Discussing the Mindset of Lone Nutters

[William Kelly]

Conspiracy Theorists, especially those True Believers who have no rational basis for their beliefs, are often the subject of ridicule by those Lone Nutters like Vincent Bugliosi, David Von Pain and others.

But Lone Nutters are worse, mainly because they are real True Believers who have adopted a theory that has no basis in fact, especially the allegation that Lee Harvey Oswald was a deranged nut case, Sixth Floor Sniper and Lone Assassin of President Kennedy.

For starters, there's no evidence that he was a nut case, and none of those who knew him closely suspected he was crazy or violent, let alone a secret homicidal maniac.

Those who claim that he was a crazy homicidal maniac, and kept it hidden from those close to him, like Ted Bundy did, submit as evidence that he assassinated the President and killed a cop, but if he is eliminated as a suspect in those crimes, then the evidence he is a homicidal maniac disappears.

Oswald was, in reality, quite a normal guy, a military trained covert operator who did operational activity secretly, hence the covert operational profile.

If Oswald is a suspect in the assassination, then whatever you believed happened at Dealey Plaza, it was a covert intelligence operation, and a successful one at that.

Many of those who claim Oswald was the assassin make the false claim that his motive was to achieve fame, though they can't explain why he denied killing anyone.

No motive to kill the President can be attributed to Oswald, either psychotic or political, and those who claim that he alone assassinated the President cannot determine when he decided to kill the President, how he obtained the weapon that is claimed accomplished the dirty deed, how and where he obtained the ammo used to kill the President and officer Tippit, or how he could have been in position to do either deed at the time alloted.

It appears to many, if not most rational observers, that he was set up as a Patsy to take the blame for the crimes while those actually responsible got away.

Or, if he actually did kill the President alone, then instead of being a disgrunted, psychotic loser and loner, it should be considered that he was a really good professional assassin who successfully accomplished his mission, and almost got away.

Either way, those Lone Nutters who claim Oswald killed President Kennedy alone for whatever reasons, also claim that it doesn't matter how or why he did it, and that it is now just history. And that's where the Lone Nutters are dead wrong.

In fact, regardless of Oswald's innocence or guilt, it is a matter of United States national security to determine precisely how and why the President was killed, so it can never happen again.

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup

Edited February 25, 2011 by William Kelly

[Guest Tom Scully]

Bill, I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around the illogic of David Von Pein. If I found myself in his shoes, unflinchingly embracing the "findings" in the WC report, and somebody shared with me the details I shared with Von Pein concerning the failure of the WC to note that the woman who sent Oswald to Leslie Welding for employment was the mother of the son-in-law of Oswald shooting "victim" John B. Connally, and that the best man in the wedding of Bush's sister and in the wedding of Thomas J. Devine, had been tracking Oswald since late 1960, I'd react with at least some level of curiousity.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17411&view=findpost&p=220221

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17411&view=findpost&p=220226

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17411&view=findpost&p=220228

The level of my reaction would also be influenced by the details that the best man's brother had hired Devine as a V.P. of his company, and was the mentor of the husband of De Mohrenschildt's step-nephew's daughter, especially considering that Devine also met with De Mohrenschildt.

My curiousity would be driven, if I was in Von Pein's shoes, more than if I was in my own shoes, or in yours, Bill Kelly, because Von Pein regards Oswald as the "be all, end all" in the shootings of JFK and Connally, convicted in absentia with the evidence presented by the government unchallenged in the process, whereas you and I, Bill, regard Oswald as a person of interest in the uncompleted investigation of the shootings.

So the total lack of interest of Von Pein seems illogical and contradictory. If a person was a suspect in the shooting death of my daughter, four years prior, and his mother gives the FBI a statement to the effect that she placed the man in a job who shot me and kiled the President of the United States, soon after, and the official report on the shootings did not mention this tie in, I would be curious. If that mother's husband was a former FBI agent whose sons were reported doing a B&E of an apartment leased by John Rosselli, by an FBI stake-out team, and the lawyer deposing the witnesses in my shooting was the personal attorney of the billionaire who owned 20 percent of the defense contractor who currently employed that husband and father, I would want to know more.

