THE PHONEY WORLD OF OSWALD ACCUSERS

[David Andrews]

What exactly was he doing in the TSBD? Can we establish any reason for him being there other than that being his cover job? Did he believe his job placement was innocuous?

This is, supposedly, a guy who once shared office space with Guy Banister. Or do I have the wrong Oswald?

What did he believe he was doing there?

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Andrews

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What exactly was he doing in the TSBD?

Read the testimony of his supervisor, Bill Shelley.

What did he believe he was doing there?

He was earning a living.

WHAT A RADICAL CONCEPT!

MILLIONS & MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of PEOPLE DO THE SAME THING EVERY DAY.

Not everyone is a trust fund baby

[Guest Robert Morrow]

So Raymond Carroll is it your (mistaken) position that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a US intelligence agent? Do you think he was part of the CIA? Do you think he was a fake defector to Russia? Do you in fact think he was a pro-Castro Marxist?

Do you think his mistress in New Orleans was Judyth Vary Baker? What do you think about HER story? She like you, thinks Oswald is completely innocent of any murder.

We know you don't think Lee Harvey Oswald killed anyone BUT do you think he was CIA or some form of US intelligence?

And beyond that, who do YOU think murdered John Kennedy and why? Do you think it was Lyndon Johnson? Do you think it was the CIA? or the anti-Castro Cubans? Or the mafia? Or some combination of the above? Or some party not mentioned above?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[William Kelly]

Oswald an innocent pawn. Clay Shaw an innocent Rook.

Nothing ambiguous about it.

BK

Sorry Bill. Nothing personal, but I find that statement EXTREMELY ambiguous, just as I find that MOST AMERICANS become AMBIGUOUS/EVASIVE when it comes to the UNSOLVED MURDER of JFK.

(EVEN MUSLIM EXTREMISTS have a field day making fun of American EVASIONS on the murder of JFK. The JFK Assassination makes America the LAUGHINGSTOCK of the world, so please help me here to get REAL.

In your opinion, did LEE OSWALD KNOW OR have ANYTHING to do with the asassination of JFK?

A simple yes or no is all I ask, and then I will stand you a LARGE Tullamore Dew

I don't know what Lee Oswald knew.

In my opinion he was set up as the Patsy and Fall Guy, and as Ozzie The Rabbit, anyone who chases him are led away from the real assassins.

Wrong answer for Ray.

BK

[Bernie Laverick]

I guess there was an outside chance that US intelligence agent Oswald was somehow involved in the JFK assassination

SURELY THIS GARBAGE BELONGS IN one of the HUNDREDS of threads accusing Lee Oswald of being SOMEHOW INVOLVED.....

In contrast to the HUNDREDS of ANTI-OSWALD threads which constitute the greater part of this forum, this particular thread was SPECIFICALLY AND UNIqUELY established for postings by those who think he was innocent.

So why don't you take this nonsense and post it with all the BullXXXt where it belongs?

"...this particular thread was SPECIFICALLY AND UNIqUELY established for postings by those who think he was innocent."

Why? To what purpose? And wouldn't that just make it the most pointless thread ever?

It's like starting a thread on on the Zapruder film...but only for alterationists. Or one on the possibility of there being an Oswald double, but only for those who don't agree. On a public debating forum! Bizarre is not the word. How will folk learn all the facts without seeing the debate, without seeing an alternative view?

Is that how you try and learn things Ray? Find an opinion, stick to it rigidly and then spend countless hours avoiding other people's opinions in case it taints your carved in stone outlook?

Do you not believe Oswald had any connection to any intelligence organisation?

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, I'll play along with you here, Ray.

Of course, I think Oswald was innocent- he fired no shots on November 22, 1963. I believe-much like Jim Garrison-that Oswald was where he was, when he was, because he was assigned to infiltrate what he was told was a potential plot to kill JFK. I think Oswald's much studied, extremely curious background proves conclusively that he was not a random, low paid laborer that happened to be accidentally accused of assassinating the president.

How do you think Oswald came to be charged with this crime? Someone planted evidence against him. Someone impersonated him in the weeks leading up the assassination. Someone pulled strings for him when he defected to Russia at the height of the Cold War, and then was summarily welcomed back with open arms. Someone placed him around all those anti-communist elements, while he publicly posed as a communist. Someone made a distinguished, much older man with many interesting connections like DeMohrenschildt attracted to a poverty stricken alleged leftist like Oswald. And so on. You get my point.

I'm curious as to what you think here. Do you believe Oswald was framed by anyone? Do you just believe that he was randomly picked, incorrectly, and that a weapon (however questionably) tied to him was found in the alleged sniper's nest? Surely you can't expect us to accept that the Dallas Police, FBI, Secret Service, CIA, LBJ, etc. just went "eenie meenie mighty mo" and chose a random citizen as their assassin? Obviously, there had to be a lot planning involved, and Oswald's confusing background made him the perfect "lone nut," imho. I don't know how anyone as familiar with this case as you are can, at this point, seriously doubt that Oswald was doing some kind of intelligence work.

