Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald & Coup d'etat


Recommended Posts

During the summer of 1963, when he was living in New Orleans, his cousins the Murrets asked Oswald to give a talk about his visit to Russia to Catholic seminary students.

In some notes he wrote prior to this talk, Oswald speculated on the possibility of a military coup taking place in the USA. His other points are also well-taken.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=465

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...lho_speech.html

Comission Exhibit 102

Editor's note: Lee Oswald was an amazingly bad speller, and in transcribing this document from its original handwritten form, the Warren Commission reflected this. In presenting CE 102 in html format, Fair Play has remained as true as possible to the material published by the WC; however, certain limitations were inevitable.

Notes for a Speech, by Lee Harvey Oswald

WC vol. 16, pp. 441-2

(Spelling Errors Intact)

1. Americans are apt to scoff at the idea, that a military coup in the US., as so often happens in Latin american countries, could ever replace our government. but that is an idea that has grounds for consideration. Which military organization has the potenitialities of executing such action? Is it the army? with its many constripes, its unwieldy size its scores of bases scattered across the world? The case of Gen. Walker shows that the army, at least, is not fertail enough ground for a far right regime to go a very long way. for the same reasons of size and desposition the Navy and air force is also to be more or less disregarded. Which service than, can qwalify to launch a coup in the USA? Small size, a permenent hard core of officerss and few baseis is necscary. Only one outfit fits that description and the U.S.M.C. is a right wing infiltrated organization of dire potential consequence's to the freedoms of the U.S. I agree with former President Truman when he said that "The Marine Corps should be abolished."

2. My second reason is that undemocratic, country wide insitution know as segregation. It, is, I think the action of the active segregationist minority adn the great body of indiffent people in the South who do the United States more harm in the eyes of the worlds people, than the whol world communist movement. as I look at this audience there is a sea of white facts before me where are the negro's amongst you (are they hiding under the table) surly if we are for democracy, let our fellow negro citizen's into this hall. Make no mistake, segregationist tendencies can be unlearned I was born in New Orleans, and I know.

In russia I saw on several occiasions that in international meeting the greatest glory in the sport field was brought to us by negros. Though they take the gold medals from their Russian competitors those negros know that when they return to their own homeland they will have to face blind hatred and discrimonation. The Soviet Union is made up of scores of naturiclists asians and Eurpr-asian's armenian and Jews whites and dark skinned people's yet they can teach us a lesson in brotherhood among people's with different customs and origins.

3. A symbol of the american way, our liberal concesin is the existance in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficeanly controlled by special government agencies. The commuhnist party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian conterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their right to speak, we maintain a tremonusu sign of our strenght and liberalism harasment of their party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates, is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speach and press. Their views no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. after all communist U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radical.

4. Now-a-days -- most of us read enough about certain right wing groups to know how to recognize them and guard against their corresive effects. a would like to say a word about them, although their is possibley few other american born person's in the U.S. who know as many personal reasons to know and therefore hate and mistrust communism. I would never become a psuso-professional anit-communist such as herbert Philbriks or Macarthy. I would never jump on any of the many right wing bandwagon's. because our two contries have too much too offer each other to be tearing at each other's trouths in an endless cold war. Both are conoutries have major short comings and advantages. but only in ours is the voice of dissent allowed opportunity of expression, in returning ________ to ________ the U.S., I hope I have awoken a few who were sleeping, and others who are indifferent.

I have done alot of critizing of our system I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. in going to Russian I followed the old priciple "Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. In returning to the U.S. I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the summer of 1963, when he was living in New Orleans, his cousins the Murrets asked Oswald to give a talk about his visit to Russia to Catholic seminary students.

In some notes he wrote prior to this talk, Oswald speculated on the possibility of a military coup taking place in the USA. His other points are also well-taken.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=465

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...lho_speech.html

Comission Exhibit 102

Editor's note: Lee Oswald was an amazingly bad speller, and in transcribing this document from its original handwritten form, the Warren Commission reflected this. In presenting CE 102 in html format, Fair Play has remained as true as possible to the material published by the WC; however, certain limitations were inevitable.

Notes for a Speech, by Lee Harvey Oswald

WC vol. 16, pp. 441-2

(Spelling Errors Intact)

1. Americans are apt to scoff at the idea, that a military coup in the US., as so often happens in Latin american countries, could ever replace our government. but that is an idea that has grounds for consideration. Which military organization has the potenitialities of executing such action? Is it the army? with its many constripes, its unwieldy size its scores of bases scattered across the world? The case of Gen. Walker shows that the army, at least, is not fertail enough ground for a far right regime to go a very long way. for the same reasons of size and desposition the Navy and air force is also to be more or less disregarded. Which service than, can qwalify to launch a coup in the USA? Small size, a permenent hard core of officerss and few baseis is necscary. Only one outfit fits that description and the U.S.M.C. is a right wing infiltrated organization of dire potential consequence's to the freedoms of the U.S. I agree with former President Truman when he said that "The Marine Corps should be abolished."

2. My second reason is that undemocratic, country wide insitution know as segregation. It, is, I think the action of the active segregationist minority adn the great body of indiffent people in the South who do the United States more harm in the eyes of the worlds people, than the whol world communist movement. as I look at this audience there is a sea of white facts before me where are the negro's amongst you (are they hiding under the table) surly if we are for democracy, let our fellow negro citizen's into this hall. Make no mistake, segregationist tendencies can be unlearned I was born in New Orleans, and I know.

In russia I saw on several occiasions that in international meeting the greatest glory in the sport field was brought to us by negros. Though they take the gold medals from their Russian competitors those negros know that when they return to their own homeland they will have to face blind hatred and discrimonation. The Soviet Union is made up of scores of naturiclists asians and Eurpr-asian's armenian and Jews whites and dark skinned people's yet they can teach us a lesson in brotherhood among people's with different customs and origins.

3. A symbol of the american way, our liberal concesin is the existance in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficeanly controlled by special government agencies. The commuhnist party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian conterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their right to speak, we maintain a tremonusu sign of our strenght and liberalism harasment of their party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates, is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speach and press. Their views no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. after all communist U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radical.

4. Now-a-days -- most of us read enough about certain right wing groups to know how to recognize them and guard against their corresive effects. a would like to say a word about them, although their is possibley few other american born person's in the U.S. who know as many personal reasons to know and therefore hate and mistrust communism. I would never become a psuso-professional anit-communist such as herbert Philbriks or Macarthy. I would never jump on any of the many right wing bandwagon's. because our two contries have too much too offer each other to be tearing at each other's trouths in an endless cold war. Both are conoutries have major short comings and advantages. but only in ours is the voice of dissent allowed opportunity of expression, in returning ________ to ________ the U.S., I hope I have awoken a few who were sleeping, and others who are indifferent.

I have done alot of critizing of our system I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. in going to Russian I followed the old priciple "Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. In returning to the U.S. I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils.

Yes Bill, Oswald must have been an extremely intelligent guy to have wrote that, his grasp of politics and foresight was outstanding, who knows, differant upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something. He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the summer of 1963, when he was living in New Orleans, his cousins the Murrets asked Oswald to give a talk about his visit to Russia to Catholic seminary students.

In some notes he wrote prior to this talk, Oswald speculated on the possibility of a military coup taking place in the USA. His other points are also well-taken.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=465

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...lho_speech.html

Comission Exhibit 102

Editor's note: Lee Oswald was an amazingly bad speller, and in transcribing this document from its original handwritten form, the Warren Commission reflected this. In presenting CE 102 in html format, Fair Play has remained as true as possible to the material published by the WC; however, certain limitations were inevitable.

