Ron Ege

Gil, thanks. Just a thought, but what you've written is, and this is just me, pretty much seems a non sequitur - re the WR official scenario. And, making the alleged shots even more unlikely, as everyone is aware,the MC was bolt action, not the semiautomatic rifle that Oswald used whilst in the USMC. Adding to that, if I am remembering correctly, the MC that Oswald alleged owned had a bolt that was particularly difficult to operate, as testified to by the government experts who fired it. And, was not the rifle somewhat "reconditioned" before the tests of it? Not to mention, a bolt action rifle is harder to reattain the target, subsequent to operating the bolt, compared to semiautomatic rifle. Also, if recall correctly, in 1956, USMC rifle qualification did not include shooting at moving targets. Even those here (or elsewhere) with rudimentary knowledge of and/or experience in rifle shooting, I believe, would agree that shooting at a stationary target, versus one moving down and away from the shooter, makes for a bit of an extra task to score a hit. Not to mention that when one is shooting at a stationary target, one has time to perfect one's aim, before firing. Has it not been pretty much established that Oswald did not have that kind of time? The two times in evidence that Oswald did fire a rifle, it was semiautomatic, during his USMC enlistment. Then he was at a rifle range, under direct supervision to ensure ideal conditions to maximize his probability of qualifying - and after multiple opportunities prior to live fire, to dry fire his rifle in order to perfect his technique. So, on his first qualification, he scored as a sharpshooter. The second time, as a marksman. Not that impressive, considering the training advantages afforded to him by The Corps. Then we have the fact that the MC was equipped with a scope and iron sights. So, which did he use? Using the scope sure seems like a non-starter, for the reason discussed here, before. So why leave it on the rifle, in the first place? Now we consider that on 11/22/63, Oswald was shooting to kill the POTUS. Again, just me, unless he were a trained, cold-blooded, professional assassin (have not seen that evidence), one would surmise that he'd be a tad nervous about his self-imposed mission- which, arguably, just might have interfered with him be as successful as he is alleged to have been. We all are aware about what Chief Curry said about Oswald "being in that window". Apparently, that is still a major point of contention here, but unless, only IMO, one invokes some sort of Quasi Monkey Theorem (with the accompanying proof thereof) I cannot buy (in totality) the WR conclusion. There, in the window, shooting at least one shot (or more) or perhaps just a decoy - conceivable - but even that, on the face of it, appears to lean on the side of "not very likely".

Mart, thanks. Your first paragraph. Bingo. According to the WR (and others),it's all cut and dried. "Lone Nut", no USG intel connections, just a "Joe Everyday Loser". So, why all the secrecy and alleged "national security" concerns by certain government agencies. Poor Ole Lee was just/very simply, a nobody, a mediocre marksman at the very best and at worst, a poor one, considering no evidence of any practice with his antiquated rifle, who for whatever reason, took few shots at a POTUS that day and got lucky, scoring shots that the finest marksman in the world, even with the rifle (and scope) "put right" - were never able to exactly duplicate. If it's that simple, the picture should be crystal clear. No complications, discussion, or dissension - GP sells 100's of millions. Certainly, all the 60 years of controversy is not because some of CTers decided they have nothing better to do than purposely complicate the "deal that's already done" - just for drill - many devoting their lives and their own "coin" to hopefully, help put history right. Your second paragraph. "Unluckiest man in history"; One of the greatest understatements of our time. How is it possible that Lee, just a lower socio-economic "Joe Blow", one among millions upon millions, could, in about seven years, from his enlistment in the USMC until the moment of his death, end up having to suffer the arrows of so much "evidence" piled up against him, pointing to his guilt? Boggles the mind. So many, many pieces - and by golly, they sure seemed to fit at first glance. Ah, but as we've come to learn through time and effort, too doggone many of those pieces just don't appear to fit, nearly as well as we initially believed. And then, ". . . super master plan, appear to be a patsy, and murdered like a patsy. . ." Well done, mate! Tongue in cheek noted. Yes sir, that's exactly the way a "Lone Nut" (psychopath) would script it out. Your last paragraph. Yes, Oswald did respectfully ask for legal assistance, instead of what one expect from a "Mr. Average Joe", as you aptly pointed out - who would, beyond a very long stretch - be boisterously indignant having been falsely charged - not portraying Ozzie's "Mr. Cool" demeanor, almost worthy of that of Sean Connery, at his finest. Ya think maybe LHO was perhaps just practicing his skills to maybe supplant Mr. Connery in the next 007 flick? Me thinks, that sort of behavior is not easily summoned from within one's self, unless one knows that the "cavalry" will eventually arrive, if one is just patient. Your hammer struck the nail on center: ". . . expecting his intelligence handlers to bail him out and/or has been briefed to maintain cover." Hm-m. Just makes a feller wonder, if that might be it. Oh, nearly forgot. "We know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence." - Senator Richard Schweiker, 1975. Sorry, GP.

