been tried, convicted and forgotten in about three days. But for the fact that he killed the President, it's an easy case for any prosecutor to make.

[PrimeTime]

To believe that someone else killed J.D. Tippit would have to believe that Oswald just happened to show up wielding a gun when the murder took place. You'd also have to believe that someone who looked like Oswald just happened to be running away from the crime scene while at the same time ejecting shells and re-loading his pistol. Oh, and he would have to have looked like Oswald. No way. No how.

 

Nine witnesses didn't see actual bullets strike Tippit from Oswald's gun, but they all said they saw a man who looked like Oswald running away from 10th and Patten with a gun in his hand. Two other witnesses saw Oswald walk around the patrol car to where Tippit lay dying and then shoot the stricken officer once in the head. Oswald is not only guilty beyond any reasonable doubt; he is guilty beyond any and all doubt. 
 

In the end, it really doesn't matter whether or not Ruby knew Oswald--although there is no physical evidence to suggest this was the case. Ruby was an attention-seeker with a violent streak who thought that killing Oswald would make him a hero. In fact, when word spread through the Dallas streets that Oswald had been killed, several hundred people simultaneously broke out into cheers. Ruby did not act at the behest of organized crime or anyone else. It was all personal motivation from a man with a hair-trigger temper.

 

There was no magic bullet, by the way. Computer re-enactments have demonstrated that the shot which struck Kennedy's throat and subsequently hit John Connally was the same bullet. The trajectory of the bullet is directly in line with the two men back to the sixth floor of the Schoolbook Depository. 

 

Had Oswald shot his brother-in-law from the sixth floor of the Depository, he'd have been tried, convicted and forgotten in about three days. But for the fact that he killed the President, it's an easy case for any prosecutor to make.

 

There were multiple reports of Oswalds all over Dallas in the fall of 1963. Common intelligence tactic to employee doubles. So seeing someone that looked like Oswald at the scene of Tippit's murder is no surprise. The manager of the Texas Theater, Butch Burroughs, testified that he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:13 pm, yet Tippit wasn't murdered until 1:16 pm. So who did Burroughs sell popcorn to? And the Oswald that bought popcorn went up to sit in the balcony, yet Oswald was apprehended by police in the main part of the theater. Further testimony to the 2nd Oswald came from the owner of the Bernie's Hobby House, which was 2 doors east of the Texas Theater witnessed a young, white male in handcuffs being escorted out of the rear of the theater. For years, he believed he witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shocked to find that Oswald had been escorted out of the front door of the theater.

 

Computer simulations are meaningless. Garbage in, garbage out. You put whatever numbers you want to into a computer and you get the results you want. Listen to forensic pathologists, like Cyril Wecht. WCE 399 had less damage than a test bullet that was fired into the wrist of a human cadaver, which is only one of the 7 wounds the bullet allegedly made. Even Connally himself, who was familiar with combat asserted he was hit by a different bullet than Kennedy. Also, by the Warren Commission's own words, Kennedy was killed by a high velocity projectile, the Manlicher Carcano was a medium velocity weapon.

 

Plus, there's the bullet hole in the windshield of the presidential limo that was seen by several witnesses at Parkland Hospital. And why did the Secret Service immediately clean the limo at Parkland? It was full of clues to the murder of the president, why would they destroy the crime scene? And furthermore, why did LBJ send the limo to Ford Motor Company on the Monday after the assassination to have it rebuilt and have the windshield replaced? This is all evidence of a clear cover up.

 

Regarding the behavior of the Secret Service, why was the motorcade protection detail changed specifically for Dallas? The day prior in Houston, the police motorcycle escort was in a diamond formation around the presidential limo, yet in Dallas, the motorcycle patrolmen were ordered to stay behind the rear bumper of the limo. The argument has been made the Kennedy ordered this but from all accounts Kennedy never interfered with how the Secret Service detail handled its duties. 

 

Also on the behavior of the Secret Service, when the Assassination Records Review Board was formed in the early 90's by presidential decree, the Secret Service destroyed a trove of documents related to the Kennedy assassination. Why?

 

While we're talking about the motorcade, the presidential limo is never the first car in the motorcade; yet in Dallas it was. And, the cars in the motorcade are always all the same color, yet in Dallas, the presidential limo was a different color. Again, why?