Notes for a Speech, by Lee Harvey Oswald

WC vol. 16, pp. 441-2

(Spelling Errors Intact)

1. Americans are apt to scoff at the idea, that a military coup in the US., as so often happens in Latin american countries, could ever replace our government. but that is an idea that has grounds for consideration. Which military organization has the potenitialities of executing such action? Is it the army? with its many constripes, its unwieldy size its scores of bases scattered across the world? The case of Gen. Walker shows that the army, at least, is not fertail enough ground for a far right regime to go a very long way. for the same reasons of size and desposition the Navy and air force is also to be more or less disregarded. Which service than, can qwalify to launch a coup in the USA? Small size, a permenent hard core of officerss and few baseis is necscary. Only one outfit fits that description and the U.S.M.C. is a right wing infiltrated organization of dire potential consequence's to the freedoms of the U.S. I agree with former President Truman when he said that "The Marine Corps should be abolished."

2. My second reason is that undemocratic, country wide insitution know as segregation. It, is, I think the action of the active segregationist minority adn the great body of indiffent people in the South who do the United States more harm in the eyes of the worlds people, than the whol world communist movement. as I look at this audience there is a sea of white facts before me where are the negro's amongst you (are they hiding under the table) surly if we are for democracy, let our fellow negro citizen's into this hall. Make no mistake, segregationist tendencies can be unlearned I was born in New Orleans, and I know.

In russia I saw on several occiasions that in international meeting the greatest glory in the sport field was brought to us by negros. Though they take the gold medals from their Russian competitors those negros know that when they return to their own homeland they will have to face blind hatred and discrimonation. The Soviet Union is made up of scores of naturiclists asians and Eurpr-asian's armenian and Jews whites and dark skinned people's yet they can teach us a lesson in brotherhood among people's with different customs and origins.

3. A symbol of the american way, our liberal concesin is the existance in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficeanly controlled by special government agencies. The commuhnist party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian conterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their right to speak, we maintain a tremonusu sign of our strenght and liberalism harasment of their party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates, is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speach and press. Their views no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. after all communist U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radical.

4. Now-a-days -- most of us read enough about certain right wing groups to know how to recognize them and guard against their corresive effects. a would like to say a word about them, although their is possibley few other american born person's in the U.S. who know as many personal reasons to know and therefore hate and mistrust communism. I would never become a psuso-professional anit-communist such as herbert Philbriks or Macarthy. I would never jump on any of the many right wing bandwagon's. because our two contries have too much too offer each other to be tearing at each other's trouths in an endless cold war. Both are conoutries have major short comings and advantages. but only in ours is the voice of dissent allowed opportunity of expression, in returning ________ to ________ the U.S., I hope I have awoken a few who were sleeping, and others who are indifferent.

I have done alot of critizing of our system I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. in going to Russian I followed the old priciple "Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. In returning to the U.S. I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils.

Yes Bill, Oswald must have been an extremely intelligent guy to have wrote that, his grasp of politics and foresight was outstanding, who knows, differant upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something. He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

Of course he was a genius, Bill.

He could pull Hidell ID out of his pockets even though it had been taken by NOPD as evidence (per Quiqgley testimony).

He invented human cloning and used it to send future investigators and biographers crazy.

Despite being in the snipers nest drawing attention to himself, he used his awesome powers of deduction to correctly identify two employees who re entered the building at 12:23.

He was fully acquainted with laws surrounding renunciation of citizenship and USMC regs covering changes in discharge status despite being holed up in a hotel with no access to US law books.

He could bend the laws of physics and smirk like Paul Newman.

He could budget his money in a way that would have made him the world's greatest treasurer.

He travelled to the USSR without the FBI being able to fully figure out his route or timetable.

He travelled to and from Mexico City without the FBI being able to fully work out modes of travel.

He knew what days he could visit the embassy without being photographed.

He correctly predicted that the newspapers would report that he had an encounter with police at the front entrance before being allowed to leave (per Holmes' testimony - Oswald's claims of his encounter with police at the entrance matched first newspaper reports)

and well... I think you get the idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Bill,

"as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?"

In exchange for 'fame' Oswald was in effect committing suicide, if he had actully got out of the TSBD alive he would have been executed. And like many suicides, after its too late, the instinct for survival kicks in and they change their minds. Could that have happened to Oswald and explain his fleeing the scene and subsequent denial?

"Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ"

I dont believe you really take those ridiculous IQ tests that seriously Bill. Some people's brains just dont work that way, other people just dont test well. There's many highly intelligent people, professional people, who would score bad in an IQ test.

"You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work."

But not unachievable.

" he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids"

Are you kidding!! Oswald didn't have a "good steady job" it was a temporary job working for minimum wage. And Oswald's wife had just told him the night before the assassination that she wouldn't get back with him. Oswald was about to lose his "wife, (and) two beautiful kids". Could that have been the reason Oswald decided to go down in a blaze of glory?

Like I said Bill, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I still think they are all valid points.

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Bill,

Anyone reading that political essay by Oswald or listening to him being interviewed on radio couldn't help but be impressed by Oswald's extremely high intellect. I stand by that.

But the second part of my post was meant to read firmly 'tongue in cheek'. To be honest I found it amusing that by posting that essay you were, albeit inadvertently, seemingly backing up the old LN claim that Oswald was a frustrated genius with a grudge against society. Forget that, I apologise, it really wasn't very nice to 'yank your chain'. But I'm going to play devil's advocate and pick up on a few of your points. I dont necessarily believe some of these answers but I think they are worth considering.

"as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?"

In exchange for 'fame' Oswald was in effect committing suicide, if he had actully got out of the TSBD alive he would have been executed. And like many suicides, after its too late, the instinct for survival kicks in and they change their minds. Could that have happened to Oswald and explain his fleeing the scene and subsequent denial?

"Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ"

I dont believe you really take those ridiculous IQ tests that seriously Bill. Some people's brains just dont work that way, other people just dont test well. There's many highly intelligent people, professional people, who would score bad in an IQ test.

"You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work."

But not unachievable.

" he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids"

Are you kidding!! Oswald didn't have a "good steady job" it was a temporary job working for minimum wage. And Oswald's wife had just told him the night before the assassination that she wouldn't get back with him. Oswald was about to lose his "wife, (and) two beautiful kids". Could that have been the reason Oswald decided to go down in a blaze of glory?

Like I said Bill, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I still think they are all valid points.

Well, Besides talking out of the side of your mouth, playing the devil's advocate and pulling my chain, you still want to talk about this seriously?

You want to make the case for Oswald having an argument with his wife and respond by killing the President? That's assuming that he was actually in the window at 12:30 and pulled the trigger. I think you are fishing for a false motive for the Patsy.

You say: ......different upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something.

He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

I think he was something. His motive wasn't to make money, he did have a steady job and could get another, had an apartment, wife, two beautiful kids and over $100 in his pocket.

Those who claim Oswald was the 6th floor sniper certainly do have a hard time attributing a believable motive to him.

He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

Show me where he claims to be a genius? That's a thought that is in Denis' mind, not Oswald's, and it betrays your own double entendres.

This is the basic question, and there's no need to play the devil's advocate or play games - JFK was either killed by a deranged lone-nut in a spur of the moment rage, or he was killed as a result of a well planned and executed conspiracy or coup.

And as to your question as to whether or not it is important that Oswald's IQ was tested, I think if you find out who had a complete record of these tests given to Oswald, including Herzog's MMPI, then you'll have a pretty good idea as to who had the capability of framing him, however smart or stupid he really was.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald, Truman & the USMC

Did Oswald know what he was saying when he wrote:

"Americans are apt to scoff at the idea, that a military coup in the US., as so often happens in Latin american countries, could ever replace our government. but that is an idea that has grounds for consideration."

Certainly this was a consideration on the mind of many people, especially JFK, who was well aware of the military's attitude, especially after the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was certainly thinking about the possibility of a coup, as he related to Paul Fay and others, when he said that it could happen in the USA if there were a series of Bay of Pigs type incidents. He also permitted John Frankenheimer to use the White House as a setting for Seven Days in May, about a military coup in the USA, complete with composite characters who clearly resembled Generals Walker and LeMay.

