DEBUNKING CONSPIRACY MYTHS

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

What was Lee Oswald’s motive to murder President John Kennedy? 

Of course, as we all know, nobody can know with any certainty why Oswald shot JFK. All we can do is take guesses to try and answer the burning question concerning "Motive".

And I think the best guess is that Oswald probably killed Kennedy because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).

But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963.

But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives.

And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.
 

Edited June 13 by David Von Pein

[Johnny Cairns]

23 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course, as we all know, nobody can know with any certainty why Oswald shot JFK. All we can do is take guesses to try and answer the burning question concerning "Motive".

And I think the best guess is that Oswald probably killed Kennedy because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).

But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963. But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives.

And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.
 

Okay. 
 

Now you do realise there is an abundance of testimony, on the record, that state quite clearly Lee Oswald’s admiration for President Kennedy. For example, Oswald who was anti segregation and racism, was full of praise for President Kennedys stance on civil rights. 

George De Mohrenschildt. “As far as I am concerned, he was an admirer of President Kennedy. I thought that Kennedy was doing a very good job with regard to the racial problem, you know…And he [Oswald] also agreed with me, [Oswald stated] Yes, yes, yes; I think he is an excellent President, young, full of energy, full of good ideas.” (Volume IX; p. 255)

If Oswald had killed John Kennedy for Fidel Castro or any other political cause, then why did he vehemently deny that he had in fact done so? “I don’t know what dispatch’s you people have been given, by I emphatically deny these charges”. 
 

Also at the time of his assassination, John Kennedy was in back channel discussions about reconciliation with Castro, see the story of Jean Daniel, whom President Kennedy met with in October 1963.
 

JFK;  

“I believe that there is no country in the world, including the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I believe that we created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realizing it. I believe that the accumulation of these mistakes has jeopardized all of Latin America. The great aim of the Alliance for Progress is to reverse this unfortunate policy. This is one of the most, if not the most, important problems in America foreign policy. I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear“

Do you really think LBJ would have in any way shape or form have ever uttered these words? The man whom, in your opinion, Oswald was to give the keys to the White House? 

There is no comparison between Walker and Kennedy. Walker was a right wing zealot, a racist segregationist. John Kennedy was the most liberal President since Franklin Roosevelt. 
 

So in the final analysis, Oswald supposed Motive is not known, correct? 

Edited June 13 by Johnny Cairns

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

There is no comparison between Walker and Kennedy.

But from Oswald's POV (re: Cuba), there certainly would have been.

 

29 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

So in the final analysis, Oswald['s] supposed Motive is not known, correct? 

Correct.

 

Edited June 13 by David Von Pein

[Johnny Cairns]

I disagree. Also the whole Walker story relies solely on the testimony of Marina Oswald. Not only has Marina no credibility in this case, but she could not testify against her husband in a court of law. 
 

So let us look into the available evidence of this case. Would you like to start with CE142? Or CE399? 
 

 

[David Von Pein]

38 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Also the whole Walker story relies solely on the testimony of Marina Oswald.

And she would never tell the truth, would she?

And what about LHO's notebook full of pictures of Walker's backyard, etc.? Was that all created by the patsy framers? Or Marina perhaps?

 

38 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

she could not testify against her husband in a court of law.

So what? That's totally irrelevant when discussing the facts here at the EF forum.

 

38 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

So let us look into the available evidence of this case. Would you like to start with CE142? Or CE399? 

How about if I tackle both at the same time? I've got tons of stuff already archived concerning both of those topics....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#The-Paper-Bag

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

 

Edited June 13 by David Von Pein

[Johnny Cairns]

43 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And she would never tell the truth, would she?

And what about LHO's notebook full of pictures of Walker's backyard, etc.? Was that all created by the patsy framers? Or Marina perhaps?

 

So what? That's totally irrelevant when discussing the facts here at the EF forum.

 

How about if I tackle both at the same time? I've got tons of stuff already archived concerning both of those topics....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#The-Paper-Bag

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

 

How about we let some of the attorneys who served the Commission answer the first point of you’re answer. 