More on Brewer's "friends": http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13316841-brewer-s-ibm-friends.html Any validity to them being Igor Vaganov and/or Richard Radalat/Radelet? Dunno. Anyone?

Steve, thanks. Maybe here?: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB See Page 5, last column, about half-way down. Johnny Brewer: " . . . "There two other men in there (the shoe store where Johnny Brewer worked). They were from IBM - they were in the neighborhood. I had known them ever since I came there." And Ian Griggs: "Customers?" Johnny Brewer: "No, they weren't customers. They just come in and kill time and lounge around . . ."

Joe, thanks. Of course; seemingly by comment(s), others do not.🤗

I don't really view him as scared at all. Consistent with his demeanor during interrogation, he's remarkably composed and in control. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's enjoying himself, but I do have the sense this is all theater and, at least in his mind, he's the scriptwriter and director. As I said previously, I think at this point he saw the endgame as a dramatic trial at which he and John Abt would make the Marxist case. Lance, thanks. Or, could it not mean -the break in his voice - which agree, seems somewhat incongruent with his previous demeanor (composed, considering) that Oswald is thinking, if he was - or maybe, even if he was not, participatory in any way, shape, or fashion in the alleged crime, just then realized, "Aw-oh, maybe I overlooked a 'chink in my armor'" - relative to all of his life's "events", prior to his arrest - long term or relatively short term - which could eventually lead to a direction, not necessarily beneficial to him.

Lance, thanks. Don't necessarily disagree, but could not Oswald, aware of the then Dallas' political climate, perhaps have been thinking, "Geez, folks around here (especially the DPD) don't necessarily cotton to perceived commies so I became a convenient target, and now they're trying to lay the killing of the policeman on me - hence, the "pasty" statement.

🤗

Gil, thank you. Couldn't agree more. I'll bet that others have thought the same thing, for quite a while now. And more than likely, Brennan was not the only witness in the JFKA assassination scenario - who had self-preservation in mind.

"No one was ever able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas Schoolbook Depository with a gun in his hand." - Former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. If only there was.

Lance, thanks - understand. Don't disagree that any record that may have indubitably incriminated the CIA (and/or any of their, just maybe, still unidentified "partners"), would've been intentionally destroyed, forthwith. So, what is the harm in releasing all the records, just for posterity's sake, if nothing else? I know, CIA paranoia, for sure. It seems the implication of it not doing so, is, "Nothing to see here folks; move along" - which tends to make the agency suspect. So, so much JFKA controversy still, some sixty years later. If Oswald WAS the lone assassin, it seems that the "all the dots" would've been long ago connected, conclusively, in fairly short order. The Oswald conspiratorial (maybe only six to ten conspirators required) option's dots' connection - whether LHO was involved, knowingly or unknowingly, e.g., duped into a false flag op as some have suggested, may have taken a little longer to unravel. Whichever one is the truth, appears to remain elusive. And why is that? Understand all the 60 years of "muddying" of the story" that has occurred, purposely or not, by so, so many (insert any entity(s) and or person(s), here). Still, I cannot help but suspect that the controversy continues, just perhaps of course, due to the still yet unsolved need by some unidentified entity(s) desire "to protect the guilty". I don't subscribe to a "Deep State". But I do think, "never say never." Just leaving open the option, perhaps, of the JFKA being the result of a tightly knitted conspiracy, rogue or official, LHO a participant or not, involving no more than a dozen or less "in the know", with only a couple surviving the post assassination "clean-up", who did not ever "spill the beans". I am sure there are more than a few here who were in government service, maybe for years or even decades, with access to Top Secret intelligence who have never breathed a word and never will. Lance, I'm not necessarily, "agin ya", or "fer ya". Appreciate yours, as well as everyone's input.