 

Regarding Jack Ruby, his words to the Warren Commission speak volumes. He asked to be transferred to Washington to testify and they refused to do it. He granted famous reporter Dorothy Kilgallen interviews and when she was done speaking with him, she vowed to "blow the JFK case wide open". Shortly thereafter, Kilgallen was found dead of barbituate overdose and all of her Ruby interview notes were gone from her home. Kilgallen is one in a long line of witnesses that died under let's say "mysterious" circumstances. Check out the book "Hit List", it's an interesting read.

 

Had Ruby not murdered Oswald, there's no way he would've been convicted. His paraffin test was negative for nitrates on his hands, which means he didn't fire a rifle on 11/22/63. Also, they only found a palm print on the weapon a few days later. And it was found after 2 men in suits showed up at the funeral home and put Oswald's dead hand on the rifle, as per the testimony of funeral director Paul Groody. Groody even stated he had a hell of time getting the ink off of Oswald's hand prior to the funeral. Also, regarding the weapon, the police and the news reported that it was 7.65 Mauser found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, not a Manlicher Carcano. The story changed over the weekend. 

 

Everyone is entitled to their belief but the amount of smoke surrounding the murder of John Kennedy is simply too much to ignore. The information is all out there, you just have to open your mind to all of the possibilities. It's a frightening thing to do though because if come to the conclusion that they can kill the president in broad daylight on the streets of a major American city, what won't they do? It's much easier and more comforting to believe that assassination of the President was the act of a lonely, disgruntled, ex Marine because it helps us sleep better at night.

[Old Man]

The information and most of the details are available, you just have to look for them. The mainstream media has been complicit in the cover-up. See Operation Mockingbird.

Would Walter Cronkite count as mainstream. He did an long documentary into the Warren commission and the case, and things like one of the major forensics labs at the time, did a recreation of the shot, from that window, using a watermelon which they said gives the exact same results of a human head.

 

The melon came apart at the same spots and pretty much confirmed that the shot did come from there.

 

Kill a President in broad daylight? You mean like Hinkley almost killed Reagan in DC in broad daylight with Secret Service around.

 

Parafin test is only solid for less than 6 hours.

 

Are there pictures to back up the bullet hole in the windshield or just eye witnesses, which isn't exactly concrete evidence?

 

Funny, your mention of the hit list, reminds me of all the people around the Clintons who have all died.

 

Makes for good discussion.

 

Hopefully, the future will never see any POTUS shot.

[PrimeTime]

Would Walter Cronkite count as mainstream. He did an long documentary into the Warren commission and the case, and things like one of the major forensics labs at the time, did a recreation of the shot, from that window, using a watermelon which they said gives the exact same results of a human head.

 

The melon came apart at the same spots and pretty much confirmed that the shot did come from there.

 

Kill a President in broad daylight? You mean like Hinkley almost killed Reagan in DC in broad daylight with Secret Service around.

 

Parafin test is only solid for less than 6 hours.

 

Are there pictures to back up the bullet hole in the windshield or just eye witnesses, which isn't exactly concrete evidence?

 

Funny, your mention of the hit list, reminds me of all the people around the Clintons who have all died.

 

Makes for good discussion.

 

Hopefully, the future will never see any POTUS shot.

 

There are photographs of the bullet hole in the windshield; in the "Altgens 6" (photo taken by AP photographer James Ike Altgens) you can see it. The photo was taken prior to the head shot but Kennedy can be seen with his hands up to his throat after being hit from the front. The wound in the neck was a wound of entry, as identified by all of the doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital. The wound was widened to perform a tracheostomy, which Dr McClelland testified to.

 

And about the parafin test, I misspoke. Oswald was positive for nitrates on his hands but negative on his face. Which is doubly exculpatory because he couldn't have washed the nitrates off his cheek if they were still on his hands. The positive test on his hands was from handling boxes and textbooks.

 

Regarding Cronkite, there's nothing concrete about him and Operation Mockingbird but the CIA is on record (during the Church Committee hearings in mid 1970's about CIA misconduct) saying that they high placed assets in all major media outlets. Based on that, one can take a logical guess that Cronkite was either on the take or compromised in some form or fashsion.

