Pawn Takes King

[William Kelly]

Some people have looked at the assassination of President Kennedy as a chess match, with different characters being assigned different roles, like E. Howard Hunt being Knight and David Atlee Phillips being Bishop, while Oswald has been frequently described as a Pawn.

While this analogy doesn't hold much water since whatever happened at Dealey Plaza was muliti-dimensional with many different levels and power plays going on at the same time, but it is, like Go and other games of the intellect, a way of looking at the assassination that gives you some interesting perspectives.

But in the game of chess, especially among the grand masters, the game is never actually played out to the end - checkmate, as eventually one of the players realizes that no matter how he moves, the end can be foreseen and it is not worth continuing, so he resigns.

As the game is played, the Queen has the most power and maneuverability, while the other players are limited in direction or the number of squares they can move, with the pawn only being permitted to move forward, and after the first move, only one space at a time, and can only attack one square diagonally.

The King too, can move only one square, though he can move in any direction.

If the Pawn moves and places the King in check, the King can move away in any direction to avoid the checkmate.

It's not uncommon for a Pawn to put a King in checkmate, if the King has no escape, but its virtually impossible for a Pawn to actually take a King because the King could not move into a position that would place him in check.

For a King to actually be taken by a Pawn, the King must first move into Checkmate, or a sqare that is already protected by a opposition piece, in this case a Pawn.

So it is the King's move that puts himself in Checkmate and not the Pawn, who is limited in his mobility and firepower as well as direction.

And it is not the Pawn who is most responsible for the Checkmate and loss of the King, but the King's movements that put him in jeopardy.

This would suggest that instead of concentrating on the assassin(s), the rules of the game would suggest that it is the hands that are moving the King into the Pawn's square who are most responsible for what happened at that place and point in time.

While a Pawn taking out a King cannot happen in a game of chess, we are to believe that it did happen at Dealey Plaza, and are asked to consider it real.

[David Von Pein]

A Pawn doesn't have a Mannlicher-Carcano, with real bullets in its chamber, aimed at the King's head during a game of chess. Oswald did.

And the King drove right into the Pawn's domain--onto Elm Street at only 11 MPH.

Checkmate. The Pawn wins.

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

Edited October 1, 2010 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

A Pawn doesn't have a Mannlicher-Carcano, with real bullets in its chamber, aimed at the King's head during a game of chess. Oswald did.

And the King drove right into the Pawn's domain--onto Elm Street at only 11 MPH.

Checkmate. The Pawn wins.

http://The-JFK-Assas...on.blogspot.com

Exactly my point David.

The King drove right into the Pawn's domain - Pawn Takes King, no check, just checkmate.

It's the King's move, not the Pawns that counts.

[David Von Pein]

The King drove right into the Pawn's domain - Pawn Takes King, no check, just checkmate. It's the King's move, not the Pawn's that counts.

The fact that JFK came to Oswald made it too irresistible for LHO. No way he could pass up that golden chance. The assassination was served up to Ozzie on a silver platter.

Conspiracy theorists, though, think it was a fake or contrived silver platter, designed to frame the pawn (Oswald).

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn" named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day--and the Walker shooting is proof of that fact.

It's much better, however, for the conspiracists to ignore or distort the Walker shooting. Because if they start analyzing the true inner character of their so-called patsy, they'd begin to realize that Oswald had it within HIMSELF to kill people with rifles in 1963.

And that type of realization makes it much, much more difficult to treat Lee Oswald as a mere bystander (or "pawn" or "patsy") to the events of November 22nd.

Edited October 1, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

The King drove right into the Pawn's domain - Pawn Takes King, no check, just checkmate. It's the King's move, not the Pawn's that counts.

The fact that JFK came to Oswald made it too irresistible for LHO. No way he could pass up that golden chance. The assassination was served up to Ozzie on a silver platter.

Conspiracy theorists, though, think it was a fake or contrived silver platter, designed to frame the pawn (Oswald).

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn" named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day--and the Walker shooting is proof of that fact.

It's much better, however, for the conspiracists to ignore or distort the Walker shooting. Because if they start analyzing the true inner character of their so-called patsy, they'd begin to realize that Oswald had it within HIMSELF to kill people with rifles in 1963.

And that type of realization makes it much, much more difficult to treat Lee Oswald as a mere bystander (or "pawn" or "patsy") to the events of November 22nd.