But Von Pein does not want to be exposed to even the compelling details, above. A curious, logical mind would seem prone to eagerly study these details and at least explain them away.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Tom Scully

[David Josephs]

Great post Tom...

To the mind of the Lone Nutter... nothing of significance has occurred in the case since the point Oswald is arrested at the Texas Theater.

Nothing.

When one reads his and other LNer posts in that light - everything makes sense.

An innocent government does not proceed as they have these past 50 years.

[David Von Pein]

There's no evidence that he [LHO] was a nut case.

There are DEGREES of "nuttiness", Bill (as I'm sure you'll agree).

While it's true that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the raving lunatic type of nutcase who hallucinates and thinks he sees millions of rats trying to attack him (like that fellow "Renfield" in the 1931 film "Dracula"), it's definitely true that Mr. Oswald was not RIGHT IN THE HEAD when it came to some pretty serious things -- like, say, the value of human life.

After all, when a man is willing to take a rifle and aim it at somebody with an intent to kill that person (as Oswald most definitely did do on 4/10/63 when he tried to kill General Walker, despite all the protests of the CTers to the contrary), well, that person has something inherently WRONG with him, IMO. And after the Walker incident in April, I certainly WOULD have classified Mr. Oswald as a "nutcase". It's just too bad nobody knew about Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting before November 22nd.

And then there's Oswald's choice of countries that he wanted to live in (and defect to) in 1959--as a mere 19-year-old kid....the Soviet Union of all places on this wonderful Earth. The Soviet Union...during the Cold War!! That's as nutty as all get out, too.

I'm sorry, Bill, but I must disagree with your analysis of Oswald as a non-nut. That guy was as screwy and nutty as an 11-dollar bill.

And, of course, as all reasonable people know, this same "nutcase" named Oswald killed Officer Tippit and President Kennedy on November 22. To deny his involvement in BOTH of those murders is just too silly to believe for more than two seconds.

A person who thinks Oswald was innocent of BOTH the Kennedy and Tippit murders has no choice but to pretend that ALL of the physical evidence was faked or fabricated. Again, that's crazy talk.

And the actions of Oswald himself speak volumes....both before and after the assassination. Evaluating his movements and actions (and his provable lies) can only lead in one direction -- guilt in the two murders he was rightly charged with on 11/22/63.

As for Tom Scully's barrage of facts and articles -- none of that material is relevant to determine whether Lee Oswald was innocent or guilty. And none of it is even relevant on a peripheral basis either. Scully is merely playing the same game all "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracists have played for many years -- he throws up something that he thinks looks suspicious, and he's now going to play the "THIS FACT MUST THEREFORE MEAN THIS" game.

And bringing up the Connally connection is just too funny. Does Tom Scully really think Oswald was shooting at John Connally? Or isn't that relevant at all in Scully's conspiratorial scenario?

The bottom line is -- There's not a shred of physical evidence in this case that implicates anyone else but Lee Oswald. And if conspiracy mongers want to pretend that ALL of that evidence (and, somehow, Oswald's OWN BEHAVIOR) was manipulated and faked--well, go ahead and believe it. People like Oliver Stone certainly do.

But I'll choose to stay on the side of reasonableness, thank you. Fantasies are better suited for the movie screen.

And speaking of fantasy movies and Oliver Stone....

http://Amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1

Edited February 26, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

Dave, I have but one question regarding your comments: if we throw out Marina's testimony, what actual hard EVIDENCE do we have that ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the Walker shooting?

I suggest that we have NONE...zero, zip, nada.

So if you base Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination on a propensity to kill that's built on the Walker shooting, it seems to me you're attempting to build a concrete-and-steel skyscraper on a foundation of balsa wood. Oh, wait...there's also DeMohrenschildt's testimony, although DeM witnessed nothing to do with the Walker shooting itself. EVIDENCE, man...give me EVIDENCE that LHO took a shot at Walker. But don't build on Marina's testimony; Marina had a difficult time keeping her stories straight on stuff we actually HAVE other evidence to corroborate.