 

There are several problems with the WC story of the head shot. One of them being the skull fragment that was found in Dealey Plaza by a medical student named Harper. It was clearly a piece of occipital bone, which would only fracture away in the manner in which it did by way of an exit wound. Also, the medical staff at Parkland Hospital, many of whom were trained trauma surgeons, testified that the president had a wound of entry in the area of his right temple. Also, they stated that they saw a hole roughly the size of a fist in the back of the president's head and the cerebellum was exposed. Again, this would not happen if this was a wound of entry.

 

With all of this said, the original post was about the book, JFK and The Unspeakable, not necessarily the mechanics of the assassination itself. Kennedy had made lots of enemies in his brief time in the White House and the books does an impressive job of detailing Kennedy's evolution from a Cold Warrior to a man of peace.

 

Anyway given the mountains of evidence, let's just say it's a difficult premise to accept that Oswald bought an easily traceable rifle, that was well known to be a piss poor weapon, that also had a defective scope and with his track record of being a mediocre shot per his Marine record, stood in that window and made the shots.

 

Interestingly enough, a presidential motorcade through downtown Chicago in early November 1963 was cancelled because of an assassination threat that was phoned in by an FBI informant named "Lee". The man that was arrested in connection to the assassination plot was named Thomas Arthur Vallee. He happened to have just recently gotten a job on the 4th floor of a building that was overlooking the would be motorcade route through Chicago. He also happened to be an ex Marine that was labelled as "disgruntled". Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? 

[Old Man]

Kennedy did make a lot of enemies, for sure.

 

Not to mention jealous guys of all the woman, he was sleeping with.

 

I dont believe you can wash the nitrates off with soap and water.

 

Out of all this, I have the hardest time getting my hands around the fact that Cronkite might have been on the take, or a puppet used by others. He was so straight lace and heck, was voted the most trust worthy man in the news.

 

I tip my hat to you, for being well versed in this ugly day in our history.

[mdrunning]

Interesting to note that Kennedy's hands-to-the-throat reaction is something known as Thorburn's Position, so named for the doctor who discovered it. It's a rather curious reaction the body can make when reacting to a spinal trauma. Kennedy's hands weren't up at his throat per se, but near his neck. The Zapruder Film shows Jackie trying to push his arms down moments before the fatal head shot, but to no avail. 

 

Kennedy's spine was not damaged, but a 6.5 mm bullet traveling at a speed of 2000 feet per second would have caused the reaction just by traversing the area. Just for the record, that ammunition can drop a full-sized deer at 200 yards, so it could easily pass through Kennedy and into Connally if it didn't strike vital organs or bone matter, which it didn't.

 

Dorothy Kilgallen died from an overdose of sleeping pills and alcohol. Back in those days, sleepers were full strength and lethal if not taken correctly. She was also known to have extra marital affairs. If there is anything mysterious about her death, the answer may lie  with fellow journalist Ron Pataky, a man some 20 years her junior and  with whom she may have been having an affair. He is the last person known to have seen her alive, but unfortunately, he also died earlier this year. If he had any knowledge of her death, he took it to the grave.

 

As for the medical staff at Parkland claiming that Kennedy suffered a right temple wound, only two--Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw--ever made this claim. Any testimony from McClelland is suspect since he happens to be very good friends with one Robert Groden (author of High Treason and a conspiracy theorist to the nth degree). Crenshaw was only a junior resident at Parkland at that time and assisted only at the very end. He was in no position to make the sensational claims he later made in his 1992 book Conspiracy of Silence. In fact, none of the other physicians at Parkland that day recall him even being in the room as they worked to try and save Kennedy's life.

[mdrunning]

There were multiple reports of Oswalds all over Dallas in the fall of 1963. Common intelligence tactic to employee doubles. So seeing someone that looked like Oswald at the scene of Tippit's murder is no surprise. The manager of the Texas Theater, Butch Burroughs, testified that he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:13 pm, yet Tippit wasn't murdered until 1:16 pm. So who did Burroughs sell popcorn to? And the Oswald that bought popcorn went up to sit in the balcony, yet Oswald was apprehended by police in the main part of the theater. Further testimony to the 2nd Oswald came from the owner of the Bernie's Hobby House, which was 2 doors east of the Texas Theater witnessed a young, white male in handcuffs being escorted out of the rear of the theater. For years, he believed he witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shocked to find that Oswald had been escorted out of the front door of the theater.