Dave

So why did he not kill anyone in 1962 or 61 or 59 or at any other time?.Nobody would have missed another Russian surely.And if you are convinced he took a shot at Walker why was he not on some "dangerous individual list"to alert the authorities to possible murderous nuts in the vicinity of the President and entourage?.

Ian

Edited October 1, 2010 by Ian Kingsbury

[David Von Pein]

If you are convinced he [Lee Oswald] took a shot at Walker, why was he not on some "dangerous individual list" to alert the authorities to possible murderous nuts in the vicinity of the President and entourage?

Because nobody in the whole world (save Marina Oswald) knew that LHO had taken his potshot at General Walker as of 11/22/63. And Marina wasn't about to tell anybody. And she didn't.

How were the police/FBI/SS supposed to put Oswald on a "dangerous persons" list when they had nothing to go on to link him to the Walker shooting?

Were the authorities supposed to be psychic?

Edited October 1, 2010 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

The King drove right into the Pawn's domain - Pawn Takes King, no check, just checkmate. It's the King's move, not the Pawn's that counts.

The fact that JFK came to Oswald made it too irresistible for LHO. No way he could pass up that golden chance. The assassination was served up to Ozzie on a silver platter.

Conspiracy theorists, though, think it was a fake or contrived silver platter, designed to frame the pawn (Oswald).

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn" named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day--and the Walker shooting is proof of that fact.

It's much better, however, for the conspiracists to ignore or distort the Walker shooting. Because if they start analyzing the true inner character of their so-called patsy, they'd begin to realize that Oswald had it within HIMSELF to kill people with rifles in 1963.

And that type of realization makes it much, much more difficult to treat Lee Oswald as a mere bystander (or "pawn" or "patsy") to the events of November 22nd.

Hi Dave,

So the Pawn named Oswald had "murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day - and the Walker shooting is proof of that fact," hea.

Then let's not be conspiracy theorists and look at the Walker shooting without ignoring or distorting it, and try to analyze the true inner character of the Pawn, rather than the so-called Patsy.

First off, it indeed Ozzie the Pawn "had it within Himself to kill people with rifles in 1963" then that would have been a surprise to Mrs. Paine, who allowed this homicidal maniac to live in her home and be alone with her kids. A month before the assassination Ruth Paine wrote a letter to her father in which she said that she came to realize Oswald was a good person and father "after all."

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

And how did he get the rifle to the scene - on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

And rather than the spontanious act of a madman who was handed the opportunity, as you describe the situation when the Pawn takes out the King, in the Walker situation we have an Oswald who goes to the scene and takes photos BEFORE he even orders the rifle. And since he is working at J/C/S six days a week, the CIA chronology assumes that Oswald took these photos on a Sunday, and he also kept a blue notebook ostensibly with Walker's schedule and newsclips and bus time tables and what else could he have written down? He then burns these notes and flushes it down the toilet. In any case, he photos the scene, stalks his prey and takes copius notes that he dutifully destroys later, and has a still unidentified accomplace, and leaves the scene in a car.

Not at all like the spontanious opportunity presented to him with JFK.

Then we have Herr Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at the same party that was set up for him to meet the Paines.

Besides Dr. Herzog, whose reports on Oswald's sanity were challenged by Oswald's brother Robert, and others, Schmidt is the only other person who actually claims to have recognized the psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac in Oswald BEFORE the assassination. In an hours long conversation with him at the party Schmidt says he utilized psychosematic techniques on Oswald that were taught to him by a German doctor who was involved in the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler. And he even talked about this plot, asking Oswald if he thought that it was moral to assassinate a man like Hitler, and he gave General Walker as an example. Did Schmidt plant the seed in Oswald's mind that Walker should be assassinated? Schmidt told me he thought so, and even felt guilty about it every time he rode past the TSBD or thought about the assassination.

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

So now we have a homicidal maniac with a rifle on the Presidential motorcade route, and Hosty, who investigated the Walker shooting and was responsible for keeping tabs on the redefector, knows that Oswald is working at the TSBD, as Mrs. Paine told him, but neither Paine nor Hosty recognize Oswald's psychosis or consider him dangerous.

Which sets up the scenario for the King to be led into jeopardy because the Pawn is not recognized for what he really is.

And then the situation begs the question - What did "Mr. Bishop" - aka David Atlee Phillips, tell Oswald the Pawn when they met that afternoon in August 1963 in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas?

