|
Post by hi224 on Mar 28, 2019 17:12:57 GMT
I believe it was Oswald alone.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 28, 2019 23:49:41 GMT
Same. The speculation is entertaining just to ponder though.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Mar 29, 2019 0:44:46 GMT
The Mob
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 29, 2019 7:10:14 GMT
Oswald could have taken shots at JFK, when JFK was much closer to his position, without running the risk of his shots missing... Instead, he waited... It makes no sense to wait, except to get JFK into a location, where other shooters from around the plaza could fire at JFK simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Mar 31, 2019 21:58:45 GMT
The mob got the weapons and the people to do it and the agencies made the coverup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 3:15:58 GMT
gubment.
|
|
Bargle
Sophomore
My incredibly life-like self-portrait
@bargle
Posts: 432
Likes: 228
|
Post by Bargle on Apr 1, 2019 11:47:39 GMT
Oswald alone. The only thing that ever made me wonder was the way JFK's head moved from the final shot. Once I saw a good explanation of the jet effect and understood that his head moved the way it should have I lost my doubts. The Warren Commission report was flawed, but that doesn't mean they got the wrong person.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Apr 22, 2019 1:41:03 GMT
Ozwald but not alone. Never forget that mysterious babushka woman.
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Apr 30, 2019 8:10:04 GMT
My sense is that Oswald was central to the case; and that yes, he was a patsy, but then what did he expect? He was being used, and he knew it. Whether Oswald did the deed, not so sure, but he was hangin' around Dallas that day. He might have been just for the Mob (with others in the mix as well) the guy to hang the case on. I'm not 100% sure on any of this (if I were I'd write a book and prove my thoughts, guesses, hypotheses, et al, but that's been do sooo many times). There could still be genuine closure to the JFK assassination mystery, such as it can be called, and I can only hope that if the pieces are ever put together logically; if there's some lucky strike somewhere, I'd like to hear of it; and if there are more facts,--and I don't mean hunches--by all means let's gather them together and try to make some sense from them.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 30, 2019 9:53:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 30, 2019 13:00:44 GMT
My sense is that Oswald was central to the case; and that yes, he was a patsy, but then what did he expect? He was being used, and he knew it. Whether Oswald did the deed, not so sure, but he was hangin' around Dallas that day. He might have been just for the Mob (with others in the mix as well) the guy to hang the case on. I'm not 100% sure on any of this (if I were I'd write a book and prove my thoughts, guesses, hypotheses, et al, but that's been do sooo many times). There could still be genuine closure to the JFK assassination mystery, such as it can be called, and I can only hope that if the pieces are ever put together logically; if there's some lucky strike somewhere, I'd like to hear of it; and if there are more facts,--and I don't mean hunches--by all means let's gather them together and try to make some sense from them. Bingo. That he was an integral party to the machinations around the assassination seems clear enough. That he was also far from being some 'Joe Whiteboy Hick-with-a-grudge' is also plainly evident, as his connections to various organizations--'legitimate' and otherwise--demonstrates. He was an at least semi-sophisticated useful tool, carefully groomed to play his part; in the America of the 1950'/60's, one didn't simply defect to the USSR (amidst substantial publicity hoopla, it should be added) and then simply return to the US (with a Soviet bride, no less) without some sort of powerful forces at one's back. The enduring mystery here remains: who was behind Oswald and why? That was the central question that the Warren Commission largely sidestepped in its investigation and it may be a forever unanswered one. But I have no doubt that there were people, perhaps acting in a cabal, perhaps not, who certainly did know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 30, 2019 16:33:20 GMT
Oswald acted alone.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 30, 2019 20:44:10 GMT
My sense is that Oswald was central to the case; and that yes, he was a patsy, but then what did he expect? He was being used, and he knew it. Whether Oswald did the deed, not so sure, but he was hangin' around Dallas that day. He might have been just for the Mob (with others in the mix as well) the guy to hang the case on. I'm not 100% sure on any of this (if I were I'd write a book and prove my thoughts, guesses, hypotheses, et al, but that's been do sooo many times). There could still be genuine closure to the JFK assassination mystery, such as it can be called, and I can only hope that if the pieces are ever put together logically; if there's some lucky strike somewhere, I'd like to hear of it; and if there are more facts,--and I don't mean hunches--by all means let's gather them together and try to make some sense from them. sort of how i see it.
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on May 1, 2019 8:05:39 GMT
I just can't buy Oswald as a lone gunman. He was too connected, and to all kinds of people. He may well have been, as a character type, an introvert, but he wasn't without friends, and he had lots of contact with other people. It seems to me that while in some respects Oswald may well fit the bill as the sort of fellow who might want to kill a person in a position of power, he strikes me as almost too good a fit for that.
I have myself been in predicaments in my life, while nothing so serious as murder, but in a bad spot, in one particular instance, and the reasons for my appearing so badly was a combination of bad luck, others willing to lie, and then me essentially in the groove, as in the trope "He's the last person I'd ever, never in a million years would suspect...". Well, the typical retort to that is often "That's why. It's always the ones you least suspect...".