Give me firm evidence to link the bullet recovered from Walker's home and Oswald's rifle...not "coulda been" fired from it, but an ironclad "IT WAS, WITH NO ROOM FOR DOUBT, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY," fired from Oswald's rifle. Give me firm evidence that, if it was Oswald's rifle that took that shot at Walker, that Oswald was the man who pulled the trigger...not "could have" or "must have" pulled the trigger, but "DID, WITH 100% CERTAINTY," pull the trigger on the shot fired at Walker.

Once you can provide that EVIDENCE...NOT conjecture, NOT speculation, not "must have done it," but EVIDENCE...THEN you just might have a concrete foundation upon which to build your case. Until then, all you've got is the balsa wood of the VERY self-contradictory Marina Oswald.

I don't care much for conspiracy theories built on coulda-woulda-mighta-shoulda, and I detest LN cases built on the same flimsy foundation.

EVIDENCE, Dave. HARD EVIDENCE. Either bring it, or back off.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Mark Knight

[David Von Pein]

If we throw out Marina's testimony, what actual hard EVIDENCE do we have that ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the Walker shooting?

In the first place, why are you so willing to just throw out Marina Oswald's testimony? And why do you also want to throw out Marina's later statements to various people, including her conversation with Vincent Bugliosi on November 30, 2000? ....

"When she [Marina] insisted on Oswald's innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew this because "Lee told me he did"." -- "Reclaiming History" by V. Bugliosi; Page 1487

Marina has never recanted her story about Lee telling her he shot at Walker. And since she now truly believes that Lee was, indeed, innocent of JFK's murder, why on Earth would she continue to lie about the Walker incident? Wouldn't she be telling people just the OPPOSITE, and insist that Lee didn't shoot at Walker, if she now believes that he also didn't shoot JFK or Tippit?

But we really don't even need Marina's words to come pretty close to verifying that Oswald did, in fact, shoot at General Walker. The physical evidence against Oswald isn't absolute proof he did it, but it sure is close. With that evidence being the photos of Walker's home that were found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination, and (even more incriminating) the note that Lee Oswald left behind for Marina on the night of the Walker shooting [Commission Exhibit No. 1]:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm

Is that unsigned note, which is positively in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting, a "fake" too?

And if it's not a fake, what activity do you think Oswald was up to that prompted him to write such an incriminating note to his wife on the same day that General Edwin A. Walker had a bullet whiz right past his head? Or don't you want to believe that Marina found that note on the night of April 10, 1963?

As for the bullet [CE573] -- yes, it's true that that bullet is too deformed to positively be linked to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, but CE573 is almost certainly a Carcano bullet (or at the very least, a bullet which mimics the appearance of a Carcano round, without a doubt), which is a determination that can pretty much be confirmed by just comparing its general characteristics to CE399:

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition."

End results (via the totality of evidence) -- Lee Harvey Oswald shot at General Edwin Walker with his own Carcano rifle, which is a rifle that he had received via mail-order no more than NINETEEN DAYS prior to April 10, 1963, which is another important point to be made.

Edited February 26, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Oswald did not CHOOSE to go to Russia, he was instructed to do so.

I'm anxious to see DiEugenio come within 100 miles of proving the above ridiculous statement.

Naturally, he can't do it. But he'll still insist upon relying on make-believe "proof" that doesn't exist--and never did.

[Mark Knight]

Dave, I'm terribly sorry...but had Marina been required to testify in a court of law, any defense attorney with a dime-store law degree would have left her credibility in shreds. She says one thing, than changes her statement...yet that's NOT convincing evidence that she has a propensity to LIE? Yet based upon her statements--the credibility of which is suspect, considering her PROPENISTY TO LIE, which has already been PROVEN beyond the shadow of a doubt--you consider that CONCRETE EVIDENCE that LHO was the man who pulled the trigger at Walker's house?

I believe that proves YOU to be more gullible than most CT'ers.

And the bullet MIGHT'VE come from a 6.5MM Carcano. Or it might NOT have. So in your mind, that proves CONCLUSIVELY that it did?

Witnesses NEAR the Walker shooting--that's right, Dave, there were NO witnesses to the actual shooting--say that two cars left the scene immediately afterwards at a high rate of speed. Yet the accounts of Oswald's alleged "involvement" say that he took a bus to and from the shooting. So are the witnesses lying? Or is the account of Oswald taking the bus mistaken? If the witnesses ARE correct...and we know that Oswald had NO car, and NO driver's license--and, according, to Mrs. Payne, Oswald had never learned to drive a car--then perhaps Oswald had a CO-CONSPIRATOR in the Walker shooting, or at least an accessory after the fact.