Norman Redlich. “Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the (Secret) Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world… (Marina) may not have told the truth in connection with the attempt on General Walker.'

J. Lee Rankin. “Marina’s testimony on the Walker shooting to the FBI and Secret Service was giving the Commission lawyers fits because it was riddled with contradictions (they) just don’t jibe. 
 

Freda Scobey. “By her own admission Marina is a liar, and it is her voice that tells us how intensely she disliked the FBI and how she lied to that agency almost uniformly. When asked, for example, about the Walker note, she denied knowledge of it, but later admitted her husband wrote it. And when asked on December 3, if she had ever witnessed her husband leaving the house with the rifle, she replied No, but afterwards reversed this by saying she had frequently seen Lee go in and out carrying the rifle, once to "Lopfield" (Love Airfield) for target practice, and, on other occasion, to the park to shoot leaves. How, one asks, can a man go to the park with a rifle either by day or night and shoot leaves off the trees without being reported to the police?”

There is more, but I think you get the point? 
 

Marina testified that, at her urging, Oswald burned all of his plans, notebook, etc when he returned home that night, see the relevant testimony. 

Marina Oswald. “I was so afraid after this attempt on Walker's life that the police might come to the house. I was afraid that there would be evidence in the house such as this book… I told him that it is best not to have this kind of stuff in the house…I suggested to him that it would be awfully bad to keep a thing like that in the house.” (Volume XI; p.293-294)

which cause Wesley Liebeler to ask her 

Liebeler. “Did it seem strange to you at the time, Marina, that Lee did make these careful plans, take pictures, and write it up in a notebook, and then when he went out to shoot at General Walker, he left all that incriminating evidence right in the house so that if he had ever been stopped and questioned and if that notebook had been found, it would have clearly indicated that he was the one that shot at General Walker… If Oswald was guilty in the Walker shooting, why would Oswald keep the photos and the note around for almost eight months?'

Pictures of Walkers backyard were found in the Paine garage, after the murder of President Kennedy. 
 

No it is not irrelevant. This is a homicide case and such laws are important to consider. 
 

Instead of including links to various web pages I thought we could discuss the evidence here, in an open and civil manner can’t we? I mean if you can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, my defense of Oswald surly would be easy and, dare I say it, enjoyable to destroy in such a public forum no? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13 by Johnny Cairns

[David Von Pein]

23 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Instead of including links to various web pages I thought we could discuss the evidence here, in an open and civil manner can’t we? I mean if you can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, my defense of Oswald surely would be easy and, dare I say it, enjoyable to destroy in such a public forum no? 

Well, yeah, sure. But one of the reasons to have a vast archive of JFK arguments and posts at your disposal (as I do at my blog sites) is so that every time the same old already-debunked conspiracy stuff comes up at JFK forums or in E-mail group discussions, the material can be easily accessed and a link provided. It sure does save a lot of keyboard-pounding and repetition. (But repetition does seem to be a common tendency when discussing the JFK case. I can certainly testify to that fact after 20+ years.)

 

Edited June 13 by David Von Pein

[Johnny Cairns]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, yeah, sure. But one of the reasons to have a vast archive of JFK arguments and posts at your disposal (as I do at my blog sites) is so that every time the same old already-debunked conspiracy stuff comes up at JFK forums or in E-mail group discussions, the material can be easily accessed and a link provided. It sure does save a lot of keyboard-pounding and repetition. (But repetition does seem to be a common tendency when discussing the JFK case. I can certainly testify to that fact after 20+ years.)

 

You say that, but I never once mentioned the discussion of ludicrous theories, Single Bullet ones or otherwise. I wanted to have a scholarly debate on the evidence of the Dallas Police and FBI, against Lee Oswald as the sole murderer of John Kennedy. Now you have previously affirmed that the two cases are provable beyond a reasonable doubt, I am here to ask why? What is the empirical, not circumstantial, evidence you base your assumption of Oswald’s guilt on? I want to know it. 