I've criticized Marina several times on this forum. I certainly don't think she was guilty of any serious crime, and I can appreciate why she was willing to tell the Warren Commission what they wanted to hear. That she lied to them is undeniable. That she refuses to acknowledge that now, when she no longer risks deportation, is something she should be criticized for.

[David Andrews]

What exactly was he doing in the TSBD?

Read the testimony of his supervisor, Bill Shelley.

What did he believe he was doing there?

He was earning a living.

WHAT A RADICAL CONCEPT!

MILLIONS & MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of PEOPLE DO THE SAME THING EVERY DAY.

Not everyone is a trust fund baby

Ray, I don't have enough evidence to accuse Oswald or exonerate him, though I believe he was set up to be the patsy.

However, this is a guy who "earned a living" by going to Moscow, then running a phony FPCC chapter in New Orleans.

Can we take his employment at TSBD to be innocent? What was his mission there? Was he asked to be a double-agent, reporting on the newly created TSBD operation? What did a guy knowledgeable in cover operations (from Cuban gunrunning, etc.) think was going on at TSBD - a supposed book depository newly opened in a location that could have been prime office space.

Dick Russell offers some hints, reliable or not, gleaned from Richard Case Nagell, in The Man Who Knew Too Much.

I'm asking, can we get any closer to Oswald's purpose for working at the TSBD? Or for leaving work after the assassination?

I thing it's important not to be ingenuous or doctrinaire about Oswald's purposes. Not doing so is to be investigative, not accusative.

Without definitive evidence, a one-dimensional view of Oswald is like insisting that Bacon or the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems.

I'll stay off this thread, because I can't say either way. You say one way. What do others think? Let's start a neutralist thread.

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Andrews

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[...this particular thread was SPECIFICALLY AND UNIqUELY established for postings by those who think he was innocent."[/b]

Why? To what purpose? And wouldn't that just make it the most pointless thread ever?

So you believe that it is the most pointless thing ever to distinguish between innocence and guilt?

GUILT = Innocence?

Do you not believe Oswald had any connection to any intelligence organization?

I believe he had no connection to any intelligence organization. He was just a free-spirited guy who lived a very interesting life (for the short time he was allowed to).

I also believe, based on the evidence, that certain members of the US intelligence apparatus (Helms & Angleton top the list) decided that, in order to get away with the murder of JFK, their best bet was to pin the blame on Lee Oswald, a completely innocent man, but one whose political views (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA, etc.,) were guaranteed to alienate the great mass of American people.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In my opinion he was set up as the Patsy and Fall Guy, and as Ozzie The Rabbit, anyone who chases him are led away from the real assassins.

Wrong answer for Ray.

BK

Correct Bill: Wrong answer.

The term FALL GUY entered the assassination literature with a book by Joachim Joesten, in which he claimed that OZ was part of the plot.

The term Patsy was given a special meaning by Jim Garrison, who claimed that Lee OSwald carried a rifle to the TSBD IN FURTHERANCE of the plot.

So I hope you can see why I am trying to understand what Americans mean when they talk about this case. I hear mostly double-talk.

All I ever seem to hear are accusations against Lee Oswald, and -- from the truly malicious -- accusations against his wife.

So I started this thread to find out what forum members really think, and so far it seems the number of Oswald defenders is very small.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

and there are the Oswald ACCUSERS, who include...Jim Garrison,

...

You cannot possibly be this ignorant. But then again...

I am very happy to see that Dave Reitzes has recently joined the forum. Dave does not know me, but I am a big fan of his website, which is a priceless source of information on Jim Garrison.

I would respectfully ask Dave, when he gets the time, to explain to poor misguided Mr. Hay about the VILE accusations Garrison made about Lee Oswald during his prosecution of Clay Shaw.

Of course Dave & I have major disagreements about his case, but he is one of the best researchers around, and it is another major COUP for John Simkin to have enticed Dave to the forum.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I really don't mean to be rude,

I'd say that's a big fat lie, in view of your next sentance.

but do you have a mental disability

I have asked Dave Reitzes -- if he can find the time --to set you straight about Jim Garrison. I could do it myself, but Dave is probably the greatest living expert on that useless fraud Jim Garrison.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Hey, Raymond Carroll, you said there are TWO types of people: those who think Lee Harvey Oswald was "guilty" and those who think he was "innocent."

Well, I think there are TWO types of people: those who think Lee Harvey Oswald was a AGENT IN US INTELLIGENCE and those he think he was not. And you definitely think that LHO - Mr. New Orleans Sheepdipper, phony defector to Russia, Mr. Get on the radio and pretend to be a pro-Castro Marxist, Mr. Have an Affair with Judyth Vary Baker, was not an AGENT OF US INTELLIGENCE.