Oswald goes on to speculate, "Which military organization has the potenitialities of executing such action? Is it the army? with its many constripes, its unwieldy size its scores of bases scattered across the world? The case of Gen. Walker shows that the army, at least, is not fertail enough ground for a far right regime to go a very long way. for the same reasons of size and desposition the Navy and air force is also to be more or less disregarded. Which service than, can qwalify to launch a coup in the USA? Small size, a permenent hard core of officerss and few baseis is necscary. Only one outfit fits that description and the U.S.M.C. is a right wing infiltrated organization of dire potential consequence's to the freedoms of the U.S. I agree with former President Truman when he said that 'The Marine Corps should be abolished.'"

Notes for a Speech, by Lee Harvey Oswald

WC vol. 16, pp. 441-2

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=465

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...lho_speech.html

But did President Truman say that the Marine Corps should be abolished?

There are numerous references to this idea, even in the official on-line history of the USMC, some mentioning the reorganization of the military and the government in 1948, and equating the corps with Stalin's propaganda machine, such as:

“….The opinions of other military men and politicians have, at times, differed, and President Harry S. Truman considered abolishing the Corps as part of the 1948 reorganization of the military. As Truman said, "The only propaganda machine that rivals that of Stalin is that of the United States Marine Corps." Truman, a former U.S. Army artillery captain, felt that the Marines were useless, despite their many successes in World War Two and Korea.”

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Q4kwoX...=clnk&gl=us

Then there is the direct quote attributed to Truman:

“The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's.”

Harry S. Truman

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h...stru112322.html

But it gets a little more tricky when you try to nail it down, as one explanation puts it:

Note: Representative Gordon L. McDonough of California had written the President urging him to grant the Marine Corps representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "In my opinion," he stated, "the United States Marine Corps is entitled to full recognition as a major branch of the Armed Services of the U.S., and should have its own representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff ...."

The President's reply, made public by Representative McDonough on September 1, 1950, and published in the Congressional Record (vol. 96, p. A6323), was the subject of considerable comment. The President's letter, dated August 29, follows:

"My dear Congressman McDonough:

"I read with a lot of interest your letter in regard to the Marine Corps. For your information the Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's.

"Nobody desires to belittle the efforts of the Marine Corps but when the Marine Corps goes into the army it works with and for the army and that is the way it should be.

"I am more than happy to have your expression of interest in this naval military organization. The Chief of Naval Operations is the Chief of Staff of the Navy of which the Marines are a part.

"Sincerely yours,

HARRY S. TRUMAN”

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13607

Then after this was made a mainstream media story by Truman's political enemies, Harry had to respond, and wrote to the Commandant of the USMC:

My dear Mr. Nixon:

[Commandant Clay Nixon, Marine Corps League, Hotel Statler, Washington, D.C.]

I am concerned over the situation which has arisen because of the publishing of my letter of August 29th to Representative McDonough.

I have this date addressed a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a copy of which I am enclosing.

I should be happy to have you read my letter to the members of your organization.

Sincerely yours,

HARRY S TRUMAN.

Dear General Cates:

I sincerely regret the unfortunate choice of language which I used in my letter of August 29 to Congressman McDonough concerning the Marine Corps.

What I had in mind at the time this letter was written was the specific question raised by Mr. McDonough, namely the representation of the Marine Corps on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have been disturbed by the number of communications which have been brought to my attention proposing that the Marine Corps have such representation. I feel that, in as much as the Marine Corps is by law an integral part of the Department of the Navy, it is already represented on the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the Chief of Naval Operations. That the Congress concurs in this point of view is evidenced by the fact that, in passing the National Security Act of 1947, and again in amending that Act in 1949, the Congress considered the question of Marine Corps representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and did not provide for it. It is my feeling that many of the renewed pleas for such representation are the result of propaganda inspired by individuals who may not be aware of the best interests of our Defense Establishment as a whole, and it was this feeling which I was expressing to Mr. McDonough. I am certain that the Marine Corps itself does not indulge in such propaganda.

I am profoundly aware of the magnificent history of the United States Marine Corps, and of the many heroic deeds of the Marines since the Corps was established in 1775. I personally learned of the splendid combat spirit of the Marines when the Fourth Marine Brigade of the Second Infantry Division fought in France in 1918.

On numerous occasions since I assumed office, I have stated my conviction that the Marine Corps has a vital role in our organization for national security and I will continue to support and maintain its identity.

I regard the Marine Corps as a force available for use in any emergency, wherever or whenever necessary. When I spoke of the Marines as the "Navy's police force," I had in mind its immediate readiness, and the provision of the National Security Act which states that "The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign."

The Corps' ability to carry out whatever task may be assigned to it has been splendidly demonstrated many times in our history. It has again been shown by the immediate response of the Marine Corps to a call for duty in Korea. Since Marine ground and air forces have arrived in Korea I have received a daily report of their actions. The country may feel sure that the record of the Marines now fighting there will add new laurels to the already illustrious record of the Marine Corps.

Sincerely yours,

HARRY S. TRUMAN

[General Clifton B. Cates, Commandant, USMC]

Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters,The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database).

Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13607.

But Oswald's assertion that the Marine Corps would be behind a military coup d'etat in the United States would seem to go against the grain of Commandant of the corps at the time of the assassination, Gen. David M. Shoup, who I believe, did serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While the USMC are now represented on the JCS and routinely serve as chairman, as Gen. Pace recently served, it doesn't seem like Gen. Shoup would have supported any such coup.

Shoup, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in combat in the Pacific during WWII, was adamantly against the use of US ground forces in Vietnam, and was described as JFK's best friends in the military, not because they were friends, but because Shoup gave JFK a rare vote of support from among the rabid reactionaries on the JCS.

Then there was General Krulak, who according to this profile, played a significant role in maintaining the Marines standing at the Command level - "the Little Men's Chowder and Marching Society."

And it was Krulak, also USMC, who was responsible for DOD support of the CIA covert actions against Cuba in the spring, summer and fall of 1963, when the contingency plans for a coup in Cuba were in action, the Valkyrie plan was adapted, and the maritime operations out of JMWAVE could be directly connected to what happened at Dealey Plaza.

So maybe there is something to what Oswald had to say about who would be responsible for a military coup in the USA, should one take place.

Brute Force

Krulak was a visionary Marines Corps leader.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjk2M...GNkMzhmMGMxNWM= - more

The country lost a storied Marine when retired Lt. Gen. Victor “Brute” Krulak died in his sleep on December 29 at the age of 95. Krulak was a thinker as well as a fighter, and in both capacities, he left his imprint on the Corps.

Krulak was not universally loved throughout the service. Asked to describe his leadership style, he replied that cultivating a reputation for being “a son of a bitch” has its advantages. Even so, many Marines were surprised when Lyndon Johnson did not select Krulak to be commandant in 1968. Perhaps it had to do with his persistent criticism of the strategy the U.S. was pursuing in Vietnam. (Krulak was, of course, immensely pleased when his son, Charles Krulak, became the 31st commandant of the Marine Corps in July of 1995.)

…..After the war, Krulak played a major role in the inter-service battles that characterized the period. Although the services still frequently disagree about roles, missions, and budgets, people today may not appreciate how vicious those earlier fights were. The Marine Corps was especially vulnerable: Despite its performance during the war, many players — including Harry Truman — wanted to abolish the service. Because many Marines naively believed that their war record would ensure the survival of the Corps, the day-to-day struggle for its future was waged by a small group that came to be known as the Little Men’s Chowder and Marching Society. Krulak was an integral part of that effort.

Having helped secure the survival of the Marine Corps, Krulak served in Korea as chief of staff of the 1st Marine Division. During the 1950s, he played a role in the development of the use of helicopters to transport Marines from ship to shore as part of amphibious operations. During this period he also contributed to the Marine Corps’s reinvention of itself as a “force in readiness.”

In 1962, former PT boat skipper President Kennedy directed the services to emphasize counterinsurgency training, and Krulak played a central role in implementing the president’s directive……

……When he was not selected as commandant, Krulak retired but continued to devote himself to the nation’s defense as a journalist. In this capacity, he served as a vice president of the Copley Newspaper Corporation and president of its news service while writing a regular column for many years.

