Mathias Baumann

I find it hard to believe that Oswald was ever really serious about Marxism. What we do know for a fact however is that he loved spy stories. So it would appear plausible that he might just have tried to appear as a Communist in order to play the hero from "I led Three Lives". According to his brother that was his favorite TV show. I think a lot of what he did makes sense if you view it in that context. But I don't know if you really have to "reinvent" him to fit him into a conspiracy. People do everything for money, and that's another thing we know for sure about Oswald: He was always short of money. (Except of course when he had to hire people help him hand out leaflets...) A large sum of money would certainly have cured him from Marxism. Concerning his "lack of success" in Mexico City: I think the events there are highly suspicious. He was clearly impersonated on the phone. And after meeting a KGB assassin he's taken off the watch list, gets a job at the book depository and rents a room under a false name... four weeks before the assassination. To me that sounds like some sort of "spy game" was going on here... What do you think?

Hello Rick, I agree with you. This is from Pat Speer's website: Source: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16b%3Adigginginthedirt

Lance, I disagree. Consider Ali Agca. He certainly was a "loose cannon", a completely deranged individual. He believed to be Jesus Christ himself. And yet, according to the latest evidence, he was hired by Bulgarian agents to kill the Pope, at behest of the KGB. And I think he was actually a very good choice, for several reasons: - He was a right-winger NOT a Communist, so he had no obvious connection to the Eastern Bloc. - He was deluded, a plausible "lone nut". - Shortly before the assassination he'd traveled abroad, creating false leads that would lead the investigators astray.

Joe, in my personal opinion the military-industrial complex certainly created the fertile environment in which the killers of JKF thrived. We may never know who exactly killed Kennedy, but I think we already know WHAT killed him. And that was the "Bay of Pigs" invasion. If you look at the prime suspects, most of them were connected to Cuba in one way or another. Oswald, Ruby, Ferry, Morales etc. That's not a coincidence, I'm sure. A big conspiracy however would certainly have been exposed long ago. So I believe the actual conspiracy was rather confined, probably only a handful of people. And mostly people who really hated Kennedy and were absolutely determined to see him dead. People who'd been involved in the "Bay of Pigs" invasion and who'd seen friends killed or tortured. Probably CIA agents and exile Cubans. And that would explain why it is so hard to untangle this complex knot. Because so many different groups supported the anti-Castro struggle. Wealthy industrialists, the Mafia, the CIA, right-wing fanatics etc. And of course each of them had their own personal reasons to hate Kennedy and dirty secrets that needed to be covered up when he was killed. This has given rise to all those competing theories and that's why people like Lance have given up hope. But in the end I don't think it's NOT all that important who the puppet masters were. in my opinion It is much more important to study the political environment that made the assassination possible and draw the right lessons for the future, to avoid another tragedy of this kind.

Well I think no-one can deny that 9/11 was a conspiracy in the literal sense of the word. At least 11 people conspired to bring down the World Trade Center. I don't know what exactly John Newman believes, but I think confessions given under torture are completely worthless. I haven't done too much reading on this subject but it appears there's at least some circumstantial evidence that Saudi government officials might have aided the terrorists. But anyway, maybe we could at least agree that it takes a "conspiratorial mindset" to uncover actual conspiracies?

Lance, I think you should really differentiate between "conspiracy theorists" and critical minds. A conspiracy theorist might believe that, say, the Free Masons are behind all the evil in the world. So he'll attribute anything bad that happens to their doing because he's deluded. A critical mind on the other hand is well aware that most Free Masons are perfectly harmless people. But as soon as learns of evidence that SOME Free Masons are involved in criminal activities he'll decide to investigate and see if the allegations are true. Have you ever heard of Propaganda Due? That was an Italian Masonic lodge that for years tried to undermine the Italian government by funding right-wing terrorists financed by illegal arms deals with Latin American dictators. No conspiracy theorist could've come up with a better story, even the Vatican's Bank was involved. When John Kerry started to investigate Iran/Contra, he was labeled a conspiracy theorist. But he turned out to be right. Today the term "conspiracy theorist" is often used to discredit critical minds. That's why I think it should be used with caution. And in the case of the Kennedy assassination even high ranking officials, journalists and academics have come to the conclusion there's a high probability of conspiracy. Do you really think that Robert Blakey, Jefferson Morley or Professor John Newman, to name but a few, are all "conspiracy theorists"?

