Pawn Takes King

[Paul Baker]

He eats what all bottom feeders eat...

xxx xxxx xxxx? x xxxxxxx xx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxx xxxxx xx xxx-xxx.

xx xx! xxxx xxx xxx! xxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx!

Edited October 1, 2010 by Paul Baker

[William Kelly]

He eats what all bottom feeders eat...

xxx xxxx xxxx? x xxxxxxx xx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxx xxxxx xx xxx-xxx.

xx xx! xxxx xxx xxx! xxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx!

Paul,

If you have nothing to say, please don't step on my thread.

You and Lee want to call each other names do it somewhere else.

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?

Dave,

I despise Conspiracy Theorists more than you do, especially those who try to say that Oswald the Pawn was being used by Castro, the Cubans, Mafia or renegade CIA.

I am not focusing the bulk of my attention on impossible to answer questions that conspiracy theorists love to ask, but rather am asking rather simple questions that I believe can be answered, like how did Oswald, if he shot a Walker using the same rifle, get that rifle to the scene of the Walker shooting and out of there afterwards?

And if it wasn't him with the other guy leaving the scene, who were those guys?

And if Oswald did do it alone, we should be able to answer these questions because we know he did them.

And if he did the Walker shooting, how come the assassination of the President is so different? Rather than the stalker, Oswald becomes the deer stander?

And why not listen to Volkmar Schmitdt? Isn't what he has to say about the Walker shooting relevant to motive?

And why not speculate on what Mr. Bishop wanted to meet with Oswald about?

I am not questioning whether Oswald committed the assassintaion alone, I am accepting that as an assumption in this game.

You don't like to play The Great Game?

So - rather than the spontanious act of a madman who was handed the opportunity, as you describe the situation when the Pawn takes out the King, in the Walker situation we have an Oswald who goes to the scene and takes photos BEFORE he even orders the rifle. And since he is working at J/C/S six days a week, the CIA chronology assumes that Oswald took these photos on a Sunday, and he also kept a blue notebook ostensibly with Walker's schedule and newsclips and bus time tables and what else could he have written down? He then burns these notes and flushes it down the toilet. In any case, he photos the scene, stalks his prey and takes copius notes that he dutifully destroys later, and has a still unidentified accomplace, and leaves the scene in a car.

Not at all like the spontanious opportunity presented to him with JFK.

Then we have Herr Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at the same party that was set up for him to meet the Paines.

Besides Dr. Herzog, whose reports on Oswald's sanity were challenged by Oswald's brother Robert, and others, Schmidt is the only other person who actually claims to have recognized the psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac in Oswald BEFORE the assassination. In an hours long conversation with him at the party Schmidt says he utilized psychosematic techniques on Oswald that were taught to him by a German doctor who was involved in the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler. And he even talked about this plot, asking Oswald if he thought that it was moral to assassinate a man like Hitler, and he gave General Walker as an example. Did Schmidt plant the seed in Oswald's mind that Walker should be assassinated? Schmidt told me he thought so, and even felt guilty about it every time he rode past the TSBD or thought about the assassination.

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

So now we have a homicidal maniac with a rifle on the Presidential motorcade route, and Hosty, who investigated the Walker shooting and was responsible for keeping tabs on the redefector, knows that Oswald is working at the TSBD, as Mrs. Paine told him, but neither Paine nor Hosty recognize Oswald's psychosis or consider him dangerous.

Which sets up the scenario for the King to be led into jeopardy because the Pawn is not recognized for what he really is.

And then the situation begs the question - What did "Mr. Bishop" - aka David Atlee Phillips, tell Oswald the Pawn when they met that afternoon in August 1963 in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas?

Phillips was then responsible for monitoring the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and the pro-Castro Cuban organization Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so it is reasonable to assume they discussed The Pawn's street agitation on behalf of the FPCC in New Orleans or perhaps his upcoming visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

Dave,

Can't you think about the assassination without mentioning conspiracy theorists?

Do you have to try to imagine what they would say and then apply it to everybody?

