The Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza

[Glenn Viklund]

No, I'm saying those 20% who believe Oswald killed the president becuase he was a crazy lone nut are wrong because Oswald wasn't crazy, and it can be shown that he wasn't crazy, so there must be another motive.

Most of those who say Oswald was psycho say he he had to be psycho to kill a president and a cop, and then point to a few items before the assassination, such as Dr. Herzog, the Walker incident and his wife refusing to move back in with him after having a baby. Of couse Herzog never said Oswald was a psycho killer until after the assassination, the Walker incident was not something Oswald got involved with after he "snapped" and went crazy, and not every man who is spurrned by his wife goes out and kills a president.

Bill,

This is certainly an interesting issue, no doubt about that. And a difficult one, from many perspectives. I'm no expert in psychology or the human mind but in my view Oswald was not "crazy" or a "psycho". And still, as far as I'm concerned, he could very well have been fully capable of killing the president. And yes, including the argument that he didn't do it for money.

Here's why.

First, I think that these expressions, the Lone Nut, crazy, a psycho etc are clouding and confusing the debate about Oswald. They are very subjective, especially to ordinary people, laymen. Perhaps professionals are better suited to use them, but that's really of less interest here.

I've read quite a lot about Oswald, his background and upbringing, his military years and so forth. I'd prefer to use the word 'odd' instead, as I think this is a much more appropriate description of Oswald. I can't say for sure whether or not he could be described as a loner, but I would absolutely not call him a "lone nut", obviously there's a clear distinction between those descriptions.

From your article:

"Oswald lived in a world of grandiose, make-believe delusions. He thought the USSR would be paradise; later Cuba. He told his wife that someday he would be “prime minister” of the United States – a job that has never existed. He was a nut obsessed with making his mark in history, which he, tragically, did, all by himself."

Leventhals words are not only sloppy, they're stupid. It's a rant where, unintentionally or not, most facts could very well be correct, but where this way of describing them certainly implies that Oswald was mentally deranged. I think Oswald, at least before he went to the Soviet Union, was very impressed with their system. Likewise, in my view he looked upon Cuba - and Castro himself, more specifically - as something very admirable. The same way many looked on Che Guevara, a hero to many around the world already in his life time, and even more so after he died. Words like 'grandiose', 'paradise', 'a nut', 'obsessed', obscure such possibilities.

Statements from school friends, military collegues and relatives, for example, suggests to me that Oswald was a guy who early in his life choose his own way to go about things. Most probably this originated from his early family situation, which I have understood as not being very happy at all, indeed quite the opposite. As he got older this developed into a more outspoken and defined version of his political views.

A young guy from Texas learning how to speak russian, immigrating to Russia, giving lectures about Russia is not "a psycho". I can surely understand that many in the US at the time of these events regarded him as one, of course. Not to mention how close this was to the McCarthy-era and how this worked in the US these days for a guy of Oswalds views. This was at a time when most young men of Oswalds age was trying to find the funds to buy a new a car, find a woman, get married and have children.

Now, I could go on, there's much more to be said about this, of course. But I think you get the drift.

So, does any of this make him an assassin? A presidential assassin, even? No, it doesn't. But neither does it exclude him, in my opinion. I have no problems in interpreting things in Oswalds life as pre-requisites for him being the JFK assassin. On the other hand, nothing of what I've mentioned above makes him a killer. And perhaps that's what it comes down to - it is impossible on basis of his background to be sure one way or the other. This issue will always be a subjective matter of interpretation.

So if Oswald was not a Lone-Nut - that is he wasn't mentally deranged, then he must have had another motive, and that motive is one that can be understood and therefore his behavior can be better understood.

And as an economist, you should understand that money, the thing that motivates most mobsters and US spies who worked for the USSR, was not Oswald's motive.

Get it?

I certainly do, and as far as I'm concerned, money had nothing to do with it. If indeed Oswald was "the lone assassin" of president Kennedy. I hope I this time better explained why I have these opinions.

Glenn V.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[William Kelly]

No, I'm saying those 20% who believe Oswald killed the president becuase he was a crazy lone nut are wrong because Oswald wasn't crazy, and it can be shown that he wasn't crazy, so there must be another motive.

Most of those who say Oswald was psycho say he he had to be psycho to kill a president and a cop, and then point to a few items before the assassination, such as Dr. Herzog, the Walker incident and his wife refusing to move back in with him after having a baby. Of couse Herzog never said Oswald was a psycho killer until after the assassination, the Walker incident was not something Oswald got involved with after he "snapped" and went crazy, and not every man who is spurrned by his wife goes out and kills a president.