I think that's a different story. What I am refering to happened when Kennedy was still a Senator.

As I've pointed out - they compared photos from 1978 to photos taken in 1963. Are you suggesting that Witt didn't change a bit in those 15 years? Not even his hair? His co-worker reported Witt to the HSCA because he thought he looked like Umbrella Man. But I bet there are thousands of people in America who resemble him if all you have to compare them to is a grainy photo. And considering Witt's conflicting testimony I think it's a fair bet that he might've made up the whole story. And, come to think of it, he wasn't even sure if it was the right umbrella? You don't find that suspicious? If I had an umbrella that might've been sprayed with Kennedy's blood I'd surely remember it. That is actually the least credible part of his testimony, I think.

So basically you simply trust his word? By the way: Did the HSCA ever try to identify the Dark Complected Man? He could've corrobarated Witt's statement. And he was a suspicious character in his own right, in my opinion.

When Kennedy was still a Senator he tried to ban the sale of rifles by mail. According to Lamar Waldron's "Legacy of Secrecy" he even specifically mentioned Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Does anyone know more about this?

From the article you posted: That explains why Witt closely resembles the man in the photo. Because Witt's co-worker thought so. That means the fact that Witt looks like the man in the photo is not remarkable at all. It would be remarkable if Witt had come forward himself, not being aware of any photos. So in 1978 Witt looked like Umbrella Man did in 1963, 15 years before. That doesn't prove anything in my opinion. Reading this I get the feeling that Witt may have decided to take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be in the limelight and made up a fancy story. Maybe he was a frustrated and disillusioned loner yearning to be "important"... And by the way, trying to identify people in grainy black and white photos is something better left to "conspiracy theorists".

Several men were seen fleeing the scene of the the Walker shooting - in a car. One of the Tippit witnesses was shot at and seriously injured:

Just consider this: Ali Agca was a megalomaniac who believed he was Jesus Christ himself. Yet someone hired him to shoot the pope. As you say, weird stuff happens. But come to think of it, if you expect to get your hitman captured by the police, choosing a complete lunatic might not be such a bad idea after all. Think of all the crazy stories Agca told his interrogators. This caused great confusion, and we still don't know which of the many stories he told is true.

Ruby was as perfect a choice as Oswald, because he knew half the Dallas Police force. They allowed him to walk in and out the building carrying a concealed gun just as he pleased, think about it. Being a lawyer don't you think it is highly suspicious that Oswald could be killed that way? In a supposedly highly secured area? Surrounded by dozens of police officers? After they had received threats against his life? No, certainly Ruby pulled some strings with his pals in the police. That's the only reasonable explanation in my opinion.

Thank you for your answer. I think Osborne is an interesting figure in any case, phone call or not. When he traveled to Mexico on the bus with Oswald he was using a fake passport. http://www.ronaldecker.com/osborne.html

Lance, with all due respect I think that's a strawman argument. Most serious researchers (e.g. John Newman) have come to the conclusion that the cover-up was disconnected from the actual murder conspiracy. And there you have the reason why the conspirators decided to involve Oswald - because of his Communist background and specifically his meeting with Kostikov. The actual conspiracy needn't have been big - Santo Trafficante orders John Roselli and David Morales to kill the President. Morales hires Oswald and a couple Cuban shooters, Roselli hires Ruby to silence Oswald. The conspirators knew there would be no honest Investigation, because that would've meant that Oswald's meeting with Kostikov would become public. And then there would've been a MAJOR international crisis.

Most people tuck their shirts in, but not their jackets. The autopsy photo is worthless. Kennedy was not shot lying flat on his stomach. You can try this at home.

He'd been on the radio and in the newspapers before. Why carry out an assassination if handing out left-wing leaflets could have the same effect WITHOUT risking your life? If you and Lance are right about Oswald, now would've been the time for him to tell the world about his great thoughts, how his "Athenian" system would change the world and all that stuff. But he didn't do that. Why?

Tracy, some witnesses WERE murdered or physically assaulted, there's no question about it. John Roselli is one prominent example. Warren Reynold's would be another one. He survived though. A meaningless act carried out by a frustrated loner? Maybe.

That would make sense if he was part of a conspiracy and maybe still expected to be rewarded if released from custody. But if he did it to become a hero, as Lance suggests, why would he then not openly boast about it? Wasn't that supposedly the whole point? To become famous?

