Was Oswald an Idiot?

[David S. Brownlee]

I always wonder about just how dumb Oswald was (as a patsy)...he did the Russian thing...then turned around and did the "Fair play for Cuba" thing. Surely most relatively intelligent people would realize that they were putting themselves at risk for a setup in each instance.

I mean the guy wasn't just a patsy...he was the patsies' patsy. He was as gullible as they come. I guess they told him that handing out those flyers helped them to build their database on "enemies"...but wouldn't a normal prudent person understand what that meant to him - as far as a personal persona?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I always wonder about just how dumb Oswald was (as a patsy)...he did the Russian thing...then turned around and did the "Fair play for Cuba" thing. Surely most relatively intelligent people would realize that they were putting themselves at risk for a setup in each instance.

By all accounts Oz was a person of above-average intelligence.

He did not have the benefit of hindsight as we do now, so I don't see how he could have foreseen the future.

I guess they told him that handing out those flyers helped them to build their database on "enemies"...but wouldn't a normal prudent person understand what that meant to him - as far as a personal persona?

Do you have any EVIDENCE that someone told Oz to hand out FPCC flyers?

[Andric Perez]

Oswald's IQ was just one point lower than John F. Kennedy's. 118 vs. 119. http://www.kids-iq-t...ous-people.html

This is also a case of "hindsight bias," It is very easy for the author of this thread to say that Oswald should have known he was being framed, 49 years later.

Hindsight bias: The term hindsight bias refers to the tendency people have to view events as more predictable than they really are. After an event, people often believe that they knew the outcome of the event before it actually happened. The phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of different situations, including politics and sporting events. In experiments, people often recall their predictions before the event as much stronger than they actually were. http://psychology.ab...dsight-bias.htm

Edited December 8, 2012 by Andric Perez

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Oswald's IQ was just one point lower than John F. Kennedy's. 118 vs. 119. http://www.kids-iq-t...ous-people.html

Interesting link.

Note that, according to the link, LBJ (to nobody's surprise?) was smarter than both of them.

[David Andrews]

Participating in the Bringuer-leaflets incidents and appearing on NO television was obvious sheep-dipping, which Oswald had to have understood, though its purpose may have been concealed from him. As to whether he should have predicted that, as a former defector, he'd be blamed for Dealey - the question has to be answered by determining what Richard Case Nagell meant when he told Dick Russell that Russell should make no mistake, Oswald was "in it up to his neck."

There's gullible, and then there's gullible because one is culpable. I would love to know Russell's take on Oswald apart from Nagell.

Edited December 9, 2012 by David Andrews

[Kathleen Collins]

I always wonder about just how dumb Oswald was (as a patsy)...he did the Russian thing...then turned around and did the "Fair play for Cuba" thing. Surely most relatively intelligent people would realize that they were putting themselves at risk for a setup in each instance.

I mean the guy wasn't just a patsy...he was the patsies' patsy. He was as gullible as they come. I guess they told him that handing out those flyers helped them to build their database on "enemies"...but wouldn't a normal prudent person understand what that meant to him - as far as a personal persona?

I'm with you, David. Where were his brains? People in his building must have been talking about Kennedy coming in a motorcade. Oswald shouldn't have come to work that day. But, like David says, was he an idiot?

Kathy C

[Mark Wengler]

The thing is if Oswald was being handled by someone Oswald would trust that person. Because in that area a person would automatically trust that person because they would believe that person would have thier best interest at heart.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Do you have any EVIDENCE that someone told Oz to hand out FPCC flyers?

Since no one responded to this question, let me take a guess:

This claim is based on one of the stories told by Delphine Roberts

(she told different stories over the years).

Seems to me that, if her story about Oz working for Bannister is NOT a lie,

then it will do until a lie comes along.

http://www.jfk-onlin...00delphine.html

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Participating in the Bringuer-leaflets incidents and appearing on NO television was obvious sheep-dipping,

Not obvious to me, I'm afraid.

the question has to be answered by determining what Richard Case Nagell meant when he told Dick Russell that Russell should make no mistake, Oswald was "in it up to his neck."

I tend to be sceptical of anyone accusing Lee Oswald,

but in any case I doubt if very many people believe a word

that Nagell had to say about Oz.