Charles, thanks. Agree. A 100 percent agreed to (proven), beyond a shadow of a doubt) LHO motive for the JFKA, would be great place to begin - to eventually reach the final conclusion, answering the "whodunit" of the JFKA. As you seem to have implied, Oswald's motive has really never been 100 percent established. And all I have ever read - seems to have boiled down to, in the end, relative thereto, are suspicions, suppositions, hypotheticals, theories, and the like; some with seemingly good circumstantial evidence and some not so much. It would be wonderfully illustrative/instructive if we just had a "LHO's life brain memory tape" to view, so we could conclusively prove everything that has been proffered as to "who "really was" - especially, the exact moment in his rather short life, when he (if he did) decided to kill JFK Otherwise, me thinks it is just "guess work" on the part of whomever, who may proffering an alleged motive for him. That, of course is a non-starter, so where are we, and where do we go - for lack thereof? Probably just me, but if Oswald's motive was as simple as one day, on the spur of the moment (for whatever reason) he "went off his nut" and decided to shoot JFK, or he coldly/calculatingly (psychopathically?) planned it much ahead (days, weeks, months, years?) - IOW, just an "Average Joe", with nothing in his 24 years, other than maybe some form of undeniably causal mental illness, pointing to him being just and only, that - why is there so much controversy, relative to his guilt, e.g., LNer vs CTer - almost 60 years later? People in either camp (or both) cannot possibly be totally responsible for such a prolonged controversy. Caveat; sure, the waters could be muddied somewhat by one side or the other, given their view of the totality of the "evidence". Ma-a-ybe, if every government agency just released every record that is "still classified for national security reasons" (not buying that excuse), then the controversy might just go away? Wonder how many, over the years, how many of those records have already found their way into the "circular file/file 13"? In any case, with ALL the records available for scrutiny, me thinks Oswald's "motive" might just become apparent, helping us ultimately reach the answer (unequivocally) to the "whodunit" question. Ponder this: If some TRULY "Average Joe", even in '63, or during the intervening years, or just recently - assassinated a POTUS and then killed a police officer, and then, in police custody, was himself killed by just an "ordinary citizen" who allegedly just, out of the goodness of his heart, did not want to see the president's wife suffer the publicity of a trial of the accused - how long would it take to determine, beyond a shadow if ANY doubt, that that "Average Joe" in question, truly, acted independently? Among others, I thank Mr. Bauer for, in his enviably inimitable fashion, alluding in the past (as I remember it, anyway), to some of the above, which prompted this post. Joe, it's a compliment! remember it, anyway!

Lance, thanks. Steve had referenced my post (at Ieast, that's what I perceived) and it seemed to me that "this" was in regard to it. I just thought I should perhaps, clarify. Anyway, all good - no harm, no foul, as far as I'm concerned!