But if Oswald left the scene of the Walker shooting in a car which he didn't own--whether he drove it or someone else drove--it can be then argued that there WAS someone who existed who was, at worst, a co-conspirator, and at best an accessory after the fact...WHICH TOTALLY SINKS the idea that Oswald was a "LONE NUT" in the Walker shooting...and, in MY mind, cast doubts on the ENTIRE "Lone-Nut" scenario.

So you believe the testimony of Marina, a proven xxxx...but discount the testimony of those who were near the scene of the Walker shooting?

I'm not convinced that Oswald DID the Walker shooting...and I'm not convinced that he DIDN'T do it. To me, the evidence is inconclusive.

Give me something that would've CONVICTED Oswald of the Walker shooting, had the matter gone to court...in other words, PROVE he did it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, Dave. I challenge you to do so because I don't think you can do it. I don't want speculation, I don't want "coulda-woulda-shoulda" BS; give me some HARD EVIDENCE. Marina has been proven to be a xxxx, so don't build a case based upon her testimony.

I don't think you can do it.

[David Von Pein]

@Mark Knight,

Would you care to completely ignore Commission Exhibit No. 1 that I linked to earlier?

Handwriting experts said CE1 contains OSWALD'S (Russian) handwriting. Are the experts wrong too? Or liars? Or part of the never-ending "cover-up" to pin everything on poor schnook Oswald?

And what about those photos of Walker's backyard found among LHO's things? Planted there, you think?

If they weren't planted, then what was Oswald doing with pictures of Walker's backyard?

Edited February 26, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

Dave, you're doing it again...SPECULATING.

Oswald having photos of Walker's back yard PROVE nothing...other than the fact that Oswald had photos of Walker's back yard.

Like the CT'ers and the Neely Street backyard photos, you can SPECULATE to your heart's content...but that is not EVIDENCE that Oswald pulled the trigger at Walker's home. I have photos of a friend's car, taken at his home. The car was later stolen. DOES THIS MEAN I STOLE HIS CAR? What other reason would I have for photographing his car, than to subsequently steal it, if the car WAS subsequently stolen? [i assure you, I have NEVER stolen a car.]

Oh, wait...because LHO is the allged assassin of JFK and Tippit, then he certainly MUST have taken the potshot at Walker, right? And since we now believe Oswald took the potshot at Walker, then he certainly was capable of shooting JFK and Tippit, right?

CIRCULAR REASONING there, Dave. NOT EVIDENCE.

As I say, I believe Ozzie MIGHT HAVE taken the shot at Walker. But I also believe he MIGHT NOT HAVE. The evidence, so far, is inconclusive. Give me something that puts the rifle--hell, ANY rifle--in LHO's hands at the moment the shot was fired at the Walker residence.

Again, what part of CE 1 puts a rifle in LHO's hands at the Walker house? I see nothing that does. Once again, SPECULATION on what CE 1 means. SPECULATION is not the same as EVIDENCE.

Got any real EVIDENCE?

[David Von Pein]

Add up the stuff, Mark. It's not that hard.

CE1 + Marina's never-wavering account that "Lee told me he did it" + the pics of Walker's backyard + a Carcano-like bullet in Walker's house.

What does that add up to, Mark?

[Mark Knight]

Add up the stuff, Mark. It's not that hard.

CE1 + Marina's never-wavering account that "Lee told me he did it" + the pics of Walker's backyard + a Carcano-like bullet in Walker's house.

What does that add up to, Mark?

You have CE 1 which may or may not relate to this incident [the ONLY reason anyone THINKS it relates is because Marina--who has LIED before--says it relates]. You have Marina--who has LIED before--who says "Lee told me he did it." You have photos of Walker's back yard, which may or may not mean anything. And you have a "Carcano-like" bullet...which may have actually been a different caliber fired from a different weapon...in Walker's house. In other words, 50% of your "evidence" is based upon the word of a proven xxxx.