After a seismic event such as the Kennedy Assassination, it isn't surprising that there were a myriad of Oswald sightings. It should also be noted that third-person testimony after the fact is typically the most unreliable. People hear a name, then see a face attached to that name and believe they may have seen said person at a post office, a fast food joint, a shooting range, what have you.

 

Mind you, most of these witnesses are not evil people, nor do they have any ulterior motives. They just simply convince themselves they saw someone and report it thusly. And in most cases, they're mistaken. The case of two Oswalds would be easy enough to prove. All that would be necessary is to provide evidence of Oswald A in one place while simultaneously showing Oswald B in another at the same time. Shouldn't be too difficult if these purported Oswalds were running all over Dallas back in 1963.

 

This theory is nothing new, by the way. It was first put forth by one Richard Popkin way back in 1966 with The Second Oswald. It was then refined over 30 years later with claims that a young boy, perhaps from Hungary was planted by the CIA or some clandestine organization and began leading a life as Oswald's double. What these theories struggle to answer, however, is why in the world would anyone replicate Lee Harvey Oswald at age 13 and how did anyone know he would eventually assassinate John Kennedy? Or for that matter, how did anyone know Kennedy was ever going to be elected President. Or would they just pick off whoever happened to hold the office at that time?

 

Methinks that perhaps conspiracy research has at least hit a dead end. It's one thing to believe Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President; it's something else altogether to posit that the seeds were planted when he was just 13 years old.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Just out of curosity what do the conspiracy theorists believe Oswalt was doing that day. Thats one aspect Ive never heard or at least I didnt pay much attention to it.

[mdrunning]

Just out of curosity what do the conspiracy theorists believe Oswalt was doing that day. Thats one aspect Ive never heard or at least I didnt pay much attention to it.

That he was at work at the Depository just like everyone else employed there. But he was also the only employee who couldn't account for his whereabouts at the time of the assassination. And lest anyone think that Oswald's hiring at the Depository was just another link the chain of conspiracy, he began work there on October 15 of 1963 and the Presidential motorcade route through Dallas had not been disclosed at that time.

 

Conversely, in most other instances Oswald's time could be accounted for, which led to the conspiracy theory of a double impersonating Oswald. A number of people claim to have seen Oswald at a local firing range the weekend before the assassination, the theory being that said conspirators would have sent a crack shooter in order to substantiate the claim that Oswald himself was a poor shot and therefore couldn't have fired the fatal shots. (As Oswald's own Marine C.O. stated, Oswald was "an average shot for a Marine, but good for a civilian.")

 

Trouble is, there was no "Oswald" on the registry at the time people claimed to have seen him there. Had there truly been a frame-up, the imposter would have least written Oswald's name in block lettering to make it appear he had been present at that time. It should also be noted that four witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald at the range could not identify him when shown photographs. A car salesman said Oswald test drove a vehicle at his dealership the Saturday before the assassination and even claimed to have introduced Oswald to the manager. Two problems: Oswald had no driver's license, and the manager recalled no such meeting. The salesman was subsequently fired.

 

Another witness claimed to have seen Oswald at the firing range the Sunday after the assassination, which was also the day Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. No conspirator would have been foolish enough to put an Oswald imposter out in public view when he was already in police custody and dead shortly thereafter.

As I stated earlier, it would have been very easy and very understandable for people to think they had seen Oswald once his name and likeness were all over broadcast and print media. Some of these witnesses may have simply been attention seekers, but the vast majority likely convinced themselves they had seen him and were simply trying to help. Third-party testimony after the fact is notoriously unreliable.

 

Even eyewitness testimony is both a blessing and a curse given its fickle nature. Ten people can witness the same event and give 10 different versions of what happened. Consider the case of the Titanic. Some 700 people were lucky enough to escape the stricken ship and presumably watched the tragedy unfold from the safety of the lifeboats as the doomed liner slowly went down. Yet they were later almost evenly split in their accounts of what they saw. Half of them said the ship went down intact, while the others said it broke in half before finally going to the bottom.