“Brute” Krulak was a true visionary. He will be missed but, fortunately, he has inspired many who follow him.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is editor of Orbis and professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations, and his study of Lincoln’s wartime leadership will be published in early 2009 by the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Bill,

I know you try not to be "political"; that you did not have a political slant in mind when you posted a right wing extremist author's (Mackubin Thomas Owens) view of Victor Krulak, right off a web page of the late right wing extremist's, William F. Buckley's National Review website.

I know you try to avoid things "political", but Bill, I attempt once more, to try to convince you that it is not possible to avoid it.

Those tilted to the right of us, believe they are "centrist". The history of the twentieth century seems to indicate that this is not true. An example of how, by owning the media, and the owners of the media, the right wing establishment that dominates the "one party with two right wings" described as the US, "two party" system, got caught sponsoring a coup attempt not all that dissimilar to the one you suspect may have taken place in 1963., and how they avoided accountability when the USMC general they picked to lead the coup, instead, chose to expose the plot:

This is how Luce's neo-fascist media organ portrayed USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler's revelation of a "business coup" plot:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...29957-2,00.html

Plot Without Plotters

Monday, Dec. 03, 1934

....After these highly embarrassing incidents, General Butler found it best to resign from the Marines in 1931 to devote himself to politics and public speaking as a private citizen. In 1932 he went to Washington to harangue the Bonus Army, was an unsuccessful candidate for Senator from Pennsylvania on a Dry ticket. Last December he exhorted veterans: 'If the Democrats take care of you, keep them in —if not, put 'em out." In May the current Butlerism was: "War Is A Racket." Last month he told a Manhattan Jewish congregation that he would never again fight outside the U. S. General Butler's sensational tongue had not been heard in the nation's Press for more than a week when he cornered a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post, poured into his ears the lurid tale that he had been offered leadership of a Fascist Putsch, scheduled for next year....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...29957-3,00.html

National Affairs: Plot Without Plotters

Monday, Dec. 03, 1934

Thanking their stars for having such sure-fire publicity dropped in their laps, Representatives McCormack & Dickstein began calling witnesses to expose the "plot." But there did not seem to be any plotters....

...Though most of the country was again laughing at the latest Butler story, the special House Committee declined to join in the merriment. Turning from the Fascist putsch yarn to investigate Communism among New York fur workers, Congressman Dickstein promised Commander Van Zandt a later hearing in Washington. "From present indications," said the publicity-loving New York Representative, "General Butler has the evidence. He's not making serious charges unless he has something to back them up. We will have some men here with bigger names than Butler's before this is over."...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,754551,00.html

Monday, Feb. 25, 1935

"Names make news." Last week these names made this news:

...To Pittsburgh one morning went eagle-nosed Major-General Smedley Darlington ("Old Gimlet Eye") Butler, to speak at a banquet.* That same day Jimmy ("Schnozzle") Durante was appearing at a Pittsburgh theatre. Stepping off his train, General Butler thrust his head forward in characteristic pose, stomped down the platform. Loiterers, mistaking him for the well-publicized Durante, began to cheer. That evening nosey Comedian Durante turned up at the banquet where nosey General Butler was speaking. A cameraman snapped them nose to nose.....

In the same, Feb. 25, 1935 issue of Time where Luce's crew made one last attempt to make Gen. Butler look ridiculous,

they reluctantly reported (buried near the bottom of a "People" column....), the news that Butler was apparently correct and vindicated:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...54551-3,00.html

....Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.

Why stop with Victor Krulak? He had company. Scary, crazy, right wing dominated, looney bin country, is our US of A.

This political extremist, Curtis Dall had a son, who goes by the name Curtis Roosevelt, happens to be the grandson of FDR, and moved to the South of France:

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/in...urtis_Bean_Dall

Curtis Bean Dall (24 October 1896 - 28 June 1991) was a stockbroker, banker, investor, vice-Presidential candidate, first husband of Anna E. Roosevelt, and author.

561281b0c8a0cfb512a1a110._AA240_.L.jpg

...Political Life

In 1950 or 1951, Curtis and his wife Katherine moved from San Antonio, Texas to Chestnut Hill, a suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On 13 Dec 1959 the Big Spring Daily Herald reports "Curtis Dall Named D&E Board Member" : "Curtis B. Dall, Philadelphia has been named to the board of directors of the Big Spring Exploration Company."

Dall became involved with the "...racist Right's ill-fated efforts at forming a third party..."S. In 1960 the Texas-based Constitution Party put-up retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Merritt B. Curtis for president. (see Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 25 Apr 1960, page 7, "Constitution Party Picks Its Candidates") Dall the then-editor of Task Force magazine in Washington, had his name put in for vice-presidential nominee, but lost to B.M. Miller.

In 1962 in a hearing before Congress, Dall describes himself as "Chairman of the Board of Policy for Liberty Lobby." Dall testified in Washington in May 1963, in front of the Senate Finance Committee, and against President Kennedy's trade policies. Syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, in an editorial, 1 Jun 1963 (see Ogden Standard-Examiner) reports that "...Dall charged that Kennedy's trade policies were dreamed up by his 'political bosses and mentors' whom he identified ominously as 'the political Zionist planners for absolute rule, via one world government....[They] have gained the power to influence while remaining themselves in the shade..."

On 21 Jul 1964, the Advocate of Victoria, Texas reported that the "Constitution Party Seeks New Standard Bearer". It "threw open its presidential nomination to anyone who is willing to promote the principles of constitutional government." This happened because George Wallace withdrew his name as their favored candidate. Three people mentioned as possible candidates, were: "Curtis Dall of Philadelphia, national chairman...; P.A. Del Valle retired Marine Corps lieutenant general...; and W Frank Horne publisher".

In 1966/7 Curtis wrote the book for which he is most cited today, F.D.R. My Exploited Father-In-Law, in which he speaks of his ex-father-in-law, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Franklin's relationship with, as Curtis saw them, the corrupt power of the banking elite of the time. On the back cover of this 1967 edition it states :"An ardent conservative Mr. Dall is a member of the Christian Crusade National Advisory Board; is a member of the Executive Board of 'We The People'; and works actively for conservatism in national politics."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_B._Curtis

Merritt B. Curtis, (Aug 31, 1892 - May 16, 1966). Brigadier General, and lawyer who in 1960 ran for President of the United States in Washington with B. N. Miller and vice-president in Texas with Charles L. Sullivan under the Constitution Party banner. Curtis also ran for vice-president in Michigan with Lars Daly under the Tax Cut banner.

Merritt Barton Curtis was born in 1892 at San Bernardino, California, son of Israel Hamilton Curtis and Eliza Allen Mee. Graduate of the University of California, and George Washington University. He married Francis Claire Bracewell on Apr 23, 1917 at Riverside, California. He was in the Marine Corps as 2nd Lieutenant in 1917 and advanced to Brigadier General in 1944. Member of the bar in California.

The Constitution Party was described by Sara Diamond as the result of the "...racist Right's ill-fated efforts at forming a third party..."[1] In 1960 the party put-up retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Merritt B. Curtis for president, and B. N. Miller for vice-president in the state of Washington. Curtis received 1,401 votes for 0.11% of the Washington vote [2].

John Bevilaqua's thread from last month: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14745

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Pedro A. del Valle, Another Wickliffe Draper protege - Friend of Holocaust Museum Shooter

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

You just don't get it.

It's not that I try not to be "political," I try to be more specific than blaming "right wing extremists" in general, conservatives, the CIA, or any other group you want to blame for anything or something, as they can't be indicted for murder or any crime, only individuals can.

And in the end, when the covert op that was responsible for Dealey Plaza is finally detailed specifically, I suspect they will be right wing extremists, where as Clay Shaw, David Phillips, Cord Meyer and other likely suspects were liberals.

What I say is those who can't think or make a decision without classifying things into liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing viewpoints, like Bill O'Rilley, Rush Limbaugh or any typical conservative columnist, or the opposite extreme like Belawickliff Draper, can't comprehend what really happened at Dealey Plaza, or on 9/11, and explain those events in their simple minded terms.