I thought you wanted to do what CTs won't do, and look seriously at the Walker shooting to see how it gives an insight into the mind and motivations of the psycho killer Pawn?

So the only thing in common between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination is that the Pawn missed Walker and Walker lived, and the same weapon was used, and left at the scene (?) and the use of ammunition ostensibly acquired from the same source that has yet to be identified.

Other than that, instead of Oswald the Pawn photographing the scene, stalking the prey, keeping a notebook of the operation and burning it, and then leaving town before being identified as a suspect, in the Kennedy case none of these things were done, and instead, the King moved into check square while the secret psycho killer waited paitently in his deer stand lair.

And the most significant aspect of this is not how the Pawn got there, but how the King was moved into the checkmate position.

What's a matter Dave, you don't want to play anymore?

BK

Edited October 1, 2010 by William Kelly

[David Josephs]

Interesting analogy Bill....

First off, the King is not allowed to move himself into check or checkmate. The only way a Pawn can win an attack on a King is if the Pawn is protected from capture by the king (or any other piece) and only after the Pawn moves into a position that puts the King into check or checkmate.

The PAWN needs to move:

A stalemate occurs when, for the player with the move:

The player has no legal moves, and

The player's king is not in check

If this happens, the king is said to have been stalemated and the game ends in a draw. A player who has very little or no chance of winning will often try to entice the opponent to inadvertently place the player's king in stalemate in order to avoid a loss.

I would offer that Oswald was the KING in the process of being checkmated while he tried to cause a stalemate - not get killed before getting caught and be in a position to put fear into the other "pieces"

Pawns and more were moved into positions that kept the King on course to his checkmate

JFK was maneuvered into a position of being taken out from the blind side, but I do not think of him as the King here... just another piece taken from the board in an effort to checkmate the real King, Oswald, and accomplish what was ultimately accomplished.

Whether checkmating Oswald was designed to invade Cuba, escalate Vietnam, restore America to its anti-commie stance or one of a large number of reasons... the killing of JFK was only part of the game, the sacrifice of an important piece in order to win.

DJ

[William Kelly]

Interesting analogy Bill....

HI DJ, AND YOUR INPUT IS APPRECIATED.

First off, the King is not allowed to move himself into check or checkmate. The only way a Pawn can win an attack on a King is if the Pawn is protected from capture by the king (or any other piece) and only after the Pawn moves into a position that puts the King into check or checkmate.

The PAWN needs to move:

A stalemate occurs when, for the player with the move:

The player has no legal moves, and

The player's king is not in check

If this happens, the king is said to have been stalemated and the game ends in a draw. A player who has very little or no chance of winning will often try to entice the opponent to inadvertently place the player's king in stalemate in order to avoid a loss.

I would offer that Oswald was the KING in the process of being checkmated while he tried to cause a stalemate - not get killed before getting caught and be in a position to put fear into the other "pieces"

Pawns and more were moved into positions that kept the King on course to his checkmate

JFK was maneuvered into a position of being taken out from the blind side, but I do not think of him as the King here... just another piece taken from the board in an effort to checkmate the real King, Oswald, and accomplish what was ultimately accomplished.

Whether checkmating Oswald was designed to invade Cuba, escalate Vietnam, restore America to its anti-commie stance or one of a large number of reasons... the killing of JFK was only part of the game, the sacrifice of an important piece in order to win.

DJ

David,

Thanks for your attention and input but in this scenario, JFK is a KING and LHO is a PAWN, and I am trying to play this out under those conditions.

If you want to see how an Oswald as King scenario plays out, do so and let me know how it plays out.

I understand your perspective and agree that both JFK and LHO were played as MARKS by the same Inside Men/Outside Men who brought JFK to Dealey Plaza,

and that is the key to figuring out who had the knowledge and connections of what both MARKS were doing and when they were doing it.

While Oswald was certainly a MARK, I can't see him as a KING in any circumstance. \

That's what makes the Oswald PAWN takes KING such an anomally.

As you point out, in the game of chess, the Pawn is never in the position of taking out a King because the King could never move into a checkmate position.