[PrimeTime]

After a seismic event such as the Kennedy Assassination, it isn't surprising that there were a myriad of Oswald sightings. It should also be noted that third-person testimony after the fact is typically the most unreliable. People hear a name, then see a face attached to that name and believe they may have seen said person at a post office, a fast food joint, a shooting range, what have you.

 

Mind you, most of these witnesses are not evil people, nor do they have any ulterior motives. They just simply convince themselves they saw someone and report it thusly. And in most cases, they're mistaken. The case of two Oswalds would be easy enough to prove. All that would be necessary is to provide evidence of Oswald A in one place while simultaneously showing Oswald B in another at the same time. Shouldn't be too difficult if these purported Oswalds were running all over Dallas back in 1963.

 

This theory is nothing new, by the way. It was first put forth by one Richard Popkin way back in 1966 with The Second Oswald. It was then refined over 30 years later with claims that a young boy, perhaps from Hungary was planted by the CIA or some clandestine organization and began leading a life as Oswald's double. What these theories struggle to answer, however, is why in the world would anyone replicate Lee Harvey Oswald at age 13 and how did anyone know he would eventually assassinate John Kennedy? Or for that matter, how did anyone know Kennedy was ever going to be elected President. Or would they just pick off whoever happened to hold the office at that time?

 

Methinks that perhaps conspiracy research has at least hit a dead end. It's one thing to believe Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President; it's something else altogether to posit that the seeds were planted when he was just 13 years old.

 

Regarding the multiple Oswald theory, it was a common intelligence practice to employ doubles and since we know that Oswald was on both the FBI and CIA payroll, this adds up. Furthermore, J Edgar Hoover wrote to the State Department on June 3, 1960 that "there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate...." and "...any current information the Department of Stat may concerning subject would be appreciated." 

 

Another interesting note, the Dallas police homicide report on JD Tippit stated, "Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the The Texas Theater" but the news reports  and the official story indicates that Oswald was apprehended on the floor of the theater.

 

Add to that, the statement of Bernard Haire, the owner of Bernie's Hobby House, which was in close proximity to the Texas Theater.  After seeing the commotion of police cars out front, he walked through his store and out to the back alley, which was also filled with police cars. Haire witnessed the police bring a young white male out the back door of the theater. He couldn't tell if the man was in handcuffs but it appeared that he was under arrest. Haire watched the police put the young man in a patrol car and drive away. For 25 years, Haire believed he witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shocked to discover that Oswald was taken out of the front doors of the theater.

 

Even if we apply your theory that people were just shaken by the assassination and misremembered things (which means we'd have to assume that both men or someone they were acquainted with were listening to the radio within the last half hour or so), who else did the police take out of the Texas Theater that afternoon?

 

Then, there's the testimony of Silvia Odio, who had fled Cuba after her parents were imprisoned by the Castro government. She, along with other anti Castro Cubans formed "JURE", the Junta Rveolucinaria. Odio stated that in late September 1963, 2 Hispanic men and 1 Caucasian man came to her apartment and they were trying to raise additional funds for the anti Castro movement. The Caucasian man was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald". Within 48 hours, one of the Hispanic men (who called himself "Leopoldo) called Odio and made a series of unsolicited comments about "Leon" to Odio. He stated that Leon was "an ex Marine that was an excellent marksmen" and that he was "kind of loco". Also, Leon thought "we should have shot Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs". 

 

Odio wrote to her father about this incident before JFK's murder. Also, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald was supposed in Mexico City, trying to secure a visa to get into Cuba at the time of the encounter with Odio. So it's another instance of too many Oswalds.

[1970]

Want a great read on this topic?  Try reading LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination.  If even half of what was written about LBJ and his cohorts (Mac Wallace, Bobby Baker, and others) is true, then he was a real nut job and had no business ever being President or even VP.  This book isn’t just about the JFK assassination, it covers LBJ’s entire political career and all the crooked crap he did.  By the way, it took a while to read this one, but I enjoyed it.  