You say the right wing extremists own the media, while the right wing extremists say the media is full of liberals, but neither can or bothers to really try to figure out what happened at Dealey Plaza, even if it is the most significant matter of national security to threaten the country.

You want to blame the assassination on right wing extremists, okay, do it, but you won't ever go where I want to go - and that is to take the most significant evidence and witnesses to a grand jury and indict those responsible for crimes related to the assassination.

You want to win an internet debate.

I don't push any right wing extremist views, I cited MTOwens for pointing out that Krulak was instrumental in offsetting the anti-USMC attitudes expressed by Truman and Oswald.

That he happens to be a right wing extremist doesn't take away from that fact, or make me what ever he is.

You posted a thread asking for research assistance, and cite a half dozen old men in their eighties who you suspect of being implicated in all sorts of nefarious affairs, and think they should be questioned before they kick off, but you won't bother to call them on the phone or visit them and ask them the questions yourself.

You can't do it because you've already judged them, and like Belawickliff Draper, you consider them the enemy, when in fact they are just old men who really should be properly questioned about the historical affairs they are knowledgeable about.

But you already blame them for all sorts of things, when in fact, they could probably answer your questions if properly approached and asked respectfully rather than rudely blamed for whatever it is you are accusing them of.

Why stop with Krulak?

I understand the Butler and Curtis and Luce aspects of that political history, and it is significant to understanding American history, but it was Krulak who was in the Pentagon office of counter-insurgency, responsible for DOD support for the CIA covert Cuban maritime operations that are directly connected to Dealey Plaza.

I am focusing on the specific and narrowing down my research to the most significant people and places, while you want to generalize and blame half the crazy world for being extremists.

As the details of the assassination of President Kennedy become more clear, it is apparent that those who want to blame the assassination on right wingers, oil men, the CIA, the Mafia, or any generic entity, will just have to sit on the sidelines and watch as those really responsible are exposed.

Get it?

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I know you try not to be "political"; that you did not have a political slant in mind when you posted a right wing extremist author's (Mackubin Thomas Owens) view of Victor Krulak, right off a web page of the late right wing extremist's, William F. Buckley's National Review website.

I know you try to avoid things "political", but Bill, I attempt once more, to try to convince you that it is not possible to avoid it.

Those tilted to the right of us, believe they are "centrist". The history of the twentieth century seems to indicate that this is not true. An example of how, by owning the media, and the owners of the media, the right wing establishment that dominates the "one party with two right wings" described as the US, "two party" system, got caught sponsoring a coup attempt not all that dissimilar to the one you suspect may have taken place in 1963., and how they avoided accountability when the USMC general they picked to lead the coup, instead, chose to expose the plot:

This is how Luce's neo-fascist media organ portrayed USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler's revelation of a "business coup" plot:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...29957-2,00.html

Plot Without Plotters

Monday, Dec. 03, 1934

....After these highly embarrassing incidents, General Butler found it best to resign from the Marines in 1931 to devote himself to politics and public speaking as a private citizen. In 1932 he went to Washington to harangue the Bonus Army, was an unsuccessful candidate for Senator from Pennsylvania on a Dry ticket. Last December he exhorted veterans: 'If the Democrats take care of you, keep them in —if not, put 'em out." In May the current Butlerism was: "War Is A Racket." Last month he told a Manhattan Jewish congregation that he would never again fight outside the U. S. General Butler's sensational tongue had not been heard in the nation's Press for more than a week when he cornered a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post, poured into his ears the lurid tale that he had been offered leadership of a Fascist Putsch, scheduled for next year....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...29957-3,00.html

National Affairs: Plot Without Plotters

Monday, Dec. 03, 1934

Thanking their stars for having such sure-fire publicity dropped in their laps, Representatives McCormack & Dickstein began calling witnesses to expose the "plot." But there did not seem to be any plotters....

...Though most of the country was again laughing at the latest Butler story, the special House Committee declined to join in the merriment. Turning from the Fascist putsch yarn to investigate Communism among New York fur workers, Congressman Dickstein promised Commander Van Zandt a later hearing in Washington. "From present indications," said the publicity-loving New York Representative, "General Butler has the evidence. He's not making serious charges unless he has something to back them up. We will have some men here with bigger names than Butler's before this is over."...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,754551,00.html

Monday, Feb. 25, 1935

"Names make news." Last week these names made this news:

...To Pittsburgh one morning went eagle-nosed Major-General Smedley Darlington ("Old Gimlet Eye") Butler, to speak at a banquet.* That same day Jimmy ("Schnozzle") Durante was appearing at a Pittsburgh theatre. Stepping off his train, General Butler thrust his head forward in characteristic pose, stomped down the platform. Loiterers, mistaking him for the well-publicized Durante, began to cheer. That evening nosey Comedian Durante turned up at the banquet where nosey General Butler was speaking. A cameraman snapped them nose to nose.....

In the same, Feb. 25, 1935 issue of Time where Luce's crew made one last attempt to make Gen. Butler look ridiculous,

they reluctantly reported (buried near the bottom of a "People" column....), the news that Butler was apparently correct and vindicated:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...54551-3,00.html

....Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.

Why stop with Victor Krulak? He had company. Scary, crazy, right wing dominated, looney bin country, is our US of A.

This political extremist, Curtis Dall had a son, who goes by the name Curtis Roosevelt, happens to be the grandson of FDR, and moved to the South of France:

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/in...urtis_Bean_Dall

Curtis Bean Dall (24 October 1896 - 28 June 1991) was a stockbroker, banker, investor, vice-Presidential candidate, first husband of Anna E. Roosevelt, and author.

561281b0c8a0cfb512a1a110._AA240_.L.jpg

...Political Life

In 1950 or 1951, Curtis and his wife Katherine moved from San Antonio, Texas to Chestnut Hill, a suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On 13 Dec 1959 the Big Spring Daily Herald reports "Curtis Dall Named D&E Board Member" : "Curtis B. Dall, Philadelphia has been named to the board of directors of the Big Spring Exploration Company."

Dall became involved with the "...racist Right's ill-fated efforts at forming a third party..."S. In 1960 the Texas-based Constitution Party put-up retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Merritt B. Curtis for president. (see Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 25 Apr 1960, page 7, "Constitution Party Picks Its Candidates") Dall the then-editor of Task Force magazine in Washington, had his name put in for vice-presidential nominee, but lost to B.M. Miller.

In 1962 in a hearing before Congress, Dall describes himself as "Chairman of the Board of Policy for Liberty Lobby." Dall testified in Washington in May 1963, in front of the Senate Finance Committee, and against President Kennedy's trade policies. Syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, in an editorial, 1 Jun 1963 (see Ogden Standard-Examiner) reports that "...Dall charged that Kennedy's trade policies were dreamed up by his 'political bosses and mentors' whom he identified ominously as 'the political Zionist planners for absolute rule, via one world government....[They] have gained the power to influence while remaining themselves in the shade..."

On 21 Jul 1964, the Advocate of Victoria, Texas reported that the "Constitution Party Seeks New Standard Bearer". It "threw open its presidential nomination to anyone who is willing to promote the principles of constitutional government." This happened because George Wallace withdrew his name as their favored candidate. Three people mentioned as possible candidates, were: "Curtis Dall of Philadelphia, national chairman...; P.A. Del Valle retired Marine Corps lieutenant general...; and W Frank Horne publisher".

In 1966/7 Curtis wrote the book for which he is most cited today, F.D.R. My Exploited Father-In-Law, in which he speaks of his ex-father-in-law, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Franklin's relationship with, as Curtis saw them, the corrupt power of the banking elite of the time. On the back cover of this 1967 edition it states :"An ardent conservative Mr. Dall is a member of the Christian Crusade National Advisory Board; is a member of the Executive Board of 'We The People'; and works actively for conservatism in national politics."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_B._Curtis

Merritt B. Curtis, (Aug 31, 1892 - May 16, 1966). Brigadier General, and lawyer who in 1960 ran for President of the United States in Washington with B. N. Miller and vice-president in Texas with Charles L. Sullivan under the Constitution Party banner. Curtis also ran for vice-president in Michigan with Lars Daly under the Tax Cut banner.