Lance, thanks. I think you possibly, may have inferred something I did not intend. I really don't think I have been a member here long enough to "periodically trot out", much at all. But if that's how you see it, no umbrage taken. I try my best to be respectful of everyone here, regardless of their view of the JFKA; I surely cannot recall calling anyone names, only just referring to them being on one side or the other of the debate. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that I do not necessarily even cotton to the terms, CTer and LNer, but it seems well accepted here. I was not suggesting that you or anyone here is an agent of anyone, to upset anyone, and I certainly was not implying that ANYONE here, is any kind of agent. The farthest thing from my mind in the post is that - "the CIA is spreading disinformation through Lone Nutters." The reason for the link was just an addendum to Mr. Niederhut's post. Ma-a-y-be, just a wee, possible FYI/FYE to read, digest, and accept/discard as per one's opinion of it. Perhaps, it was too long of post, on my part. For brevity's sake, yes, I do believe that "We don't know (unequivocally, 100 percent) what we don't know", regarding the JFKA. I thought that's why the debate, here - to find that out. Secondarily, yes, I do believe that certain governmental elements, have, for a very long time, for whatever reason, way before 11/23/963, and most certainly subsequent thereto, have indeed, purposefully inserted, shall we say "roadblocks", to prevent finding the truth about (insert whatever questionable action/scenario, here, along with the JFKA). Be those "roadblocks" purposes of the "left", "right", or somewhere in between, IMO, there is ample evidence that "stuff" has gone/goes on, relative to left, right, or the in be tween's goals. We all remember JEH's comment about the CIA (yeah, I know, he was certainly throwing stones from inside of his own glass house). But still. Lastly, I only attempted to bring, perhaps, a little nostalgic "dressing" to my observation that EVERYONE, here - is simply trying to confirm, as they view it in their own minds, the truth about the JFKA (and yes, also, to attempt to convince the other side, too) - and to eventually bring, at some future point, the debate issue to complete closure, be that a pro or con conspiracy conclusion. Do I lean toward the pro conspiracy side. Yep. Am I ready to absolutely bet MY life that LHO acted completely alone? Nope. Still believe in the old "death and taxes" adage. That's why I read everything you and everyone else here posts in any of the threads, with an open mind and with respect. I absolutely, "DO wanna learn what I don't know." You and the rest here help me with that, a lot!

Mr. Niederhut, thanks for digging that one up; a great refresher for those who remember it and FYI/FYE for those who may have missed it. And: https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/cass-sunstein-employing-behavioral- H-m-m. Anyone noticing a little correlation between Sunstein's proposed "program" and "current events" (especially, those of the past several years)? And - just ma-a-y-be, certain government elements were "kinda/sorta" practicing the same type of machinations, say, even before 11/22/1963, not to mention the obvious practice of the craft, subsequently thereto. If "there's nothing to see here folks, move along", just please kindly release each and every scrap of paper/audio tape/video tape, etc., relative to the JFKA, as well as the RFKA and MLKA - and also, all the records in support of all of the government's questionable/improbable "official explanations", in regard to to so many other national/international governmental "actions" over the decades. Me thinks that that would certainly clear up a lot of on-going discussion/dissension of so many things. Of course, I don't think we should hold our breath. Please, no, "It would threaten national security." That continual excuse, is well beyond the "lame" category. Yes, I will grant that "the right" is also complicit in attempting to control the populace' thinking, attitudes, etc. Our "mission" here, as I see it, is reality/factuality, and it seems that most, in their individual/collective quest to bring the debate to a much desired final conclusion, simply desire, to eventually be as successful (regardless of whatever side one is on), as was the TV series, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE'S fictional protagonist, "Mr. Phelps". Thus, here, all have, "decided to accept" the "mission". Be careful though - of "the secretary's" probable disavowment! The truth will out.

Jake, thank you; I do understand your point. I'm just wondering, considering all the evidence that's surfaced over the past almost six decades, that it is highly probable that Oswald was, indeed, an undercover low-level intelligence operative and perhaps even a confidential FBI informant, would that not color the actions/demeanor that he displayed, leading up to the assassination and immediately, thereafter - and thus appear to make him seem guilty (of something) - even though he had no part, whatsoever, in the assassination or the Tippit shooting; even more so, if he been duped into participating beforehand into participating in a "false flag" operation, as some have suggested - and realizing he'd been double-crossed, began "scrambling" whilst in custody, to begin proving his innocence - which, I think, to some, could've made look even more guilty. To me, it would seem that undercover operatives' behaviors, after they been outed, though not thought to be maybe much suspicious theretofore, would suddenly become quite suspect, considering the surreptitious nature of the tradecraft involved.