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 1, 2019 12:53:54 GMT
I just can't buy Oswald as a lone gunman. He was too connected, and to all kinds of people. He may well have been, as a character type, an introvert, but he wasn't without friends, and he had lots of contact with other people. It seems to me that while in some respects Oswald may well fit the bill as the sort of fellow who might want to kill a person in a position of power, he strikes me as almost too good a fit for that. I have myself been in predicaments in my life, while nothing so serious as murder, but in a bad spot, in one particular instance, and the reasons for my appearing so badly was a combination of bad luck, others willing to lie, and then me essentially in the groove, as in the trope "He's the last person I'd ever, never in a million years would suspect...". Well, the typical retort to that is often "That's why. It's always the ones you least suspect...". Gore Vidal has made some interesting observations on the almost boilerplate 'lone nut' type who seems to be the invariable protagonist in political killings in the US. He penned a thought-provoking essay on the subject of the Arthur Bremer diaries (Bremer was the shooter who (allegedly) first targeted President Nixon, then shot and paralyzed presidential candidate George Wallace in 1972); his diaries were used as 'evidence' that he had to be the assassin, but Vidal makes a fairly convincing case for the notion that the diaries were fake, possibly planted to divert attention away from other parties who may have been involved in the Wallace shooting--and speculates that the diaries may have been written by none other than potboiler-novelist, CIA operative and future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt. In the essay "The Art and Arts of E. Howard Hunt", Gore Vidal assesses Bremer's writing style and notes the apparent contradiction between Bremer's lucid prose and his characterization as a person with a mediocre intellect. (Quote from a Wikipedia article on the book 'An Assassin's Diary', the Bremer and Harding Lemay book that was partially culled from Bremer's supposed diaries.)
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on May 1, 2019 14:31:36 GMT
I remember Gore Vidal's writing on the lone assassins theory, Amyghost, and how convenient they are, and how similar in each case. He was so perceptive on the workings of Washington, was by no means a fanatic when it came to specific theories as to who had whom killed and why. As I recall he had no dog in the fight over the reasons for assassinations, talked about the similar case of Lincoln, and how sometimes groups, whether great or small, do conspire to have key political figures killed, and why. He saw nothing "shocking" in any of this. It was all rather business as usual, as in The Godfather.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 1, 2019 18:45:20 GMT
what interests me is i think people love conspiracies because they adhere to something incredulous taking place. my point really is we can't accept sometimes there are simple explanations in life for things and we can't comprehend at all.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on May 7, 2019 17:35:04 GMT
My sense is that Oswald was central to the case; and that yes, he was a patsy, but then what did he expect? He was being used, and he knew it. Whether Oswald did the deed, not so sure, but he was hangin' around Dallas that day. He might have been just for the Mob (with others in the mix as well) the guy to hang the case on. I'm not 100% sure on any of this (if I were I'd write a book and prove my thoughts, guesses, hypotheses, et al, but that's been do sooo many times). There could still be genuine closure to the JFK assassination mystery, such as it can be called, and I can only hope that if the pieces are ever put together logically; if there's some lucky strike somewhere, I'd like to hear of it; and if there are more facts,--and I don't mean hunches--by all means let's gather them together and try to make some sense from them.
For the report, (if my memory is good) add 28 to the page number (because the virtual book counts the cover has a page and so on) to get to the right place. Has for the others volumes, you'll get the references in the books listed first.
Once you went through their books and looked at the testimonies and statements you'll get a good picture of how things went down. Not all witnesses contradict each other and in some cases, the combination of all the testimonies and statement give you some clues, if not answers.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 7, 2019 18:43:46 GMT
My sense is that Oswald was central to the case; and that yes, he was a patsy, but then what did he expect? He was being used, and he knew it. Whether Oswald did the deed, not so sure, but he was hangin' around Dallas that day. He might have been just for the Mob (with others in the mix as well) the guy to hang the case on. I'm not 100% sure on any of this (if I were I'd write a book and prove my thoughts, guesses, hypotheses, et al, but that's been do sooo many times). There could still be genuine closure to the JFK assassination mystery, such as it can be called, and I can only hope that if the pieces are ever put together logically; if there's some lucky strike somewhere, I'd like to hear of it; and if there are more facts,--and I don't mean hunches--by all means let's gather them together and try to make some sense from them.
For the report, (if my memory is good) add 28 to the page number (because the virtual book counts the cover has a page and so on) to get to the right place. Has for the others volumes, you'll get the references in the books listed first.
Once you went through their books and looked at the testimonies and statements you'll get a good picture of how things went down. Not all witnesses contradict each other and in some cases, the combination of all the testimonies and statement give you some clues, if not answers.
interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on May 7, 2019 18:49:25 GMT
Well just to make sure it's clear, the books make references to pages in the report and in the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits. So that's why you can have all those open on another tab.
|
|