[mdrunning]

Regarding the multiple Oswald theory, it was a common intelligence practice to employ doubles and since we know that Oswald was on both the FBI and CIA payroll, this adds up. Furthermore, J Edgar Hoover wrote to the State Department on June 3, 1960 that "there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate...." and "...any current information the Department of Stat may concerning subject would be appreciated." 

 

Another interesting note, the Dallas police homicide report on JD Tippit stated, "Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the The Texas Theater" but the news reports  and the official story indicates that Oswald was apprehended on the floor of the theater.

 

Add to that, the statement of Bernard Haire, the owner of Bernie's Hobby House, which was in close proximity to the Texas Theater.  After seeing the commotion of police cars out front, he walked through his store and out to the back alley, which was also filled with police cars. Haire witnessed the police bring a young white male out the back door of the theater. He couldn't tell if the man was in handcuffs but it appeared that he was under arrest. Haire watched the police put the young man in a patrol car and drive away. For 25 years, Haire believed he witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shocked to discover that Oswald was taken out of the front doors of the theater.

 

Even if we apply your theory that people were just shaken by the assassination and misremembered things (which means we'd have to assume that both men or someone they were acquainted with were listening to the radio within the last half hour or so), who else did the police take out of the Texas Theater that afternoon?

 

Then, there's the testimony of Silvia Odio, who had fled Cuba after her parents were imprisoned by the Castro government. She, along with other anti Castro Cubans formed "JURE", the Junta Rveolucinaria. Odio stated that in late September 1963, 2 Hispanic men and 1 Caucasian man came to her apartment and they were trying to raise additional funds for the anti Castro movement. The Caucasian man was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald". Within 48 hours, one of the Hispanic men (who called himself "Leopoldo) called Odio and made a series of unsolicited comments about "Leon" to Odio. He stated that Leon was "an ex Marine that was an excellent marksmen" and that he was "kind of loco". Also, Leon thought "we should have shot Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs". 

 

Odio wrote to her father about this incident before JFK's murder. Also, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald was supposed in Mexico City, trying to secure a visa to get into Cuba at the time of the encounter with Odio. So it's another instance of too many Oswalds.

We do not know that Oswald was on anyone's payroll, let alone those of either the FBI or the CIA. The thousands of pages of documents released last year by the National Archives pretty much reveal what we already knew: The CIA had Oswald under surveillance, but no link was ever established that would suggest Oswald was actually working for the CIA. When it became known that he was the prime suspect in the Kennedy assassination, both agencies moved quickly to cover their arses and were less than cooperative to Warren Commission investigators.

 

It's still very hard for me to believe that any spy agency or police force would ever employ someone as emotionally unstable as Oswald.

 

I'm quite familiar with the late Jim Marrs. In fact, I read his book Crossfire, which was an exhaustive undertaking. I came away with the impression that anyone alive in 1963 was part of the conspiracy. Read one section and you're convinced it was the CIA. Read the next and, oh, wait a minute, it was the Cubans. Then the Mafia. And in one really wild passage, Marrs mentions the wild swings in the NYSE in the days leading up to the assassination. (Damn, I guess T. Rowe Price was involved as well.)

 

And of course, that book served as much of the basis for Oliver Stone's JFK, which should be viewed for entertainment purposes only. Both the book and the movie make incredible leaps to try and connect all of the dots. Marrs made a rather handsome living, I'm sure, selling allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies. This guy could have found a conspiracy in someone accidentally putting out the recycle on trash night.

 

As for Sylvia Odio, she had a history of psychiatric problems (while she was living in Puerto Rico, her psychiatrist there declared her unstable and unable to care for her children). Another who had treated her for "an attack of nerves," concluded she made up the entire story to get attention. I'm not sure I believe that, and I also believe that Gerald Posner went after her a little too harshly in his book, Case Closed. Just because she had a history of mental illness doesn't mean she would purposely make something up to draw attention to herself. It also should be mentioned in the name of fairness that her father was a prominent political prisoner in their native Cuba, which would be enough to drive anyone to distraction. There's a line between "truthful," which she most likely was, and "accurate" which she almost certainly was not.