That's why it is so important to determine how and why the KING was maneuvered into such a position.

BK

[David Andrews]

Edited October 2, 2010 by David Andrews

[John Dolva]

Hey, David, there's also the six sided 2d version for three players. There you have to consider alliances but ultimately someone must win.

Wiile the pawn is lowly and expendable it derives its strength from its relationship with other pawns and patronage from higher ups and can become ''King makers''. Dunno if that's got anything to with the price of eggs in china, but the idea's an interesting hierarchical analogous approach. An aid to thinking outside the box if you will.

[David Andrews]

Back when you could buy them in mall stores (the infamous "Spencer Gifts," RIP, in the States), these things scared the heck out of me as an erstwhile player. But we digress.

Note: The 3-D chessboard picture was a spatial-epistemological expansion on Bill's concept, an encouragement and not a criticism.

Edited October 10, 2010 by David Andrews

[Paul Baker]

Paul,

If you have nothing to say, please don't step on my thread.

You and Lee want to call each other names do it somewhere else.

Bill Kelly

I apologise Bill, sincerely. I won't bother lowering myself to Lee's level ever again, although it is kind of fun.

Kind Regards

Paul.

[William Kelly]

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?

Dave,

I despise Conspiracy Theorists more than you do, especially those who try to say that Oswald the Pawn was being used by Castro, the Cubans, Mafia or renegade CIA.

I am not focusing the bulk of my attention on impossible to answer questions that conspiracy theorists love to ask, but rather am asking rather simple questions that I believe can be answered, like how did Oswald, if he shot a Walker using the same rifle, get that rifle to the scene of the Walker shooting and out of there afterwards?

And if it wasn't him with the other guy leaving the scene, who were those guys?

And if Oswald did do it alone, we should be able to answer these questions because we know he did them.

And if he did the Walker shooting, how come the assassination of the President is so different? Rather than the stalker, Oswald becomes the deer stander?

And why not listen to Volkmar Schmitdt? Isn't what he has to say about the Walker shooting relevant to motive?

And why not speculate on what Mr. Bishop wanted to meet with Oswald about?

I am not questioning whether Oswald committed the assassintaion alone, I am accepting that as an assumption in this game.

You don't like to play The Great Game?

So - rather than the spontanious act of a madman who was handed the opportunity, as you describe the situation when the Pawn takes out the King, in the Walker situation we have an Oswald who goes to the scene and takes photos BEFORE he even orders the rifle. And since he is working at J/C/S six days a week, the CIA chronology assumes that Oswald took these photos on a Sunday, and he also kept a blue notebook ostensibly with Walker's schedule and newsclips and bus time tables and what else could he have written down? He then burns these notes and flushes it down the toilet. In any case, he photos the scene, stalks his prey and takes copius notes that he dutifully destroys later, and has a still unidentified accomplace, and leaves the scene in a car.

Not at all like the spontanious opportunity presented to him with JFK.

Then we have Herr Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at the same party that was set up for him to meet the Paines.

Besides Dr. Herzog, whose reports on Oswald's sanity were challenged by Oswald's brother Robert, and others, Schmidt is the only other person who actually claims to have recognized the psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac in Oswald BEFORE the assassination. In an hours long conversation with him at the party Schmidt says he utilized psychosematic techniques on Oswald that were taught to him by a German doctor who was involved in the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler. And he even talked about this plot, asking Oswald if he thought that it was moral to assassinate a man like Hitler, and he gave General Walker as an example. Did Schmidt plant the seed in Oswald's mind that Walker should be assassinated? Schmidt told me he thought so, and even felt guilty about it every time he rode past the TSBD or thought about the assassination.

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

So now we have a homicidal maniac with a rifle on the Presidential motorcade route, and Hosty, who investigated the Walker shooting and was responsible for keeping tabs on the redefector, knows that Oswald is working at the TSBD, as Mrs. Paine told him, but neither Paine nor Hosty recognize Oswald's psychosis or consider him dangerous.

Which sets up the scenario for the King to be led into jeopardy because the Pawn is not recognized for what he really is.