Merritt Barton Curtis was born in 1892 at San Bernardino, California, son of Israel Hamilton Curtis and Eliza Allen Mee. Graduate of the University of California, and George Washington University. He married Francis Claire Bracewell on Apr 23, 1917 at Riverside, California. He was in the Marine Corps as 2nd Lieutenant in 1917 and advanced to Brigadier General in 1944. Member of the bar in California.

The Constitution Party was described by Sara Diamond as the result of the "...racist Right's ill-fated efforts at forming a third party..."[1] In 1960 the party put-up retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Merritt B. Curtis for president, and B. N. Miller for vice-president in the state of Washington. Curtis received 1,401 votes for 0.11% of the Washington vote [2].

John Bevilaqua's thread from last month: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14745

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Pedro A. del Valle, Another Wickliffe Draper protege - Friend of Holocaust Museum Shooter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
You just don't get it.

It's not that I try not to be "political," I try to be more specific than blaming "right wing extremists" in general, conservatives, the CIA, or any other group you want to blame for anything or something, as they can't be indicted for murder or any crime, only individuals can.

And in the end, when the covert op that was responsible for Dealey Plaza is finally detailed specifically, I suspect they will be right wing extremists, where as Clay Shaw, David Phillips, Cord Meyer and other likely suspects were liberals.

What I say is those who can't think or make a decision without classifying things into liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing viewpoints, like Bill O'Rilley, Rush Limbaugh or any typical conservative columnist, or the opposite extreme like Belawickliff Draper, can't comprehend what really happened at Dealey Plaza, or on 9/11, and explain those events in their simple minded terms.

You say the right wing extremists own the media, while the right wing extremists say the media is full of liberals, but neither can or bothers to really try to figure out what happened at Dealey Plaza, even if it is the most significant matter of national security to threaten the country.

You want to blame the assassination on right wing extremists, okay, do it, but you won't ever go where I want to go - and that is to take the most significant evidence and witnesses to a grand jury and indict those responsible for crimes related to the assassination.

You want to win an internet debate.

I don't push any right wing extremist views, I cited MTOwens for pointing out that Krulak was instrumental in offsetting the anti-USMC attitudes expressed by Truman and Oswald.

That he happens to be a right wing extremist doesn't take away from that fact, or make me what ever he is.

You posted a thread asking for research assistance, and cite a half dozen old men in their eighties who you suspect of being implicated in all sorts of nefarious affairs, and think they should be questioned before they kick off, but you won't bother to call them on the phone or visit them and ask them the questions yourself.

You can't do it because you've already judged them, and like Belawickliff Draper, you consider them the enemy, when in fact they are just old men who really should be properly questioned about the historical affairs they are knowledgeable about.

But you already blame them for all sorts of things, when in fact, they could probably answer your questions if properly approached and asked respectfully rather than rudely blamed for whatever it is you are accusing them of.

Why stop with Krulak?

I understand the Butler and Curtis and Luce aspects of that political history, and it is significant to understanding American history, but it was Krulak who was in the Pentagon office of counter-insurgency, responsible for DOD support for the CIA covert Cuban maritime operations that are directly connected to Dealey Plaza.

I am focusing on the specific and narrowing down my research to the most significant people and places, while you want to generalize and blame half the crazy world for being extremists.

As the details of the assassination of President Kennedy become more clear, it is apparent that those who want to blame the assassination on right wingers, oil men, the CIA, the Mafia, or any generic entity, will just have to sit on the sidelines and watch as those really responsible are exposed.

Get it?

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I attempt to go where my inquiries take me. I came to be on this forum because I made the mistake of wondering who Obama's Chicago "neighborhood" financial backer, Lester Crown is. I began to look into his background, found this article, and I was hooked.

http://www2.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...=009&sc=442

ON ECONOMICS: -- How Kennedy Assassination Affected Some Stock Prices

JONATHAN MARSHALL

Monday, November 18, 1996

....On November 22, in a separate inquiry into government corruption, another Senate committee heard testimony about an alleged $100,000 cash payoff to Vice President Johnson in connection with the TFX contract. That investigation also went nowhere after the assassination, notes Peter Dale Scott, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, in his 1993 book ``Deep Politics and the Death of JFK.''

Only fringe conspiracy theorists would conclude from these facts that General Dynamics, Brown and Root or the ``military-industrial complex'' more generally, had Kennedy killed. They may have preferred Lyndon Johnson, but there's no evidence they wanted Kennedy dead.

But the facts speak tellingly about how accidents of history can affect great fortunes.

A postscript for assassination buffs: No individual stood to lose more from the TFX scandal than Chicago investor Henry Crown, who owned 20 percent of General Dynamics. His personal attorney, Albert Jenner, became a senior staff attorney on the Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy.

In later years, Jenner also represented Chicago labor racketeer Allen Dorfman. Dorfman's stepfather Paul, a leading figure in the Chicago mob, ran the Waste Handlers Union in Chicago in 1939 with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald's future killer.

Both Dorfmans hated the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy had hauled them before a Senate crime panel in the late 1950s, where they took the Fifth Amendment.

Allen Dorfman was murdered, gangland-style, in 1983 in the company of another friend of Ruby, Irwin Weiner. Attorney Jenner obtained Weiner's acquittal in a 1975 federal labor racketeering case after the government's leading witness was shotgunned to death.

Weiner was called to testify in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations about his relationship with Ruby, including a phone conversation with Ruby shortly before the assassination. He said the call was innocent. ....

Prior to becoming curious about Lester Crown, I became curious about Jupiter Island, FL, and I looked into it's history and the people connected to it's founding and evolution into a private refuge for the folks we now know built or bought homes there, since that time.

Thats it, Bill. I've discovered no "left wing" plots, anywhere in my research, the murder of JFK was a product of the extreme right's attempt to prevail over the more moderate right; over the right leaning JFK administration, viewed as "leftist" from the POV of the entrenched, extreme right establishment, just as Obama and his administration are misinterpreted as "liberal left", these days, as was the FDR administration, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Doesn't it strike you that the USMC fast tracked, so to speak, the careers, nearly simultaneously, of some intensely, politically extreme individulas to the ranks of top leaderhip in it's comparitively small, command structure?

I am not a journalist. I will be making no telephone calls to subjects of interest. Others have directly questioned Mr. Bush, Mr. Devine, and Mr. Train, and we can observe what they got out of doing that....not much. Mr. Bush's spokespeople and those of the CIA told us that the "George Bush of the CIA', mentioned in the 1963 FBI memo, was a lowly G-5 level, photograph analyst who had been a CIA employee for six months when he received his JFK assassination investigation, "briefing". Mr. Devine told Russ Baker that "the problem with you journalists is that you try to interpret CIA documents, like the ones referring to WUBRINY, literally," or words to that effect.

No Bill, the "six old men" who I singled out, are unrepentent. Barring near term research successes, they will go to their graves with their secrets. They are also delusional. Consider the mindset of this octagenarian author: http://www.fairfieldcountylook.com/gallery.php?id=67

Can you fathom how a man whose grandfather was labelled the Remington Arms, "Merchant of Death", or whose father figuratively, and literally "piloted" an Abwehr agent into Willkie's inner, 1940 campaign circle, and then became Charle's A. Lindbergh's best friend, could write a book of praise about these men, and then present it to his appreciative, local gold coast Connecticut community?

Delusional also, are the people who look up to these powerful men, or who seek their financial backing and or influence for the purpose of advancing their political careers. Obama is their latest protege.

Bill, I wasn't associating you with National Review or with the author of that Krulak article. I just think you cited an extremist source from an extremist website to support your point. I think you lack an awareness, sometimes, of the political nature of what you do here. Posting here is a political act. I do it with a certain self awareness. I am not going to allow extremists to define who I am, politically. We all saw John Simkin's reaction to Don Bohning's attack of John and his politics. Bohning's political point of view is of such an extreme nature, he has no reality based starting point from which to judge the reasonableness of Simkin's political point of view. Bohning, did, however, put John Simkin on the defensive, whereas, instead of defending himself by asserting that he was a successful capitalist, John Simkin should have simply pointed out that Bohning is blinded by his own extremism.