I really haven't seen you expound too much on who you think killed John Kennedy or why - that seems to be a driving question for almost everyone involved in research in the JFK assassination, but rather your main theory seems to be that Lee Harvey Oswald was "innocent" and most definitely not an AGENT OF US INTELLIGENCE.

So you think Oswald is "innocent" ... just like you think there is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO WAY that the photo identified by Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Victor Krulak could be the CIA's assassinations/coup expert CIA GEN. EDWARD LANSDALE.

(! http://www.apfn.net/dcia/tramps1.jpg Fletcher Prouty gives his insights: http://www.prouty.org/letter.html Here is a 3/14/85 letter by Gen. Victor H. Krulak also identifying Edward Lansdale at the TSBD on 11/22/63: http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html Edward Lansdale, the CIA’s assassinations expert, - his presence in Dallas indicts the CIA)

So, let's recap here your views so I can get them straight:

1) Lee Harvey Oswald is "innocent"

2) THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL - NONE, ZERO, ZIPPO, THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS A MEMBER OF US INTELLIGENCE

3) THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY - NONE, ZERO, ZIPPO, THAT THE CIA'S EXPERT ON ASSASSINATIONS, COUPS, PROPAGANDA GEN. EDWARD LANSDALE WAS PRESENT AT TSBD ON 11/22/63

4) and as far as I can tell, you don't have much of an interest in WHO killed John Kennedy or WHY they killed John Kennedy, but however Lee Harvey Oswald was "innocent" and he ABSOLUTELY IN NO WAY WAS CONNECTED TO US INTELLIGENCE.

Would that be a correct summary of your views?

[William Kelly]

In my opinion he was set up as the Patsy and Fall Guy, and as Ozzie The Rabbit, anyone who chases him are led away from the real assassins.

Wrong answer for Ray.

BK

Correct Bill: Wrong answer.

The term FALL GUY entered the assassination literature with a book by Joachim Joesten, in which he claimed that OZ was part of the plot.

The term Patsy was given a special meaning by Jim Garrison, who claimed that Lee OSwald carried a rifle to the TSBD IN FURTHERANCE of the plot.

So I hope you can see why I am trying to understand what Americans mean when they talk about this case. I hear mostly double-talk.

All I ever seem to hear are accusations against Lee Oswald, and -- from the truly malicious -- accusations against his wife.

So I started this thread to find out what forum members really think, and so far it seems the number of Oswald defenders is very small.

Well you're not doing a very good job of it.

While I can see how Oswald was "set up," just as JFK was "set up" in the words of Ted Sorrensen during the Cuban Missile Crisis by the Joint Chiefs who wanted the power to respond to attacks on the U2 and Navy survillance planes without presidential approval, Oswald was choosen as the Patsy precisely because of his background as somone who has had contact with multiple foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.

Nor do I subscribe to the J. Joestein image of the Fall Guy or Garrison's idea of what Oswald did or did not do in furtherance of the plot.

My purpose isn't to prove or disprove Oswald's role but to determine how the President was really killed, expose and prosecute those who were responsible and to try to prevent it from happening again.

Those who follow "Ozzie the Rabbit" don't follow those who were actually responsible, and get as lost in the Rabbit's hole as those Lone Nutters who believe he actually killed somebody.

BK

[Guest Robert Morrow]

That is a very informative post by Jim, quoting John Armstrong.

Marina Oswald was pressured by the murderers of John Kennedy and their cover up artists to tell an INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF LIES ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD as the cover up artists of the FBI/government/Warren Commission were trying to FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD for any and everything: murder of JFK, murder of Tippitt, phantom shooting of Walker, phantom plot against Richard Nixon ... global warming, the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, etc.

Marina Oswald was both threatened and bribed and terrified into making these ridiculous and untrue statements as the government was trying to snow the American people and protect the REAL MURDERERS OF JOHN KENNEDY ... (in my opinion Lyndon Johnson, his CIA killers, some mafia interests, anti-Casto Cubans, probably HL Hunt, Clint Murchison ... perhaps Hoover himself had foreknowledge, perhaps Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, George Herbert Walker Bush were in on it --- THOSE people).

So a terrified and bribed Marina Oswald - who today in 2010 says that Lee Harvey Oswald was completely INNOCENT (now that the untoward pressure is off) - the young, scared Marina Oswald of November, 1963 with a baby and a toddler and in her early 20's, was key to promoting the COVER UP of the murder of John Kennedy.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

My purpose isn't to prove or disprove Oswald's role

Since your government and media have been trumpeting to the world that Lee Oswald was the assassin, and since Hollywood (Oliver Stone) has been parroting a slightly different version of the same story, then is it fair to say that you, Bill Kelly, agree with Harrrison Livingstone when he says "It doesen't matter whether Owald was innocent or guilty?

I am just trying to get past all the double -- talk that has dominated America ever since 1963,. and find out what people really think.