And then the situation begs the question - What did "Mr. Bishop" - aka David Atlee Phillips, tell Oswald the Pawn when they met that afternoon in August 1963 in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas?

Phillips was then responsible for monitoring the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and the pro-Castro Cuban organization Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so it is reasonable to assume they discussed The Pawn's street agitation on behalf of the FPCC in New Orleans or perhaps his upcoming visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

Dave,

Can't you think about the assassination without mentioning conspiracy theorists?

Do you have to try to imagine what they would say and then apply it to everybody?

I thought you wanted to do what CTs won't do, and look seriously at the Walker shooting to see how it gives an insight into the mind and motivations of the psycho killer Pawn?

So the only thing in common between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination is that the Pawn missed Walker and Walker lived, and the same weapon was used, and left at the scene (?) and the use of ammunition ostensibly acquired from the same source that has yet to be identified.

Other than that, instead of Oswald the Pawn photographing the scene, stalking the prey, keeping a notebook of the operation and burning it, and then leaving town before being identified as a suspect, in the Kennedy case none of these things were done, and instead, the King moved into check square while the secret psycho killer waited paitently in his deer stand lair.

And the most significant aspect of this is not how the Pawn got there, but how the King was moved into the checkmate position.

What's a matter Dave, you don't want to play anymore?

BK

[David G. Healy]

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?

Dave,

I despise Conspiracy Theorists more than you do, especially those who try to say that Oswald the Pawn was being used by Castro, the Cubans, Mafia or renegade CIA.

I am not focusing the bulk of my attention on impossible to answer questions that conspiracy theorists love to ask, but rather am asking rather simple questions that I believe can be answered, like how did Oswald, if he shot a Walker using the same rifle, get that rifle to the scene of the Walker shooting and out of there afterwards?

And if it wasn't him with the other guy leaving the scene, who were those guys?

And if Oswald did do it alone, we should be able to answer these questions because we know he did them.

And if he did the Walker shooting, how come the assassination of the President is so different? Rather than the stalker, Oswald becomes the deer stander?

And why not listen to Volkmar Schmitdt? Isn't what he has to say about the Walker shooting relevant to motive?

And why not speculate on what Mr. Bishop wanted to meet with Oswald about?

I am not questioning whether Oswald committed the assassintaion alone, I am accepting that as an assumption in this game.

You don't like to play The Great Game?

So - rather than the spontanious act of a madman who was handed the opportunity, as you describe the situation when the Pawn takes out the King, in the Walker situation we have an Oswald who goes to the scene and takes photos BEFORE he even orders the rifle. And since he is working at J/C/S six days a week, the CIA chronology assumes that Oswald took these photos on a Sunday, and he also kept a blue notebook ostensibly with Walker's schedule and newsclips and bus time tables and what else could he have written down? He then burns these notes and flushes it down the toilet. In any case, he photos the scene, stalks his prey and takes copius notes that he dutifully destroys later, and has a still unidentified accomplace, and leaves the scene in a car.

Not at all like the spontanious opportunity presented to him with JFK.

Then we have Herr Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at the same party that was set up for him to meet the Paines.

Besides Dr. Herzog, whose reports on Oswald's sanity were challenged by Oswald's brother Robert, and others, Schmidt is the only other person who actually claims to have recognized the psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac in Oswald BEFORE the assassination. In an hours long conversation with him at the party Schmidt says he utilized psychosematic techniques on Oswald that were taught to him by a German doctor who was involved in the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler. And he even talked about this plot, asking Oswald if he thought that it was moral to assassinate a man like Hitler, and he gave General Walker as an example. Did Schmidt plant the seed in Oswald's mind that Walker should be assassinated? Schmidt told me he thought so, and even felt guilty about it every time he rode past the TSBD or thought about the assassination.

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

So now we have a homicidal maniac with a rifle on the Presidential motorcade route, and Hosty, who investigated the Walker shooting and was responsible for keeping tabs on the redefector, knows that Oswald is working at the TSBD, as Mrs. Paine told him, but neither Paine nor Hosty recognize Oswald's psychosis or consider him dangerous.