I'm tired of the crap coming from the likes of Bohning, Porter Goss, and as an example, this, if it is a true quote, and I don't much doubt that it is:

....and her attitude IS: that anybody who is CIA (and doesn't "Fess-up"to something) must be an evil-doer. Typical Commie-symp/wimp horsesh** that I've been exposed to (and forced to put up with) even before fighting in Cuba, Nicaragua, Santo Domingo, Haiti, etc. !!

And moreover, this is typical of the membership on Simkin's forum, which is just another apparatchik disinformatziya scheme for a bunch of wimp-a** arrogant suckers, none of whom have ever had the balls to put it on the line !!.....

Note the "apparatchik disinformatziya", it's the same "red baiting" language that Bohning's "agitprop" reference against John Simkin was, originally perfected by Sen. Joe McCarthy.

So predicatble in it's sameness, as if it is arrogant or "leftist" to question the assumption that anyone representing US business or government agency interests, somehow had reasonable justification for "fighting in Cuba, Nicaragua, Santo Domingo, Haiti, etc. !!"

We will have agree to disagree. I'll continue to read what you write, and learn from it.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Bill,

Anyone reading that political essay by Oswald or listening to him being interviewed on radio couldn't help but be impressed by Oswald's extremely high intellect. I stand by that.

But the second part of my post was meant to read firmly 'tongue in cheek'. To be honest I found it amusing that by posting that essay you were, albeit inadvertently, seemingly backing up the old LN claim that Oswald was a frustrated genius with a grudge against society. Forget that, I apologise, it really wasn't very nice to 'yank your chain'. But I'm going to play devil's advocate and pick up on a few of your points. I dont necessarily believe some of these answers but I think they are worth considering.

"as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?"

In exchange for 'fame' Oswald was in effect committing suicide, if he had actully got out of the TSBD alive he would have been executed. And like many suicides, after its too late, the instinct for survival kicks in and they change their minds. Could that have happened to Oswald and explain his fleeing the scene and subsequent denial?

"Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ"

I dont believe you really take those ridiculous IQ tests that seriously Bill. Some people's brains just dont work that way, other people just dont test well. There's many highly intelligent people, professional people, who would score bad in an IQ test.

"You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work."

But not unachievable.

" he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids"

Are you kidding!! Oswald didn't have a "good steady job" it was a temporary job working for minimum wage. And Oswald's wife had just told him the night before the assassination that she wouldn't get back with him. Oswald was about to lose his "wife, (and) two beautiful kids". Could that have been the reason Oswald decided to go down in a blaze of glory?

Like I said Bill, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I still think they are all valid points.

Well, Besides talking out of the side of your mouth, playing the devil's advocate and pulling my chain, you still want to talk about this seriously?

You want to make the case for Oswald having an argument with his wife and respond by killing the President? That's assuming that he was actually in the window at 12:30 and pulled the trigger. I think you are fishing for a false motive for the Patsy.

You say: ......different upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something.

He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

I think he was something. His motive wasn't to make money, he did have a steady job and could get another, had an apartment, wife, two beautiful kids and over $100 in his pocket.

Those who claim Oswald was the 6th floor sniper certainly do have a hard time attributing a believable motive to him.

He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

Show me where he claims to be a genius? That's a thought that is in Denis' mind, not Oswald's, and it betrays your own double entendres.

This is the basic question, and there's no need to play the devil's advocate or play games - JFK was either killed by a deranged lone-nut in a spur of the moment rage, or he was killed as a result of a well planned and executed conspiracy or coup.

And as to your question as to whether or not it is important that Oswald's IQ was tested, I think if you find out who had a complete record of these tests given to Oswald, including Herzog's MMPI, then you'll have a pretty good idea as to who had the capability of framing him, however smart or stupid he really was.

BK

Bill, please dont start misquoting me. I did NOT say Oswald had "an argument with his wife" I said his wife refused to get back with him, that's a lot more serious than an argument, she was in effect ending their marriage. At least that's how Oswald interpreted it, that morning he left his wedding ring in a cup.

"He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

These are strange questions!! What relevance they have escapes me. But O.K. I'll answer: I'm a very young 55. I'm British, so no I never was in the USMC, does the Queens infantry count? Yes, Ive been to Russia twice. Yes, I'm lucky enough to have traveled very extensively thank you. No, never been to Mexico city. Yes, as well as English I speak Australian, American, New Zealand. etc LOL

Bill, for the last time, Oswald DID NOT have a steady job...it was a TEMPORARY job. And there's a picture below of Oswald's 'apartment' WOW!

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the remark "betrays your own double entendres" as I understand it a double entendre is one phrase with two meanings, the latter usually being risque, so I cant really grasp your meaning. But to be honest I cant really grasp the meaning of your entire post. You seem to have writen it in a great deal of anger. Perhaps we should precede when your'v cooled down a bit.

Conspi20.jpg

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Bill,

Anyone reading that political essay by Oswald or listening to him being interviewed on radio couldn't help but be impressed by Oswald's extremely high intellect. I stand by that.

But the second part of my post was meant to read firmly 'tongue in cheek'. To be honest I found it amusing that by posting that essay you were, albeit inadvertently, seemingly backing up the old LN claim that Oswald was a frustrated genius with a grudge against society. Forget that, I apologise, it really wasn't very nice to 'yank your chain'. But I'm going to play devil's advocate and pick up on a few of your points. I dont necessarily believe some of these answers but I think they are worth considering.

"as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?"

In exchange for 'fame' Oswald was in effect committing suicide, if he had actully got out of the TSBD alive he would have been executed. And like many suicides, after its too late, the instinct for survival kicks in and they change their minds. Could that have happened to Oswald and explain his fleeing the scene and subsequent denial?

"Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ"

I dont believe you really take those ridiculous IQ tests that seriously Bill. Some people's brains just dont work that way, other people just dont test well. There's many highly intelligent people, professional people, who would score bad in an IQ test.

"You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work."

But not unachievable.

" he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids"

Are you kidding!! Oswald didn't have a "good steady job" it was a temporary job working for minimum wage. And Oswald's wife had just told him the night before the assassination that she wouldn't get back with him. Oswald was about to lose his "wife, (and) two beautiful kids". Could that have been the reason Oswald decided to go down in a blaze of glory?

Like I said Bill, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I still think they are all valid points.

Well, Besides talking out of the side of your mouth, playing the devil's advocate and pulling my chain, you still want to talk about this seriously?

You want to make the case for Oswald having an argument with his wife and respond by killing the President? That's assuming that he was actually in the window at 12:30 and pulled the trigger. I think you are fishing for a false motive for the Patsy.

You say: ......different upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something.

He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

I think he was something. His motive wasn't to make money, he did have a steady job and could get another, had an apartment, wife, two beautiful kids and over $100 in his pocket.

Those who claim Oswald was the 6th floor sniper certainly do have a hard time attributing a believable motive to him.

He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

Show me where he claims to be a genius? That's a thought that is in Denis' mind, not Oswald's, and it betrays your own double entendres.

This is the basic question, and there's no need to play the devil's advocate or play games - JFK was either killed by a deranged lone-nut in a spur of the moment rage, or he was killed as a result of a well planned and executed conspiracy or coup.

And as to your question as to whether or not it is important that Oswald's IQ was tested, I think if you find out who had a complete record of these tests given to Oswald, including Herzog's MMPI, then you'll have a pretty good idea as to who had the capability of framing him, however smart or stupid he really was.

BK

Bill, please dont start misquoting me. I did NOT say Oswald had "an argument with his wife" I said his wife refused to get back with him, that's a lot more serious than an argument, she was in effect ending their marriage. At least that's how Oswald interpreted it, that morning he left his wedding ring in a cup.

