Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cognitive Bias in the Formulation of Theories


W. Niederhut
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

I know, right? Thank god we at least got that. So many telling things from that short appearance.

Listen to his voice crack when he says "the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question" He is shook. Seems genuinely upset about the death of the President. Outside of that he did a very thorough job of playing his cards close and not giving away anything.

Yes, caught the emotion in the voice in that moment as well of the unfeeling lone ‘sociopath.’

According to his brother when he looked in his eyes after saying ‘don’t believe all the so-called evidence,’ LHO said ‘there’s nothing there, brother.’

That line has always been used to show how supposedly soulless he was. LHO could’ve also meant he had no guilty knowledge of the assassination.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

41 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

On that day,  they also were making the case for indictment against LBJ.

Michaleen:

But what a powder keg situation that was. What if LHO, either deranged or telling the truth, yelled that he was a paid Russian assassin - that could’ve immediately led to WWIII. Who in America could’ve stopped it?

He also could’ve said he was the proverbial spy left out in the cold by his own govt. Or that others were involved still at large. Or he could’ve yelled Viva Castro!

But he didn’t say any of these things.

Except that he was a patsy, which really isn't saying anything. But that's right, in his short press  conference LHO could have spilled a lot more beans if he had them, and actually serve to protect himself, as any group he would expose may now be more hesitant to draw attention to themselves by murdering him.

According to Lovell, Oswald was very confident  he was in no danger by going out to the public. Which could indicate he thought he was being protected by somebody.

Another strange thing…. According to DPD interview notes, LHO volunteered very little info EXCEPT he was happy to prattle on about his running the NO chapter of the FPCC.

Why?

 

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m of the opinion that LHO probably did kill Tippit, either following spook protocol when an operation was compromised or realizing as he had quickly surmised at the TSBD that he was a hunted man the minute shots rang out in Dealey. Even though no one could’ve possibly identified him from the sixth floor window even if he had been the assassin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

There are a handful of questions involved -  if you accept the body of information (regardless if its true or false) the WC collected you could paint Oswald as a communist influenced radical,  assign a clear motive and have a serious piece of anti-communist propaganda showing the dangerous of communist influence at the height of the Cold War.   Surely both Hoover and that old time rabid anti-Communist LBJ could hardly object to that.   So why wasn't the story presented to the public in that form?

Another question, was Oswald truly becoming radicalized to the extent of the WC information (some of which has to come from Oswald, for example his manuscript and his later letter to CPUSA) or was that picture being built around him without his full knowledge - and of course to what purpose. 

Suggestion - look at that picture of Oswald as of October,  as he arrived in Dallas.  Even with what was in various FBI and CIA files he looked pretty radical; this is at a time when teachers were routinely required to take loyalty oaths in some States. When FBI agents were dispatched to Mexico to monitor expats from Hollywood (see Heitman's autobiography).  When any American visiting the Cuban embassy was put under surveillance.  Then ask yourself, is this Russian defector, commie radical being cultivated for an assassination that is going to make everybody in the security community look like idiots?   Or are they ignoring him because somebody has him "in play". 

What I'm calling for, in line with the thread title, is for some new and out of the box scenarios, not just the old ones we have tossed around forever....they might not be right but the question is how tightly are we tied to the way we have looked at this for so long (and to our preferred villains)?

 

OK, I will construct a scenario I do not agree with...but here goes:

The CIA is running LHO, and has him in play. But LHO wants some real assignments, and some money. He is moving boxes around at the TBSD, hardly any better than radio-factory work in Russia. 

OK, so the hit squad from Miami approaches LHO. They give him the respect he does not get from HQ, but they also tell him HQ is behind the JFKA, due to Cuba and other JFK weakness. The Miami guys need LHO as a decoy, and a patsy, and they promise him a new life in South America, as a bleached blond with a nose job. 

LHO's job is to fire a rifle from the Sixth Floor, and leave behind evidence to throw off the investigation, and then leave the TSBD to get a plane ride to Buenos Aires. The real assassins are on the Dal-Tex roof. The Grassy Knoll smoke-and-bang is another diversion

But LHO's ride from the TBSD goes bad. Maybe something so trivial as a car breaks down. LHO looks for his ride...concludes he has been hung out to dry. 

LHO goes home gets his gun, sadly runs into Tippit, then hides in the Texas Theater...then LHO gets gunned down to keep him quiet. 

Well, it is a scenario outside the box....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald as an ongoing working for the CIA, frustrated after his series of seemingly unproductive missions which get him no recognition and apparently no advancement, then agreeing to take an intentional shot to miss is a bit out of the box and raises some interesting questions about exactly who was "running" him as far as Dallas, how they contacted him, what his instructions and mission were up to the point of getting a really good offer....and who made the final money offer that he would trust? 

Does the deal include leaving his rifle in the TSBD so he can be directly traced to the shooting....you can imagine that even with an intentional miss he would have to think that a live President would be focused enough to send the entire US government after him?  If not how does the rifle get there.

What is the back end of the deal,  how is he extracted, his family extracted or does he know care about his daughters who will grow up under that shadow.  

Admittedly this is one scenario that would have to go with him being pulled into an apparent "false flag" that turned out to be turned real.  It would be interesting to take it down a few levels of detail,  is he the only dupe in the false flag?  Is it truly a sanctioned "false flag" and who inside the CIA knows about it, anybody but the bad guys or is it just a cover to recruit Oswald?

I've always been intrigued about a "false flag" that gets stolen - I proposed it as a cover to suck in Jack Ruby previously,  how it could be used to suck in Oswald and convince him its worth the risk is certainly an interesting conversation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

You know, Nov. 22, 1963 was strange altogether. 