Bill,

This is certainly an interesting issue, no doubt about that. And a difficult one, from many perspectives. I'm no expert in psychology or the human mind but in my view Oswald was not "crazy" or a "psycho". And still, as far as I'm concerned, he could very well have been fully capable of killing the president. And yes, including the argument that he didn't do it for money.

Here's why.

First, I think that these expressions, the Lone Nut, crazy, a psycho etc are clouding and confusing the debate about Oswald. They are very subjective, especially to ordinary people, laymen. Perhaps professionals are better suited to use them, but that's really of less interest here.

I've read quite a lot about Oswald, his background and upbringing, his military years and so forth. I'd prefer to use the word 'odd' instead, as I think this is a much more appropriate description of Oswald. I can't say for sure whether or not he could be described as a loner, but I would absolutely not call him a "lone nut", obviously there's a clear distinction between those descriptions.

From your article:

"Oswald lived in a world of grandiose, make-believe delusions. He thought the USSR would be paradise; later Cuba. He told his wife that someday he would be “prime minister” of the United States – a job that has never existed. He was a nut obsessed with making his mark in history, which he, tragically, did, all by himself."

Leventhals words are not only sloppy, they're stupid. It's a rant where, unintentionally or not, most facts could very well be correct, but where this way of describing them certainly implies that Oswald was mentally deranged. I think Oswald, at least before he went to the Soviet Union, was very impressed with their system. Likewise, in my view he looked upon Cuba - and Castro himself, more specifically - as something very admirable. The same way many looked on Che Guevara, a hero to many around the world already in his life time, and even more so after he died. Words like 'grandiose', 'paradise', 'a nut', 'obsessed', obscure such possibilities.

Statements from school friends, military collegues and relatives, for example, suggests to me that Oswald was a guy who early in his life choose his own way to go about things. Most probably this originated from his early family situation, which I have understood as not being very happy at all, indeed quite the opposite. As he got older this developed into a more outspoken and defined version of his political views.

A young guy from Texas learning how to speak russian, immigrating to Russia, giving lectures about Russia is not "a psycho". I can surely understand that many in the US at the time of these events regarded him as one, of course. Not to mention how close this was to the McCarthy-era and how this worked in the US these days for a guy of Oswalds views. This was at a time when most young men of Oswalds age was trying to find the funds to buy a new a car, find a woman, get married and have children.

Now, I could go on, there's much more to be said about this, of course. But I think you get the drift.

So, does any of this make him an assassin? A presidential assassin, even? No, it doesn't. But neither does it exclude him, in my opinion. I have no problems in interpreting things in Oswalds life as pre-requisites for him being the JFK assassin. On the other hand, nothing of what I've mentioned above makes him a killer. And perhaps that's what it comes down to - it is impossible on basis of his background to be sure one way or the other. This issue will always be a subjective matter of interpretation.

So if Oswald was not a Lone-Nut - that is he wasn't mentally deranged, then he must have had another motive, and that motive is one that can be understood and therefore his behavior can be better understood.

And as an economist, you should understand that money, the thing that motivates most mobsters and US spies who worked for the USSR, was not Oswald's motive.

Get it?

I certainly do, and as far as I'm concerned, money had nothing to do with it. If indeed Oswald was "the lone assassin" of president Kennedy. I hope I this time better explained why I have these opinions.

Glenn V.

You are not the only one with these opinions.

And once it is certifially determined that Oswald was not a Lone-Nut Case, as it can certainly be determined, then it becomes an issue as to what his true motives were.

BK

[William Kelly]

OpEdNews picked up my article on the Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza that Jim DiEugenio had posted at CTKA.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Minister-of-Diz-at-Dealey-by-William-Kelly-101012-30.html#comment299832

[Greg Parker]

OpEdNews picked up my article on the Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza that Jim DiEugenio had posted at CTKA.

http://www.opednews....l#comment299832

[David Andrews]

Bill Kelly: If you read Ed Lutwack's book Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, he explains how it necessary, in the course of the coup, to control the communications, but afterwards, it is only necessary to control the economy, and beef it up, as if the economy is strong, the people won't care about the coup anymore.

How I wish this was true in the reverse about 9/11. Why is it not?

Edited November 17, 2010 by David Andrews

[William Kelly]

Bill Kelly: If you read Ed Lutwack's book Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, he explains how it necessary, in the course of the coup, to control the communications, but afterwards, it is only necessary to control the economy, and beef it up, as if the economy is strong, the people won't care about the coup anymore.

How I wish this was true in the reverse about 9/11. Why is it not?

I don't think 9/11 was a coup.

It was preceeded by a political assassination - the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance two days earlier.

BK

[William Kelly]

OpEdNews picked up my article on the Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza that Jim DiEugenio had posted at CTKA.

http://www.opednews....l#comment299832

Thanks for the thumbs up Greg,

Maybe it will reach a new audience.

BK