The Lone Assassin Question

[Frankie Vegas]

Mr Lane.

That was such a great telly mock up. I wish you would do a whole book of them! Thoroughly enjoyed

[David Williams]

Duke, that was so funny i havent laughed so much in ages

[Bernie Laverick]

And still we wait for someone to explain when Oswald first decided to kill the president.

It's such a simple question.

[Paul Baker]

I reckon he probably decided when he saw the motorcade route. Until then he didn't know he'd have the opportunity.

[William Kelly]

I reckon he probably decided when he saw the motorcade route. Until then he didn't know he'd have the opportunity.

But Paul,

What made him decide to kill the President? What motivated him to make that decision?

Not everyone who has the opportunity to kill the President does it.

And it was not just the motorcade parade route that he had to know. The parade had to be timed for his lunch break, otherwise the other floor laying crew would be there working next to the Sniper's Lair. If the motorcade arrived before noon or after 1 pm the window of opportunity would close. Another BIG coincidence that allowed for the opportunity to happen?

Thanks for your considered response. It is the same as McAdams.

I'd also like to hear from those who proclaim Posner and Bugliosi et al as providing the answer. While I've read their books, at least for the most part, what do they say about when Oswald decided to kill the President?

BK

[John Dolva]

Sooner or later the question of why DP. Kennedy was a target as soon as he emerged from AF1. So why DP.

There is one way that it makes sense and that lies in the history of Texas and therefore necessarily: DP.

[Duke Lane]

I'd say your evidence is lacking. You havent proven anything

It's a shame that, as a believer in conspiracy, you have no real evidence whatsoever! What has a consipracy theorist ever proven? Absolutely bugger all. Zilch. You have no idea what happened, for some reason you just can't bring yourself to believe the simple truth.

Ah, but Paul, what is "the simple truth?"

The WC's version of the truth doesn't hold up under scrutiny; that's not it. If it didn't happen the way they'd determined, then there is no other option than that it happened a different way. If one is unable to fully articulate that "different" way does not mean that the first proposal must be the actual event.

Creationists believe that God created the heavens and earth in seven days, with Adam and Eve his first humans. Scientists argue over the Big Bang Theory of the beginning of the universe, and the "dawn of man" as being a gradual process arising from some primordial soup; they cannot state with absolute certainty how any of that may have occurred. Lacking that full explanation does not mean that creationism is exactly how the Earth and mankind came to be.

It is, however, a time-tested (but still unproven and unprovable) argument of the faithful that, if scientists don't have a "better" explanation - one that explains everything - then their explanation "must" be the truth. It is the same among the Warrenati.

In criminal defense law, it is not necessary to prove who did do something, only that the accused did not. If it is shown that the accused did not perpetrate the crime, then it is up to investigators - i.e., law enforcement and the prosecution - to figure out who did, not the defense (despite Perry Mason's always cornering the actual perp!). The prosecution's case, however faulty and effectively disproven, does not become the "solution" for lack of an alternative device brought forth by the defense.

For a real-life example of this, read the book The Innocent Man by John Grisham. It is not a novel. It is the chronicle of how a police department, once settled upon how things "must" have happened, and the inability of the defendant to articulate a sufficient defense, were unwilling to consider any other possibility once they'd "got their man" even despite others' actions having fit the scenario of their perpetration of the crime better than the defendant's.

Some people just don't want to know that the truth is anything other than what they believe. Witness the failure of the ARRB, for example, to explore what the JFK autopsists knew, saw and experienced in any full detail: they simply didn't ask the right questions, and therefore all remains "theory." We might've found the truth to be even stranger than we'd imagined, but now we may never know.

[David Andrews]

Sooner or later the question of why DP. Kennedy was a target as soon as he emerged from AF1. So why DP.

There is one way that it makes sense and that lies in the history of Texas and therefore necessarily: DP.

John Dolva @ #41

Logistically, DP offered multiple crossfiring positions, and so multiple opportunites for witness confusion.

It gave quick access to the highways, making the dead and wounded easily removed from witnesses and non-conspiring lawmen.

As the last crowd point before the highway ramps. it may have lulled the parade participants (and Kennedy) into relaxing, falsely supposing that the most dangerous parts of the long motorcade had passed.

Arguably, it was the most escapable location for the conspirators. (It even worked for "Oswald.")

A thing of awful genius.

But I'd love to hear about the historical motivation...