So to me, you still don't have a rifle [or handgun, or shotgun, or a bazooka, for that matter] in Oswald's hands at the moment the shot was fired at Walker's house. To claim that he did the deed is, therefore, SPECULATION...the same thing that gets the CT'ers drawn into traps.

The "experts" claim Oswald rode the bus on his trip to Walker's home. So where are the witnesses who saw him on the bus with his rifle? Name ONE--just ONE--witness who was actually ON that bus ride, and the story becomes slightly more believable. Without a witness, it's merely [all together now, class] SPECULATION.

And SPECULATION puts you in the same class with the CT'ers you so despise, Dave.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Mark Knight

[David Von Pein]

Mark Knight is lousy at basic math. (Almost all conspiracy theorists are, of course.)

[B. A. Copeland]

If we throw out Marina's testimony, what actual hard EVIDENCE do we have that ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the Walker shooting?

In the first place, why are you so willing to just throw out Marina Oswald's testimony? And why do you also want to throw out Marina's later statements to various people, including her conversation with Vincent Bugliosi on November 30, 2000? ....

"When she [Marina] insisted on Oswald's innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew this because "Lee told me he did"." -- "Reclaiming History" by V. Bugliosi; Page 1487

Marina has never recanted her story about Lee telling her he shot at Walker. And since she now truly believes that Lee was, indeed, innocent of JFK's murder, why on Earth would she continue to lie about the Walker incident? Wouldn't she be telling people just the OPPOSITE, and insist that Lee didn't shoot at Walker, if she now believes that he also didn't shoot JFK or Tippit?

But we really don't even need Marina's words to come pretty close to verifying that Oswald did, in fact, shoot at General Walker. The physical evidence against Oswald isn't absolute proof he did it, but it sure is close. With that evidence being the photos of Walker's home that were found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination, and (even more incriminating) the note that Lee Oswald left behind for Marina on the night of the Walker shooting [Commission Exhibit No. 1]:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm

Is that unsigned note, which is positively in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting, a "fake" too?

And if it's not a fake, what activity do you think Oswald was up to that prompted him to write such an incriminating note to his wife on the same day that General Edwin A. Walker had a bullet whiz right past his head? Or don't you want to believe that Marina found that note on the night of April 10, 1963?

As for the bullet [CE573] -- yes, it's true that that bullet is too deformed to positively be linked to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, but CE573 is almost certainly a Carcano bullet (or at the very least, a bullet which mimics the appearance of a Carcano round, without a doubt), which is a determination that can pretty much be confirmed by just comparing its general characteristics to CE399:

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition."

End results (via the totality of evidence) -- Lee Harvey Oswald shot at General Edwin Walker with his own Carcano rifle, which is a rifle that he had received via mail-order no more than NINETEEN DAYS prior to April 10, 1963, which is another important point to be made.

Wow, you quote Bugliosi lol....I must say that the reason why her "testimony" is not regarded as truly honest is because she was obviously guided to say what she said. She was being watched and controlled. For Pete's sake, she is/was the Patsy's wife and it isn't desirable to have her contradicting the desired perception of Husband by the forces that initiated the entire event in the 1st place. This is not far fetched thinking when you examine the evidence Dave. It makes perfect sense.

Can we consider the very strong possibility that the note was planted on Oswald post-assassination when intelligence services were doing what they do best lol? Just as he would have most likely proven the fakery of the famous "backyard photos" should he have lived? My goodness there are so many rational books out there that clearly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy had indeed taken place (Hancock, Salandria and Lane among others come to mind) surely you (and others who believe LHO carried out this complex conspiracy solo) have at LEAST considered these great and rational pieces of literary and historical works.

Edited February 26, 2011 by B. A. Copeland

[David Von Pein]

I must say that the reason why her "testimony" is not regarded as truly honest is because she was obviously guided to say what she said. She was being watched and controlled.

And was Marina Oswald still being "controlled" in November of 2000 when she confirmed to Vince Bugliosi that LHO told her that he had shot at Walker??

For Pete sake, how silly.

Or do you think Bugliosi just MADE UP from whole cloth that Marina quote that appears on Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"?

Oswald shot at Walker. Live with it.

Edited February 26, 2011 by David Von Pein