Which sets up the scenario for the King to be led into jeopardy because the Pawn is not recognized for what he really is.

And then the situation begs the question - What did "Mr. Bishop" - aka David Atlee Phillips, tell Oswald the Pawn when they met that afternoon in August 1963 in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas?

Phillips was then responsible for monitoring the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and the pro-Castro Cuban organization Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so it is reasonable to assume they discussed The Pawn's street agitation on behalf of the FPCC in New Orleans or perhaps his upcoming visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?

Dave,

Can't you think about the assassination without mentioning conspiracy theorists?

Do you have to try to imagine what they would say and then apply it to everybody?

I thought you wanted to do what CTs won't do, and look seriously at the Walker shooting to see how it gives an insight into the mind and motivations of the psycho killer Pawn?

So the only thing in common between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination is that the Pawn missed Walker and Walker lived, and the same weapon was used, and left at the scene (?) and the use of ammunition ostensibly acquired from the same source that has yet to be identified.

Other than that, instead of Oswald the Pawn photographing the scene, stalking the prey, keeping a notebook of the operation and burning it, and then leaving town before being identified as a suspect, in the Kennedy case none of these things were done, and instead, the King moved into check square while the secret psycho killer waited paitently in his deer stand lair.

And the most significant aspect of this is not how the Pawn got there, but how the King was moved into the checkmate position.

What's a matter Dave, you don't want to play anymore?

BK

B-I-N-G-O ! x's 10

[Mark Knight]

Now, let me get this straight. DVP says that LHO's alleged propensity to kill is demonstrated by his attempt on the life of General Walker. Except, until Marina incriminates him, there is NO evidence that LHO had anything to do with the Walker shooting. Am I correct so far?

THEN the evidence of LHO's guilt in the Walker assassination becomes NOT the evidence, but Marina's claim...well, hers, AND Walker's. So with no physical evidence tying LHO to the Walker shooting, Walker is able to connect-the-dots to LHO...HOW? Because he believes Marina's claim, which BTW hadn't been publicized until AFTER Walker spoke with the German newspaper abd blamed Oswald? Curious logic.

So how did Walker come to the conclusion that LHO was the nutcase who shot at him? The police didn't even have him as a suspect, but somehow Walker, who allegedly knew nothing of LHO until the news of the JFK assassination spread, is now convinced that LHO is the guy who took a potshot at him?

Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.

And DeMohrenschildt's story about LHO shooting at Walker? It couldn't have influenced Walker at that early point, because DeMohrenschildt was [allegedly] walking across another continent at the time, and supposedly incommunicado. Therefore, at the point where Walker fingered LHO for the attempt on HIS life, there was ZERO evidence connecting Oswald. So just what information DID allow Walker to reach his conclusion?

OR...if the information linking LHO to the Walker shooting is false...then aren't DVP's arguments then based upon a false premise? Because even today, all we've got are Marina's statement and DeMohrenschildt's testimony [along with Walker's own assertion] that connect LHO to the Walker shooting...and I'm not sure I'd trust either Marina or the Baron to tell the truth.

[David Josephs]

Interesting analogy Bill....

HI DJ, AND YOUR INPUT IS APPRECIATED.

First off, the King is not allowed to move himself into check or checkmate. The only way a Pawn can win an attack on a King is if the Pawn is protected from capture by the king (or any other piece) and only after the Pawn moves into a position that puts the King into check or checkmate.

The PAWN needs to move:

A stalemate occurs when, for the player with the move:

The player has no legal moves, and

The player's king is not in check

If this happens, the king is said to have been stalemated and the game ends in a draw. A player who has very little or no chance of winning will often try to entice the opponent to inadvertently place the player's king in stalemate in order to avoid a loss.

I would offer that Oswald was the KING in the process of being checkmated while he tried to cause a stalemate - not get killed before getting caught and be in a position to put fear into the other "pieces"

Pawns and more were moved into positions that kept the King on course to his checkmate

JFK was maneuvered into a position of being taken out from the blind side, but I do not think of him as the King here... just another piece taken from the board in an effort to checkmate the real King, Oswald, and accomplish what was ultimately accomplished.