"He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

These are strange questions!! What relevance they have escapes me. But O.K. I'll answer: I'm a very young 55. I'm British, so no I never was in the USMC, does the Queens infantry count? Yes, Ive been to Russia twice. Yes, I'm lucky enough to have traveled very extensively thank you. No, never been to Mexico city. Yes, as well as English I speak Australian, American, New Zealand. etc LOL

Bill, for the last time, Oswald DID NOT have a steady job...it was a TEMPORARY job. And there's a picture below of Oswald's 'apartment' WOW!

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the remark "betrays your own double entendres" as I understand it a double entendre is one phrase with two meanings, the latter usually being risque, so I cant really grasp your meaning. But to be honest I cant really grasp the meaning of your entire post. You seem to have writen it in a great deal of anger. Perhaps we should precede when your'v cooled down a bit.

Conspi20.jpg

Hi Denis,

Good on you, but Oswald was half your age and accomplished as much.

So you insist that Oswald didn't have a steady job, although he declined to take one at the airport for more money, and that he lived in a small room by himself, that he was a no-good loser.

People who portray Oswald that way invariably also claim he killed Kennedy, but rather than being the world-class assassin they make him out to be, still say he failed at everything in life, except being the assassin. That annoys me, but doesn't make me angry enough to go out an shoot the president, and I don't think it made Oswald angry enough to shot the president because his wife wasn't going to move back in with him - could they all fit in that little room?

You seem to be making the position, whether it is one you really believe or you are just making the argument, I don't know, that Oswald didn't like his life, and because his wife left him the night before, went out and shot the President in response to her leaving him.

Is there another historical example of an assassin or spree shooter committing his deed because his wife left him? I would think a sane or crazy person would have killed the wife rather than the President, if she's the one who made him angry, or drove him crazy?

Of course you are making the huge assumption that Oswald was the lone Sixth Floor sniper, and successfully accomplished the deed by himself, when the evidence suggests that he was on the first or second floor at the time of the shooting and someone else was in the window.

If Oswald did kill the President because his wife left him the night before, he certainly would have been crazy, though no one (Other than Volkmar Schmidt) recognized any psychotic attributes before hand.

Of course attempting to attribute a motive to kill the President to a designated patsy is a parlor game.

Oswald may have left his wedding ring, and money with Marina, but I think he was wearing his USMC ring, and I believe that the USMC background of the Patsy is more significant to understanding what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And there's little to be learned from what happened there is the assassin - whoever it was, was motivated by his wife's rejection rather than the policies and actions of the victim.

If the assassination was the result of a spur of the moment decision within 24 hours of the crime, then it was an unplanned, act of a lone madman, then the suspect and the evidence would support that, but it doesn't.

When asked about Oswald's motives, the first chief counsel to the HSCA, Richard Sprague, the son of two psychiatrists, was quoted as saying "I'm not going to determine if Oswald was nursed at his mother's breast. My approach to motive is more direct."

The problem is, for there not to have been a conspiracy or coup, Oswald has to be the assassin, and he must have been crazy.

He may or may not have been crazy, but he was most certainly a Marine.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Denis,

Good on you, but Oswald was half your age and accomplished as much.

So you insist that Oswald didn't have a steady job, although he declined to take one at the airport for more money, and that he lived in a small room by himself, that he was a no-good loser.

People who portray Oswald that way invariably also claim he killed Kennedy, but rather than being the world-class assassin they make him out to be, still say he failed at everything in life, except being the assassin. That annoys me, but doesn't make me angry enough to go out an shoot the president, and I don't think it made Oswald angry enough to shot the president because his wife wasn't going to move back in with him - could they all fit in that little room?

You seem to be making the position, whether it is one you really believe or you are just making the argument, I don't know, that Oswald didn't like his life, and because his wife left him the night before, went out and shot the President in response to her leaving him.

Is there another historical example of an assassin or spree shooter committing his deed because his wife left him? I would think a sane or crazy person would have killed the wife rather than the President, if she's the one who made him angry, or drove him crazy?

Of course you are making the huge assumption that Oswald was the lone Sixth Floor sniper, and successfully accomplished the deed by himself, when the evidence suggests that he was on the first or second floor at the time of the shooting and someone else was in the window.

If Oswald did kill the President because his wife left him the night before, he certainly would have been crazy, though no one (Other than Volkmar Schmidt) recognized any psychotic attributes before hand.

Of course attempting to attribute a motive to kill the President to a designated patsy is a parlor game.

Oswald may have left his wedding ring, and money with Marina, but I think he was wearing his USMC ring, and I believe that the USMC background of the Patsy is more significant to understanding what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And there's little to be learned from what happened there is the assassin - whoever it was, was motivated by his wife's rejection rather than the policies and actions of the victim.

If the assassination was the result of a spur of the moment decision within 24 hours of the crime, then it was an unplanned, act of a lone madman, then the suspect and the evidence would support that, but it doesn't.

When asked about Oswald's motives, the first chief counsel to the HSCA, Richard Sprague, the son of two psychiatrists, was quoted as saying "I'm not going to determine if Oswald was nursed at his mother's breast. My approach to motive is more direct."

The problem is, for there not to have been a conspiracy or coup, Oswald has to be the assassin, and he must have been crazy.

He may or may not have been crazy, but he was most certainly a Marine.

Bill Kelly

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Denis,

Good on you, but Oswald was half your age and accomplished as much.

So you insist that Oswald didn't have a steady job, although he declined to take one at the airport for more money, and that he lived in a small room by himself, that he was a no-good loser.

People who portray Oswald that way invariably also claim he killed Kennedy, but rather than being the world-class assassin they make him out to be, still say he failed at everything in life, except being the assassin. That annoys me, but doesn't make me angry enough to go out an shoot the president, and I don't think it made Oswald angry enough to shot the president because his wife wasn't going to move back in with him - could they all fit in that little room?

You seem to be making the position, whether it is one you really believe or you are just making the argument, I don't know, that Oswald didn't like his life, and because his wife left him the night before, went out and shot the President in response to her leaving him.

Is there another historical example of an assassin or spree shooter committing his deed because his wife left him? I would think a sane or crazy person would have killed the wife rather than the President, if she's the one who made him angry, or drove him crazy?

Of course you are making the huge assumption that Oswald was the lone Sixth Floor sniper, and successfully accomplished the deed by himself, when the evidence suggests that he was on the first or second floor at the time of the shooting and someone else was in the window.

If Oswald did kill the President because his wife left him the night before, he certainly would have been crazy, though no one (Other than Volkmar Schmidt) recognized any psychotic attributes before hand.

Of course attempting to attribute a motive to kill the President to a designated patsy is a parlor game.

Oswald may have left his wedding ring, and money with Marina, but I think he was wearing his USMC ring, and I believe that the USMC background of the Patsy is more significant to understanding what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And there's little to be learned from what happened there is the assassin - whoever it was, was motivated by his wife's rejection rather than the policies and actions of the victim.

If the assassination was the result of a spur of the moment decision within 24 hours of the crime, then it was an unplanned, act of a lone madman, then the suspect and the evidence would support that, but it doesn't.

When asked about Oswald's motives, the first chief counsel to the HSCA, Richard Sprague, the son of two psychiatrists, was quoted as saying "I'm not going to determine if Oswald was nursed at his mother's breast. My approach to motive is more direct."

The problem is, for there not to have been a conspiracy or coup, Oswald has to be the assassin, and he must have been crazy.

He may or may not have been crazy, but he was most certainly a Marine.

Bill Kelly

Now that's more like the Bill Kelly I know. Good debating skills and strong solid answers, some of which (belive it or not) I actually agree with. I enjoy a good debate and I particularly enjoy debating from the other side occasionally, devils advocate so to speak. Maybe I take it too far sometimes. I resign. You won. Denis.

Gee Denis,

I was suddenly convinced you were right, and realized that everything I was doing was wrong and my whole life was a lie, and decided all conspiracy theories were a sham, and am willing to sell the story to Random House or any Mainstream media publisher, who will set me up like Bugliosi, Posner and Max Holland. Do they all have the same literary agent?

Semper Fi,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...