Denny, thanks. I would guess that the sticking point for some - would be the "allegedly". Perhaps, and just a "perhaps", many remain unconvinced that that Oswald actually "owned" the MC in question. For me, it is yet hardly definite that if he did own it, let alone how much he. "regularly practiced". The incidences of him allegedly doing so, are questionable at best. Imposter? ?Mistaken identity? In any case, for Oswald to actually allegedly accomplish what he's been credited as doing, gives many, quite a bit of pause, to say the least - considering all we know about the rifle, it's condition, a scope which would be contraindicated for his task at hand, that day, and so on. Can't speak for other gun enthusiasts, not a hunter, but as an avid target shooter (once owned some forty pistols/rifles of several different calibers), I was always aware that I had, at the very least, a minimum of one box of whatever ammo I needed for whatever gun I owned, remaining, as I took inventory, each time that I went out to shoot. Any caliber of less than "one box on hand", I replenished at the local gun store, on the way to - or back from the range. What I will note - is that if I were on the way to assassinate the POTUS, I'd take more than four bullets for my rifle, e.g., extra clips/magazines, and I'd also carry a loaded pistol, along with extra ammunition - just in case I was unable to make my "getaway" unnoticed. Oswald, if it was, indeed, him that day, shooting from the sixth floor did not. It's may be just me - but - curious that.

Jim, thanks for the reminder of the link; had read it before, certainly a great refresher. Always amazes me, regardless of the myriad of puzzle pieces that have been laid out the past near 60 years, indicating that the JFA was a conspiracy, that all somehow get waved off as just so much balderdash. In just your link alone, there's Oswald (pretty obvious false defector (FD)), linked to the Nag's Head training facility for FD's, Marchetti, Hurt (intelligence background), Blakely "throttling back" on the "Mafia Did It" refrain, Schweiker's statement, the SS interested in a "Heard/Hurt", and on and on. Instead, Oswald was just some mixed-up young guy who just decided to buy an antiquated rifle, mysteriously acquiring a few bullets for it, and miraculously pulled off a shooting feat, that has never yet, been EXACTLY equaled. IOW no variables in the recreations - an inexperienced shooter (not experts/snipers) from the same location, in the same amount of time, shooting at same target, at the same speed, using the same rifle in the same exact condition as it was found that day, i. e., not repaired/adjusted/conditioned, and on and on. Are we to believe that none of the those referenced pieces in the link, not to mention gosh knows how many others (100s and 100s, 1000s?) that have been offered over six decades have absolutely no connection to a conspiracy. What would be the probability of that? I would proffer - beyond, astronomical.

Charles - and Ben - thanks. The "false flag" theory is a distinct possibility - especially in light of everything we have come to know about Oswald's link to the world of intelligence. Maybe some believe Senator Schweiker to have been a CTer, but I would have a difficult time being convinced. Senator Richard S. Schweiker's (Rep, PA) statement, in 1975, on CBS's Face the Nation: "We don't know what happened, but we do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence." The senator's statement was in direct contravention of the official government/WCR stance that Oswald was just simply a "lone nut". Does it not maybe follow, as Ben (and maybe others, before?) has suggested - that conceivably, Oswald could've been convinced to becoming part of a "false flag" operation - viewing it as part of his "patriotic duty"? Or, even more simply, as has also been proffered, completely innocent of any role, whatsoever, in the assassination - totally unaware that he had been set up, in large part by the now pretty evident "off the official books" intelligence world's building of his "legend" bona fides as a pro-communist/pro-Castro supporter - which was key to buttressing its eventual conspiratorial plan to blame Cuba, and at the least, using it as a cause celebre to invade the island and retake it? Either way, the building of the "legend" and then eventually tying Oswald to the assassination did not have to be preplanned. For its intelligence gathering purposes regarding Castro/Cuba, Oswald's role as a pro-communist/pro-Castro supporter, at the time, was useful in and of itself. And when the decision was made to assassinate the president, Oswald was just selected as the convenient, "useful idiot". The implication, within Oswald's statement, "I'm just a patsy", could have been either and, if I may opine, could be anyone's inference, therefrom.