Phillips was then responsible for monitoring the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and the pro-Castro Cuban organization Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so it is reasonable to assume they discussed The Pawn's street agitation on behalf of the FPCC in New Orleans or perhaps his upcoming visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

Edited October 1, 2010 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?

Edited October 1, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Dean Hagerman]

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn" named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day

What a ridiculous statement

[David Von Pein]

What a ridiculous statement.

Yeah, Dean. What in the world would ever make me think that Oswald had murder in his veins?

Just because he took his rifle and pistol and killed (or tried to kill) a total of at least four people in the calendar year of nineteen sixty-three is certainly no reason to think Oswald was a KILLER....right, Dean?

(You CTers kill me.)

Edited October 1, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, I agree with you, Lee. Dean is kind of a clown at that.

(Not nearly in your class of clown, however.)

Edited October 1, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Dean Hagerman]

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn" named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day

What a ridiculous statement

Conversing with this clown is akin to debating the essential use of condoms in HIV infested Africa with the Pope.

Agreed

[Paul Baker]

You have the morals of a bottom feeder...

David! Stop eating Lee!

[Ian Kingsbury]

You have the morals of a bottom feeder...

David! Stop eating Lee!

Dave only eats chicken that he has slaughtered himself

[William Kelly]

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?

Dave,

I despise Conspiracy Theorists more than you do, especially those who try to say that Oswald the Pawn was being used by Castro, the Cubans, Mafia or renegade CIA.

I am not focusing the bulk of my attention on impossible to answer questions that conspiracy theorists love to ask, but rather am asking rather simple questions that I believe can be answered, like how did Oswald, if he shot a Walker using the same rifle, get that rifle to the scene of the Walker shooting and out of there afterwards?

And if it wasn't him with the other guy leaving the scene, who were those guys?

And if Oswald did do it alone, we should be able to answer these questions because we know he did them.

And if he did the Walker shooting, how come the assassination of the President is so different? Rather than the stalker, Oswald becomes the deer stander?

And why not listen to Volkmar Schmitdt? Isn't what he has to say about the Walker shooting relevant to motive?

And why not speculate on what Mr. Bishop wanted to meet with Oswald about?

I am not questioning whether Oswald committed the assassintaion alone, I am accepting that as an assumption in this game.

You don't like to play The Great Game?

So - rather than the spontanious act of a madman who was handed the opportunity, as you describe the situation when the Pawn takes out the King, in the Walker situation we have an Oswald who goes to the scene and takes photos BEFORE he even orders the rifle. And since he is working at J/C/S six days a week, the CIA chronology assumes that Oswald took these photos on a Sunday, and he also kept a blue notebook ostensibly with Walker's schedule and newsclips and bus time tables and what else could he have written down? He then burns these notes and flushes it down the toilet. In any case, he photos the scene, stalks his prey and takes copius notes that he dutifully destroys later, and has a still unidentified accomplace, and leaves the scene in a car.

Not at all like the spontanious opportunity presented to him with JFK.

Then we have Herr Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at the same party that was set up for him to meet the Paines.

Besides Dr. Herzog, whose reports on Oswald's sanity were challenged by Oswald's brother Robert, and others, Schmidt is the only other person who actually claims to have recognized the psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac in Oswald BEFORE the assassination. In an hours long conversation with him at the party Schmidt says he utilized psychosematic techniques on Oswald that were taught to him by a German doctor who was involved in the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler. And he even talked about this plot, asking Oswald if he thought that it was moral to assassinate a man like Hitler, and he gave General Walker as an example. Did Schmidt plant the seed in Oswald's mind that Walker should be assassinated? Schmidt told me he thought so, and even felt guilty about it every time he rode past the TSBD or thought about the assassination.

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

So now we have a homicidal maniac with a rifle on the Presidential motorcade route, and Hosty, who investigated the Walker shooting and was responsible for keeping tabs on the redefector, knows that Oswald is working at the TSBD, as Mrs. Paine told him, but neither Paine nor Hosty recognize Oswald's psychosis or consider him dangerous.

Which sets up the scenario for the King to be led into jeopardy because the Pawn is not recognized for what he really is.

And then the situation begs the question - What did "Mr. Bishop" - aka David Atlee Phillips, tell Oswald the Pawn when they met that afternoon in August 1963 in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas?

Phillips was then responsible for monitoring the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and the pro-Castro Cuban organization Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so it is reasonable to assume they discussed The Pawn's street agitation on behalf of the FPCC in New Orleans or perhaps his upcoming visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?