The day writer Aldous Huxley died (Brave New World).

The day Dr. Who was set to premiere on BBC (it was postponed for a week).

The day I believe Carlos Marcello won his day in court in NO and could remain in the US.

Strangeness all around. 

 

 

A first test screening of the film Dr. Strangelove was scheduled for November 22, 1963. The film was just weeks from its scheduled premiere, but because of the assassination, the release was delayed until late January 1964, as it was felt that the public was in no mood for such a film any sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's boil it down a bit more, when asked by the press he stated specifically that he was being made a patsy "because he had been in Russia".  When you look at that and a list of his other last words complied by Mae Brussell you get an even fuller picture. 

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

Unless you essentially make Lee Oswald a mental giant in terms of self control, I have a very hard time accepting his talking like that with full knowledge that a rifle which could be traced directly to him had been left laying upstairs in the TSBD and shells that he had fired were there with it (oh, and lets not talk about just one diversionary, missing false flag shot but rather three to match the hulls).

In positing a false flag scenario you have to weigh in on his not just having him fired one or more "innocent" shots but also deal with the rifle....unless he believed he was using a completely sanitized weapon and ammo which could never be traced to him - otherwise he had to know he would be the object of a manhunt of massive proportions.

If he had not fired a rifle or taken one to the TSBD that cannot be traced to him, and if he had been sold on a false flag which does actually injure the President, was he just paid to carry in the weapon?   If so after finding out how badly he has been used and while in custody for two murders why in the world does he not move to protect himself - is he that much of a martyr and if so where is the evidence for that.  He is concerned about shoes for his daughter but he's decided to knowingly leave her the legacy of her father as a heinous murderer? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

A first test screening of the film Dr. Strangelove was scheduled for November 22, 1963. The film was just weeks from its scheduled premiere, but because of the assassination, the release was delayed until late January 1964, as it was felt that the public was in no mood for such a film any sooner.

Are you sure that wasn’t 7 Days in May? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a conspirator, a major advantage to the "false flag" approach (i.e. a fake assassination attempt) is that recruiting people for such a thing becomes far easier, because they're told no one will really get hurt in such a thing.

And then afterwards it means panic-stricken participants will cover things up on their own, due to fear of being blamed for an outcome they didn't originally sign up for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Let's boil it down a bit more, when asked by the press he stated specifically that he was being made a patsy "because he had been in Russia".  When you look at that and a list of his other last words complied by Mae Brussell you get an even fuller picture. 

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

Unless you essentially make Lee Oswald a mental giant in terms of self control, I have a very hard time accepting his talking like that with full knowledge that a rifle which could be traced directly to him had been left laying upstairs in the TSBD and shells that he had fired were there with it (oh, and lets not talk about just one diversionary, missing false flag shot but rather three to match the hulls).

In positing a false flag scenario you have to weigh in on his not just having him fired one or more "innocent" shots but also deal with the rifle....unless he believed he was using a completely sanitized weapon and ammo which could never be traced to him - otherwise he had to know he would be the object of a manhunt of massive proportions.

If he had not fired a rifle or taken one to the TSBD that cannot be traced to him, and if he had been sold on a false flag which does actually injure the President, was he just paid to carry in the weapon?   If so after finding out how badly he has been used and while in custody for two murders why in the world does he not move to protect himself - is he that much of a martyr and if so where is the evidence for that.  He is concerned about shoes for his daughter but he's decided to knowingly leave her the legacy of her father as a heinous murderer? 

 

 

 

Larry--

Of course, you are asking all the questions a sensible, smart person would ask. Because you are a sensible, smart person. 

I can tell you I have made some truly rotten decisions along the way (nothing illegal), that when I look back, I ask, "Did I have rocks in my head?" Or, "Why, did I ever believe that?" Or "Why did I trust that person?" 

LHO was in a dead-end job, had no academic education that would lead to law degree etc., wasn't getting promoted in his intel work, had a dishonorable discharge, was losing wife and kids in part due to money problems....yet was the sort to take risks---see Russia, see the Walker shooting. He was also only 24, and needed a boost forward if he was not going to spend decades and decades in mundane, low-pay work. 

Maybe LHO make a big mistake. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In line with both Matt and Ben's comments it would probably be a good thing to factor in "consequences" in terms of recruitment.  Certainly if nobody gets hurt, if you are not likely to be immediately picked up or become the focus of a global man hunt then its going to be an easier sell.  I'm not sure I see money or "advancement" in the intelligence business as a major motive for Oswald - his primary frustration at the moment seems to have been around getting Marina to bring the girls and come live with him. 

Which leads back to the consequences and of course to the rifle and hulls. As part of the recruitment for a false flag is Oswald actually going to be firing multiple shots that miss, or just one shot that misses?   Does he leave the rifle and hulls there knowing its a totally deniable weapons that cannot be traced to him and make sure he stays in the building or otherwise give himself an obvious alibi for not being the shooter - like be seen downstairs as quickly as possible by multiple people before and after to cloud his location?  

If so where do the deniable rifle and hulls go and who does the substitution?

Or if he is shooting a weapon that can be traced directly back to him - what does he think is going to happen - I would say that would not be just a bad decision but out and out stupid even if nobody got killed.

I'd like to see some more discussion of how a doable false flag attack would work out in general,  as well as how Oswald would seem to be involved - as differentiated from a simply patsy scenario where its just a matter of  planting a rifle and hulls and having somebody else up there in the window to draw attention to the area.   With a shot fired from there or perhaps elsewhere ....also to be out of the box, does it have to be a shot or could it just be something to make a really loud noise and leave no trace.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...