Edited July 5, 2010 by David Andrews

[Bernie Laverick]

This thread has proved conclusively that those who apologise for nonsense and bloody-minded lone-nut gibberish, who interrupt, divert and confuse every other thread on this forum have absolutely no answer to what for them must be the simplest question of all.

When did he plan to assassinate Kennedy?

Come on guys, why so coy all of a sudden?

Because it isn't as pedantic as you first think, that's why. If, as only one person (in 3 pages!) has dared to suggest, he decided to do the deed 'that' day then this creates a whole menagerie of unanswered questions. Why go home for his 'curtain rods' the day before? Why go into work at all that day? After all didn't he have more important things on his mind? And wouldn't his chances of detection have been so much slimmer if he did it somewhere other than in front of all his workmates?

Because, he wanted to do this crime undetected right? All his actions say he wanted to get away with it. I mean, why kill a cop? Why 'escape' from the scene? Why resist arrest? Why claim he was just a patsy?

But Oswald must have known he would have absolutely no chance of getting away with brazenly bringing a gun into his workplace, leave it goodness knows where for three hours and at will guarantee himself he will have the means to retrieve it and fire three shots without being spotted. And all on a day he would presume would see DP swarming with Secret Service agents and other law enforcement agencies.

But from their POW it must have been that week at least because he couldn't be sure he'd ever find work directly on the route of a presidential motorcade again. I must say it's an odd way to go about shooting a president. Find a job in a building with windows and hope your intended victim passes by some day.

But if he planned it way before 'that day' then that must have indeed been his strategy. No one knew the motorcade would be passing by the depository until the day before. That's why LNers paint themselves into this "it was an impulsive act" corner; they have no alternative.

I'd like to ask another question. When did Oswald know that the motorcade would be passing directly below him and not straight down Main St as originally planned?

Edited July 5, 2010 by Bernie Laverick

[John Dolva]

David, what I mean as one explanation being historical (this presumes a particular mindset of the assassins) is that when the area was settled it was settled exactly there. A trading-post, a PO, a home etc. This grew into the beginning of Dallas, so it's the historical heart of Dallas. Dallas became the heart of Texas which became the heart of the Confederacy. So, from a, symbolic, power pov it expresses the intent of the assassins. It was a plaza surrounded by old official buildings, the county records, county court, old red, the terminal annexe out of the windows of which many persons would have spent years looking. If amongst them are the conspirators they would have a jump on whatever the route ended up being, familiarity with weather, wind, sun and other fundamentals... ie highly flexible and a place to usher in a new era.

[David Andrews]

It was a plaza surrounded by old official buildings, the county records, county court, old red, the terminal annexe out of the windows of which many persons would have spent years looking. If amongst them are the conspirators they would have a jump on whatever the route ended up being, familiarity with weather, wind, sun and other fundamentals... ie highly flexible and a place to usher in a new era. (#45)

Absolutely - I forgot to mention the convenience to DPD, courts, county jail, sheriff's department...the postal inspector's office...

Interesting the mentions one hears about an early sniper location being at the Adolphus Hotel - the 20th-century locus of power in big D. In the end, though, I suspect it was all logistical. Follow the pioneer thing too long, and you end up in the territory of the guy who wrote "King Kill/33."

I'd still like to know if the sewers connect the TSBD and the Dal-Tex.

Edited July 6, 2010 by David Andrews

[Duke Lane]

... when the area was settled it was settled exactly there. A trading-post, a PO, a home etc. This grew into the beginning of Dallas, so it's the historical heart of Dallas. Dallas became the heart of Texas which became the heart of the Confederacy....

Your history is wrong.

"The heart of the confederacy" was Georgia, particularly Atlanta; "The Heart of Dixie" is Alabama. Neither Texas nor Dallas were in any way symbolic of or significant to the Confederate States other than that Texas was one of them, and a reluctant one to boot.

[John Dolva]

I won't dispute that, Duke. I'm sure you are in a much better position to know these things. I base this on my reading of the ''Texas handbook'' site and aspects of the Civil War. eg the last battle of the CW was fought in Texas after the surrender and was won by the Confederate forces. Texas as a power broker in the region and its role in fulfilling the dream of the great southern empire before and after a successful secession encompassing south of the border and other matters.

David, I fully agree that the underground tunnel system could yield interesting things. It's a bit strange that other mapped areas of Dallas seem to be available but not DP.

[Mark Knight]

If I'm ever arrested and charged with murder, I want my defense attorney to hire Duke Lane as a consultant.

[William Kelly]

And still we wait for someone to explain when Oswald first decided to kill the president.

It's such a simple question.