Pat, thank you. As doggone nearly all the time, you're right on. In the context of his predicament, his implication always seemed pretty clear to me - and others, I'm sure. Yes, of course, "I'm just a patsy" and then no more. Implicit in that short statement, IMO, was: "I going to have to speak to a lawyer, before I say anything more. Eventually, you will discover that my background, which you are currently, clearly unaware of, has put me in a position to be easily fingered as the fall guy. In the end, I'm confident that my innocence will be proven." For a 24 years' old guy who had been arrested for killing a police officer and was just told by reporters that he was also going to be charged with assassinating the POTUS, Lee portrayed one very cool young man. Most of us would most likely display more nervousness than Lee did, if we were to be stopped by a police officer for "California Stoppin'" a traffic stop sign! He was not maniac or a psychopath or anything else akin to those extremes. And he certainly was not a publicity seeker, looking to go down in the history books. At the moment, so Oswald thought, an innocent man has nothing to worry about. That's the way I see it, anyway. And because of Ruby, here we are.

Tom, you rock! Thank you. At 80 years old, have listened to a lot of Big Band, old time rock 'n roll ('50s primarily), C & W, and some other genres - but not so much the GD. I'll check it out - as - "I DO wanna learn, what I don't know"!

Charles, thank you. Don't know if Mr. Davis Josephs originated it - but I like it: "You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know." Thank you, David. And Mr. DiEugenio mentioned earlier in the thread the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was obviously some type of intel asset. Is there any agreement from the NCBr aka LNr (I don't particularly like that term) side that Oswald WAS an intel asset?

Michaleen, thanks. Relative to the JFKA, I am first reminded of part of Churchill's quote: ". . . a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma . . ." After near 60 years, the picture is somewhat clearer, but still there is still that ring of truth. And then also relative to the assassination, Donald Rumsfeld: "We know what we know, we know what we don't know, but we don't know what we don't know." In deciding to be a CBr (Conspiracy Believer) or a NCBr (Non-Conspiracy Believer) (my interest in the JFA began in 1967, when I read SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS), I eventually had to ask myself, considering the entirety of Oswald's biography, simply beginning with his USMC enlistment and continuing up to the moment Ruby killed him, what do I believe was the most likely way, his bona fides, which eventually built his rather impressive resume, came about? What came to mind was the Infinite Monkey Theorem. As a 17 years old high school drop-out, what is more believable as to how that roadmap became laid out, from the day Oswald raised his right hand to that day he died, just seven years later? 1. He independently planned/developed, managed, and executed all the actions he took and the myriad of things that he accomplished, including the assassination? Or 2. Others, along the way assisted him - by way of indoctrination, training, and education, and "handling" - which enabled him to function as a low level intelligence operative for some years - until eventually, he was manipulated into the position of "fall guy" for the JFKA? You are so right. Reporter: "Did you shoot the president?" Oswald: "No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union." Reporter: "What time did you leave the building?" Oswald: "I'm just a patsy." I do leave the door open to the possibility, as some here have suggested, that Oswald was hoodwinked into becoming part of a false-flag operation and was double crossed. When it comes to the JFKA and deciding to be a CBr or NCBR, I would think, figuratively of course, most here subscribe to the old adage: "I'm from Missouri. Show me" - seeking only the truth. That said, two people can be shown/be aware of the same exact information and come to a different conclusion. Either because they're each from a "different part of Missouri" - or more likely due to each one's unique, individual Frame Of Reference (FOR) developed over a lifetime. The give and take here is always informative, in some way or another, and often, as a bonus, extremely entertaining. I thank you all, for that!