Whether checkmating Oswald was designed to invade Cuba, escalate Vietnam, restore America to its anti-commie stance or one of a large number of reasons... the killing of JFK was only part of the game, the sacrifice of an important piece in order to win.

DJ

David,

Thanks for your attention and input but in this scenario, JFK is a KING and LHO is a PAWN, and I am trying to play this out under those conditions.

If you want to see how an Oswald as King scenario plays out, do so and let me know how it plays out.

I understand your perspective and agree that both JFK and LHO were played as MARKS by the same Inside Men/Outside Men who brought JFK to Dealey Plaza,

and that is the key to figuring out who had the knowledge and connections of what both MARKS were doing and when they were doing it.

While Oswald was certainly a MARK, I can't see him as a KING in any circumstance. \

That's what makes the Oswald PAWN takes KING such an anomally.

As you point out, in the game of chess, the Pawn is never in the position of taking out a King because the King could never move into a checkmate position.

That's why it is so important to determine how and why the KING was maneuvered into such a position.

BK

Always a pleasure reading and joining in on your threads Bill... maybe I just don't get the point though.

When the King dies, the game is over.

When the King cannot move as it will put him into check or checkmate, the game is a draw - no winners

I guess there is a scenario in which the king is put into a positon where the move AFTER the one he makes allows the PAWN to put him into checkmate. Here we go... the Black King tries to block the pawn from reaching the end by moving out of check from the White King.

Problem is in this example, Oswald is more likely the black Pawn than either of the 2 white pawns.

For Our Pawn to take our King he too has to be moved into a position to checkmate him...

A job at the right time and at the right place

the ride home to get curtain rods the night before

Hidell connected to the rifle found at the scene via photos, order forms, etc...

Wallets establish Hidell = Oswald

Photo established that Oswald has the rifle

Oswald at work that day

Oswald on the 6th floor that day

Oswald's fingerprints all over the sniper's nest - (oops)

Oswald's fingerprints all over the rifle - (oops)

Oswald knows when the motorcade is coming by and is in position and prepared - (oops)

Oswald is identified at the window with the rifle - (oops)

No other shots are fired and there are no other people with rifles seen in and around TSBD - (oops)

Oswald takes the easiest of shots as JFK approaches him on Houston - the King is hand delivered for execution - (oops)

Someone sees Oswald escaping from the 6th floor - (oops)

The TSBD is sealed off so no other person can be considered the assassin - (oops)

So... how and why was the KING moved into position to be taken by a Pawn (or at least make it look like the Pawn did it)

Your original post Bill suggests this line of thinking shifts us away from the assassins and to those controlling the movements of the KING into the Pawn's area.

This would suggest that instead of concentrating on the assassin(s), the rules of the game would suggest that it is the hands that are moving the King into the Pawn's square who are most responsible for what happened at that place and point in time.

But it was a magic trick... while all were looking/hearing at what was happening it the Pawn's area, the actual killers of the KING are elsewhere ready to spring the trap. I've done it many times playin... get the opponent to think you are attacking from one spot while you sacrifice a piece to gain the correct position to end the game from another.

The creation of the "Pawn's area" was part of the plot and strategy... once the Pawn is identified as the one who took the King, all the other pieces on the board are rendered useless and unecessary. What the Bishop and Knight did during the game is of no consequence since the game is now over and we all know the Pawn did it.

Basic chess, Art of War... deception.... the reason a Patsy was needed to begin with...

my .02

DJ

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I have often told people that with both Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover dedicated to the cover up of the JFK assassination (and with LBJ very probably being a perpetrator) that is was like have BOTH Queens on the Chessboard protecting the elite domestic murderers of John Kennedy.

[Jack White]

Bill...a Pawn can never take a King. A Pawn can only Check a King. When the King cannot escape, it is Checkmate, and the game is over,

but the Pawn does not actually take the King.

Jack