[Charles Blackmon]

If the cases against Oswald as lone JFK assassin and the Tippit killer was proven "beyond reasonable doubt" then there would not be so many of us doubters. Imagine if Oswald had lived, there had been a trial and any of us doubters had been old enough (or alive) to serve on either jury. What would sway any 12 of us to convict, assuming no pre-trial prejudice against LHO?

[Cliff Varnell]

21 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

But is the Croft photo unaltered? Glen Bennett said in same-day notes reported by the WC that he saw JFK being hit "about four inches down from the right shoulder." Clint Hill viewed the body in the morgue in order to report back to the family and testified that the hole in the body was "about 6 inches below the neck line." Robert Frazier testified that the hole in Kennedy's coat was "5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar" and the hole in the shirt was "5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar." I'm pretty sure that the Croft photo was altered (See my essay at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-altered-croft-photo.html), and I doubt that Kennedy's jacket would ever fit him that badly, even with the back brace on.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar, the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The Croft photo shows a similar fraction of an inch ride up of the coat -- "a little bit."

 

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

I never once mentioned the discussion of ludicrous theories,

Nor did I. A theory doesn't have to be "ludicrous" in order for me to think it's been "already debunked". A good example of that is all the stuff that's been written by CTers about Acquilla Clemons. Every single bit of the garbage ever written about Clemons has been misinterpreted and mangled by conspiracy theorists over the years.

Two other examples would be:

....The "Baker/Truly/Oswald second-floor encounter never happened at all" theory.

and

....The "Oswald never ordered or ever possessed Carcano Rifle No. C2766" fairy tale.

Both of the above theories, however, do indeed (IMO) belong in the "ludicrous" category. ("Super Ludicrous" actually.) Those are both the type of theory that reek of CTer desperation.

 

Edited June 14 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

9 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

What is the empirical, not circumstantial, evidence you base your assumption of Oswald’s guilt on? I want to know it. 

It's not just one or two things. It's everything in total --- including the incredibly important factor of evaluating Oswald's own actions and movements on both November 21st and November 22nd, 1963. It seems as though many people just totally ignore the very odd and out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Oswald did on those two days.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Everything Oswald Did Indicates His Guilt

 

[Bill Brown]

Oswald's motive for assassinating President Kennedy was the same as he had for shooting at General Walker; Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.

 

Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.

 

Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.

 

While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.

 

Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.

 

During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.

 

In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.

 

The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.

 

On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.

 

Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:

 

"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.

 

I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.

 

I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."

 

 

[Johnny Cairns]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It's not just one or two things. It's everything in total --- including the incredibly important factor of evaluating Oswald's own actions and movements on both November 21st and November 22nd, 1963. It seems as though many people just totally ignore the very odd and out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Oswald did on those two days.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Everything Oswald Did Indicates His Guilt

 

With all due respect, you can ascribe whatever you want in evaluating Oswald’s actions and movements on the 21st and 22nd, it’s not evidence of anything, other than your interpretation of events. 
 

Now physical evidence stands alone, it cannot perjure itself. Let’s get on with discussing its origins and veracity shall we? 
 

So Oswald goes to trial, Henry Wade is the state’s prosecutor. How is Wade getting CE399 into evidence? 

[Johnny Cairns]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Oswald's motive for assassinating President Kennedy was the same as he had for shooting at General Walker; Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.

 

Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.

 

Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.

 

While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.

 

Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.

 

During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.

 

In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.

 

The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.

 

On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.

 

Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:

 

"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.

 

I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.

 

I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."

 

 

So let me get this straight. According to your theory on motive, Oswald kills President Kennedy, a man he liked and admired, for Fidel Castro? Yet when confronted with the accusation of murder during his detention at the hands of the Dallas Police what does he do? Does Oswald proudly proclaim his act of violence as a political act, condemning the US policy towards Cuba? This is his moment to do so, the spotlight is on him, glory and infamy awaits! He can become a socialist hero! But no… Oswald vehemently denies killing President Kennedy. Strange, very strange behaviour for this would be political, presidential assassin huh?