 

Odio claimed Oswald and two other men visited her at her Dallas residence either on a Wednesday or Thursday in late September (the 25th or 26th), but there's a problem with either date since they coincided with Oswald's Mexico City visit. Regardless of the date, how could Oswald have been two places at once? Plus, there's another problem that Marr and the conspiracy theorists conveniently overlook: If Oswald was an unabashed pro-Castro leftist, as he is typically portrayed, why on earth would he ever call on a virulently anti-Castro Cuban? That makes no sense.

[PrimeTime]

We do not know that Oswald was on anyone's payroll, let alone those of either the FBI or the CIA. The thousands of pages of documents released last year by the National Archives pretty much reveal what we already knew: The CIA had Oswald under surveillance, but no link was ever established that would suggest Oswald was actually working for the CIA. When it became known that he was the prime suspect in the Kennedy assassination, both agencies moved quickly to cover their arses and were less than cooperative to Warren Commission investigators.

 

It's still very hard for me to believe that any spy agency or police force would ever employ someone as emotionally unstable as Oswald.

 

I'm quite familiar with the late Jim Marrs. In fact, I read his book Crossfire, which was an exhaustive undertaking. I came away with the impression that anyone alive in 1963 was part of the conspiracy. Read one section and you're convinced it was the CIA. Read the next and, oh, wait a minute, it was the Cubans. Then the Mafia. And in one really wild passage, Marrs mentions the wild swings in the NYSE in the days leading up to the assassination. (Damn, I guess T. Rowe Price was involved as well.)

 

And of course, that book served as much of the basis for Oliver Stone's JFK, which should be viewed for entertainment purposes only. Both the book and the movie make incredible leaps to try and connect all of the dots. Marrs made a rather handsome living, I'm sure, selling allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies. This guy could have found a conspiracy in someone accidentally putting out the recycle on trash night.

 

As for Sylvia Odio, she had a history of psychiatric problems (while she was living in Puerto Rico, her psychiatrist there declared her unstable and unable to care for her children). Another who had treated her for "an attack of nerves," concluded she made up the entire story to get attention. I'm not sure I believe that, and I also believe that Gerald Posner went after her a little too harshly in his book, Case Closed. Just because she had a history of mental illness doesn't mean she would purposely make something up to draw attention to herself. It also should be mentioned in the name of fairness that her father was a prominent political prisoner in their native Cuba, which would be enough to drive anyone to distraction. There's a line between "truthful," which she most likely was, and "accurate" which she almost certainly was not.

 

Odio claimed Oswald and two other men visited her at her Dallas residence either on a Wednesday or Thursday in late September (the 25th or 26th), but there's a problem with either date since they coincided with Oswald's Mexico City visit. Regardless of the date, how could Oswald have been two places at once? Plus, there's another problem that Marr and the conspiracy theorists conveniently overlook: If Oswald was an unabashed pro-Castro leftist, as he is typically portrayed, why on earth would he ever call on a virulently anti-Castro Cuban? That makes no sense.

 

Texas assistant DA Wagoner Carr came to the Warren Commission with concrete info that Oswald was on the FBI payroll, getting 200 dollars a week. The Commission chose to ignore it. We know the CIA had a 201 File on Oswald, which means he was at least "known" by the CIA.

 

The easy answer to the presentation as Oswald as a leftist but yet spending time with anti Castro Cubans is creating confusion. Also, the concept of "sheepdipping" to make Oswald appear to be a communist. 

 

Why would Oswald hand out pro communist leaflets, stamped with the address of the same building that Guy Bannister was working out of? Bannister was a known right winger and rabidly anti Castro and Oswald was seen at his office in 1963. Why would he be there, unless he was part of an intelligence op?

 

Also, the whole fake defection to the Soviet Union episode. When Oswald went to the consulate to renounce his US citizenship, he did it on a Sunday and the official paperwork never went through. Then, upon his return to the US (which he didn't have the money for and got a State Department loan), why wasn't Oswald detained and debriefed? After all, he was stationed at Atsugi Air Force base in Japan, which was involved with the U2 program, so he was privy to top secret info.....how/why would the government not want to grill him to find out what he said or didn't say to the Soviets?

 

Just like the thwarted Chicago plot in early November, which featured a loner, disgruntled ex Marine at the center of it, Oswald was a fall guy.

 

Either way, I'm greatly enjoying the conversation. This is fascinating stuff no matter where you fall on the topic.