Jump to content
The Education Forum

A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...


Guest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Al Fordiani said:

One last post from me on this thread.  I am now in danger of just basically repeating myself, so I will check out of this thread.

Al, I agree that these threads reach the point of declining usefulness.  I wish there were some way to organize this forum in a way that it might serve as a more useful resource.  No thread ever ends up being about what it started out being about, and the same topics are rehashed endlessly.

Would I call out a Lone Nut t-r-o-l-l?  For starters, I do indeed think some Lone Nutters are as over-the-top as the most over-the-top conspiracy folks.  There are intractable zealots on both sides.  I try stay within the bounds of “witty (at least to me) tweaking,” as opposed to calling people trolls, liars, etc.  I would have no problem tweaking a Lone Nutter who posted something just completely off the wall.  Lone Nut zealotry actually puzzles me more than conspiracy zealotry because I have a hard time understanding why anyone would have an emotional (patriotic maybe?) attachment to the Lone Nut explanation.

After returning to the U.S. with his tail between his legs, Oswald embarked in the months before the assassination on a series of alarming activities – writing to the Soviet embassy about returning, contacting the national FPCC, all of his high-profile agitation in New Orleans, the visit to Mexico City.  I can believe that alarm bells were going off in several CIA offices.  Yet I can also believe that in an organization as compartmentalized and secretive as the CIA, what one hand was doing may well have not been known to the other hand(s).  Hosty’s book is a textbook example of how much hide-the-ball was going on.  I also suspect that Oswald may have unwittingly crossed paths with some real CIA operatives in the pro-Castro or anti-Castro communities and that this may have ratcheted-up the attention.

I have read Greg Parker’s books, studied the Jane Roman matter in some depth, and am least reasonably familiar with John Newman’s work through interviews and summaries.  I simply have seen nothing that causes my Lone Nut-O-Meter to jump.  It simply doesn’t seem plausible to me (indeed it seems wildly implausible) that the CIA would have trusted a troubled 20-year-old Oswald to attempt to learn the identity of a high-level KGB mole who had transmitted details of the U-2 program, or to navigate and survive the KGB minefield.  When I study things like Ernst Titovets’ book and Peter Vronsky’s onsite research, that notion strikes me as downright laughable.  I have seen nothing that can’t be accommodated by the scenario I picture.  We will have to agree to disagree (not that what we think really matters - another thing that puzzles me about the level of vitriol here).

“On the History Channel, Professor John Newman, in late November, 1999, stated: ‘The idea of a high level, institutional plot with the CIA to kill John Kennedy is crazy.’”  http://www.prouty.org/vince.html That’s basically my view of Newman’s notion that Oswald was a false defector – crazy.  But I understand and respect that you disagree.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...