Tracy, as I said this is happening. You should get out of your filter bubble. Historians are rewriting their books, the mainstream media report on it... What else should be happening in your opinion? Do you think there'll ever be a new government investigation? Now that Santo Trafficante, John Roselli and David Morales are all dead? You know how John Roselli died, don't you? There's nothing mysterious about it. He was strangled, cut to pieces, stuffed into a barrel and thrown into the ocean.

Let's assume you're right. Oswald killed the President to become a Great Hero. Why would he then deny everything? And despite being a insignificant "loser", access to his intelligence file was highly restricted. So restricted that the part about Oswald's activities since his return to the USA was kept secret from the Mexico City station. And then someone impersonates Oswald on the telephone. The tape allegedly disappears but is then listened to by FBI agents who conclude it's not Oswald's voice. And you say there's no mystery? Although we know that the whole Mexico City trip was a major reason why the government decided "the public had to be satisfied that Oswald was the lone killer"? You say that Oswald was a desperate loser and that no-one would've hired him to participate in secret operations of any kind. And yet you seem to believe he was competent enough to kill the President of the most powerful nation on earth single-handed. Was he or wasn't he a good marksman? If he wasn't, how did he kill Kennedy? If he was, why would his skills not be of interest to the conspirators? I think Oswald was much more skilled and educated than most people give him credit. Consider how quickly he picked up Russian, a VERY difficult language. Don't you think that THAT would've made him interesting to any intelligence agency? I have to admit that for a long time I couldn't make sense of many of Oswald's bizarre actions. But if you look closely I think you can see evidence that he was manipulated by others. Remember what he said to the American Consul in Moscow. "THEY told me you would try to talk me out of it." Or consider his leafletting in New Orleans and his bizarre appearance on the radio. Not until you realize that at the same time David Attlee Phillips was running an operation to smear the FPCC begin his actions to make sense. And the same David Attlee Phillips would later plant stories about Castro's alleged involvement... Coincidence? Coincidence that Phillips was working with David Morales? A man who later admitted that he had "taken care of that son of a bitch"? Coincidence that John Rosseli, Morales brother in arms, was hacked to pieces when he began talking about the assassination?

Lance, there's nothing "lunatic" about believing in a criminal conspiracy. As I've pointed out several tenured historians have come to believe that the mob ordererd JFK killed by exile Cubans and rogue CIA officers. A consensus seems to be emerging that John Roselli and David Morales were involved. And that makes a lot of sense. Both were involved in assassination plots against Castro. Roselli was brutally killed when he started talking about the Kennedy assassination. Morales was a close friend of David Attlee Phillips. And Phillips was involved in more than one way with Oswald (Mexico City, FPCC, the Cuban Students Council.) Morales admitted to a friend that he "had taken care of that son of a bitch" (Kennedy). Phillips once stated to a journalist he thought that rogue CIA officers may have killed Kennedy. (An astonishing statement from a man who'd formed an organization whose primary goal was to protect the agency's reputation.) The conspirators were NOT involved in the cover-up. They didn't have to be. With trails leading to Moscow Lyndon Johnson would make sure there would be no honest investigation. About Oswald: Yes, I agree he aspired to make history in one way or another. But I don't agree that Marxism was what drove him. He didn't even know the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism. No, Oswald lived in a phantasy world playing James Bond. And that's the reason it was so easy to set him up, because he was a big child.

Tracy, in case you haven't noticed that's already happening.

These facts were made public long ago. That's why a majority of people believe in conspiracy. Okay, not being an acoustics experts I'm in no position to analyze the tape myself. But I want to point out some facts that have led me to believe that the dictabelt is indeed evidence for a second gunman: - It is in accordance with what we know to be true. After all they also found 3 shots from the book depository. - Two teams of researchers came to the same conclusion. They were among the top notch experts in America. - They found that the microphone traveled at about 11 mph - almost exactly the speed of the motorcade. Coincidence? - They found N-waves characteristic of the sonic boom of a bullet. How would they find that in random noise? - The underlying science is well-founded. It had been used to solve other crimes. - Their results confirmed what numerous witnesses had either heard, smelled or seen. - As far as I know the scientists have always stood by their conclusions. - The photographic evidence shows an unidentified adult behind the picket fence approximately where the shot was supposedly fired from. Also, from what I've read about Dale Myers he does not appear to be an impartial researcher. --> http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania Look what he did to Kennedy's neck to make the single bullet theory work.