Didn't Nagell claim he had tape recordings that would back up his stories

and that these tape-recordings would be released upon his death?

I haven't heard much about these tapes, though Nagell has been dead

for quite a while. Why am I not surprised?

There's gullible, and then there's gullible ........

Indeed. That is very true.

[David Andrews]

Again - Dick Russell, if you're out there, I would love to hear your research take on Oswald, beyond what we know about him through Nagell. It's the question one wants to ask after reading The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Edited December 14, 2012 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Oswald was being played for sure, but I doubt he saw it that way. I think he thought he was the man pulling the strings. Remember 'I led Three Lives'? Oswald had constant interactions with suspicious and dangerous characters intersecting with all of the Kennedy hating groups that became suspect in the assassination later. His intelligence files have been largely hidden from view. For now I am assuming he was investigating something, or several things. He starts out with military intelligence, then CIA, and later FBI, all of which entities have done their best to distance themselves from him. Whose to say that his relationship with DeMohrenschildt wasn't his idea? What about Banister? Was forming a FPCC branch in New Orleans someone's idea of sheep dipping him? Maybe. But that assumes he was really stupid. In hindsight it has the result of making him look like a Castro lover. But maybe he was trying to draw people out of the woodwork in order to see what they were up to. Same could be said about his interactions with JBS and KKK, possibly with Ruby. He said it himself - he was a 'hunter of fascists'.

His trip to Mexico doesn't fit well with this theory if we assume that what he was doing there was trying to get to Cuba or Russia, or worse to meet with KGB. But what if that wasn't him? Maybe he was following some other leads in Mexico City while someone he was spying on began the process of preparing him to take the fall for JFK's murder and link him, without his knowledge, with Kostikov.

[John Dolva]

much can be and in this case seems to be the opposite.

was Lowery Oswalds(believed) contact for the theatre and the Brewer incident the trigger of the cut off point of Oswald as a participant and (unbeknownst to him) he was now destined for what was to come?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I don't think the information provided by Waggoner Carr detailing Oswald being a paid informer for the FBI who was picking up $200 a month was incorrect.

As I am sure most members already know, the "information" provided by Waggoner Carr was nothing more substantial than a RUMOR

that was traced back to assistant DA William Alexander.

Alexander has admitted that he deliberately spread disinformation about the assassination.

So here we are almost 50 years later and Alexander's disinformation is still being promulgated

on the Education Forum.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What Ray won't tell you is that a standard practice concerning the spreading of disinformation and damage limitation exercises is to release something that is true (Oswald was an FBI informant getting $200 a month), with an aspect of it that is proveably false (the FBI numbers). This then leaves the impression that the whole story is false.

I have now picked myself up off the floor

from laughing at this, and it suddenly strikes me

that maybe Mr. Farley is right. Here's how it went down:

Lee Oswald was an FBI informer at $200 a month.

After the assassination the plotters and/or the FBI

desperately wanted to conceal the FBI/Oz link,

so they came up with this diabolically clever idea

of telling the world that Oz was an FBI informant

and then confusing everyone

by assigning him

THE WRONG NUMBER!

Pull the other one, Mr. Farley,

it's got bells on.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It worked, Mr. Carroll. People like you believe it's false. It doesn't matter how many pointers exist to Lee Oswald being a paid informer, you'll blank them all out.

Oz was earning about $200/month at the TSBD. Nearly every penny was accounted for.

According to the Alexander disinformation, he was also earning the same amount from the FBI.

So, a la Cuba Gooding, SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Where did Oz hide the money?

Tell everyone Alexander's motives and provide some evidence please...

Anyone deliberately spreading disinformation in the aftermath of the assassination

is a logical suspect,

if you assume --as people here do -- that JFK was the victim of a plot.

Ergo, Alexander is a logical suspect.

As to Alexander's motive, at this point I can only speculate.

Melvin Belli's book (and I think other sources) indicates that Alexander was quite a Kennedy-hater.

As to the evidence against William Alexander, I assure you you will find it

if you are willing to do a little research (I don't have time to put it together at the minute.)

I am sending an email to John Simkin suggesting that he set up a page on Alexander

on the Spartacus website.: