Cognitive Bias in the Formulation of Theories

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Pure conjecture on my part, but let's say the idea that Oswald wanted to gain entry into Cuba is true; That Delgado's story about Oswald wanting to go fight for Castro was true, that Marina's story of him wanting to hijack a plane to get to Cuba is true, and that his trip to Mexico City really happened, and that said trip wasn't so he could return to Russia, but because he desperately wanted to get to Cuba, and got extremely upset when the Cuban consulate wouldn't allow him to accomplish that.

If all that is true, then it would seem like LHO was game for just about any scenario that could get him to Cuba.

If told that his participation in a false-flag fake assassination attempt on JFK would earn him a free plane ride south of the border afterwards, then perhaps he would accept. And all the things pointing to him knowing he was leaving town would make a bit more sense.

I would say he did indeed stay in place at work and look totally innocent and calm after the shooting, however briefly; he didn't immediately run out of the building. However, as you say, he was bound to know he would be a suspect and did meet Truly and a gun-toting Baker in the lunchroom immediately afterwards (all while also perhaps having a plane to catch...) .

Just throwin some darts at the board here

Not to distract from the thread topic.  Just throwin in a monkey wrench.  In the interest of thinking outside the box.  But I believe in that U K train of thought that Oswald was not in the lunch room.

[Michaleen Kilroy]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, since we are speculating, let's go with Larry Hancock's premise that the JFKA was planned to provoke a war or invasion, or other very serious effort against the Castro regime. 

In most regards, then, JFKA was a CIA rogue action, in that JFK would not sanction such an action against himself.

1. Would the Miami hit-men undertake such an action without higher-up say-so?

2. Would this explain the sudden loss of interest in Cuba after the JFKA? Even Sen. Richard Russell commented publicly, and wonderingly, on the sudden vacuum on Cuba, while everything became Vietnam overnight in 1964. 

So...speculating, the senior ranks of officialdom suspected the purpose of the JFKA, and could not "validate" such an action. A message had to be sent to the perps, that assassinating a US president will not result in a preferred policy.

Well, as I said, speculation....

 

It always seemed to me that whoever was behind JFKA wanted war with Cuba and/or Russia. And it easily could’ve turned out that way.

But the minute someone from LBJ’s admin called DA Wade’s office to tell them to stop the ‘communist conspiracy’ talk, that possibility ended. But that also ended ANY conspiracy talk/direction/investigation as far as LBJ was concerned, and that’s how the FBI was directed, igniting the massive, grotesque coverup and letting all suspected perps, including CIA and Mafia, off the hook.

The government coverup resulted in citizen researchers still trying to figure this case out 60 years later.

And the only thing I know for certain is the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt there was more than one shooter.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Benjamin Cole]

45 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

I’ve always thought from a young age that whoever was behind JFKA wanted war with Cuba and/or Russia. And it easily could’ve turned out that way.

But the minute someone from LBJ’s admin called DA Wade’s office to tell them to stop the ‘communist conspiracy’ talk, that possibility ended. But it also ended ANY conspiracy talk/direction/investigation as far as LBJ was concerned, and that’s how the FBI was directed, igniting the massive, grotesque coverup and letting all suspected perps, including CIA and Mafia, off the hook.

The government coverup resulted in citizen researchers still trying to figure this case out 60 years later.

And the only thing I know for certain is the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt there was more than one shooter.

 

Just for fun, you might get a kick out this "Face the Nation" with Richard Russell, 

A great time capsule, but also note Russell's rather honest assessment of Vietnam and his puzzlement at Cuba. 

Remember, Russell was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1951 to 1969, and considered a serious fellow (also, unfortunately, a racist).  And he is saying he does not understand what happened on Cuba, in this interview. 

Whatever happened in Dallas, Cuba was dropped like a hot potato after that. 

 

[Larry Hancock]

Well if Oswald had been told there was a false flag operation in play to stage an assassination attempt wit the goal of provoking military action against Cuba (what other goal would there be of a "failed" attempt to kill the President?) - the result of a successful fake attack would be clear - especially with Oswald himself being told to fire "missed" shots.

I'm not seeing why Oswald would be picked or think he was being pick to take fake shots at JFK without it being related to Cuba given his recent activities and his media image?

And even if he was given some deniability story about using a rifle not connected to him, if he had left his job and Dallas immediately after the shooting he would obviously be a prime suspect in some sort of conspiracy.

Now interestingly in regard to Castro's remarks - the most recent public remarks he had made about the U.S. and JFK were to the effect that their had been attempts to assassinate him using Cuban exiles and JFK really needed to be concerned that those people were dangerous and out of control and might become a threat to the President if they became too frustrated - that would be sort of an out of the box spin on things.  

In regard to Ben's last point, it is interesting that in his later years, Martino appeared to have had some thoughts that those involved might have been told some things were going to happen which did not and there was some suspicion that they had been manipulated.  The idea that those "above" simply wanted to get rid of JFK and certainly not start a war with Cuba or Russia for that matter and had a separate agenda than those in the tactical part of the attack has come up from a couple of sources.

 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

The idea that those "above" simply wanted to get rid of JFK and certainly not start a war with Cuba or Russia for that matter and had a separate agenda than those in the tactical part of the attack has come up from a couple of sources.

 

I’ve been thinking about this scenario as well. The CIA agents on the ground saw the anger from the more militant anti-Castro Cubans, possibly fed them the info about JFK’s initial attempt to normalize relations with Cuba, and suggested this was their last chance to save their homeland.

tbh I can see this line of persuasion working. I grew up with Irish grandparents who ‘passed the hat’ at pubs and church events for the early IRA that ended up succeeding in partially kicking out the Brits. They were fully supportive of action to take the rest of Ireland the rest of their lives.

Wondering where the Odio story fits into this? I tend to believe the sisters but it seems like an awful security breach for anything by professionals. But possibly the head honchos felt there were so many complex layers between them and the Cuban conspirators on the ground, it would be too difficult to make a direct connection.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Michaleen Kilroy]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Just for fun, you might get a kick out this "Face the Nation" with Richard Russell, 

A great time capsule, but also note Russell's rather honest assessment of Vietnam and his puzzlement at Cuba. 

Remember, Russell was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1951 to 1969, and considered a serious fellow (also, unfortunately, a racist).  And he is saying he does not understand what happened on Cuba, in this interview. 

Whatever happened in Dallas, Cuba was dropped like a hot potato after that. 

 

Yes that’s a lot of honest appraisal rarely seen these days for a politician of any stripe. I’ve always wondered the same thing - it was Cuba, Cuba, Cuba until JFK’s death then it wasn’t no more. And any POTUS who even dipped a toe in it got burned. So they stayed away.

[Matt Allison]

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well if Oswald had been told there was a false flag operation in play to stage an assassination attempt wit the goal of provoking military action against Cuba (what other goal would there be of a "failed" attempt to kill the President?) - the result of a successful fake attack would be clear - especially with Oswald himself being told to fire "missed" shots.

I'm not seeing why Oswald would be picked or think he was being pick to take fake shots at JFK without it being related to Cuba given his recent activities and his media image?

MA: It was definitely related to Cuba and he would have known that, and known that was why he was approached.

And even if he was given some deniability story about using a rifle not connected to him, if he had left his job and Dallas immediately after the shooting he would obviously be a prime suspect in some sort of conspiracy.

MA: I haven't seen any indication that Oswald would have been troubled by being implicated in a false flag. 

Now interestingly in regard to Castro's remarks - the most recent public remarks he had made about the U.S. and JFK were to the effect that their had been attempts to assassinate him using Cuban exiles and JFK really needed to be concerned that those people were dangerous and out of control and might become a threat to the President if they became too frustrated - that would be sort of an out of the box spin on things.  

MA: If we are to believe what we've been told about his Mexico City visit, Oswald got emotional and claimed he feared for his life in the US, showed them his handgun, and was desperate to get to Cuba.

In regard to Ben's last point, it is interesting that in his later years, Martino appeared to have had some thoughts that those involved might have been told some things were going to happen which did not and there was some suspicion that they had been manipulated.  The idea that those "above" simply wanted to get rid of JFK and certainly not start a war with Cuba or Russia for that matter and had a separate agenda than those in the tactical part of the attack has come up from a couple of sources.

MA: I would be quite surprised if those at JMWAVE were opposed to the idea of a war with Cuba, but who knows.

 

[Larry Hancock]

Matt,  to condense my points - if we assume he was told it was an operation to point a failed attack towards Castro - especially if he was asked to himself fire at the President but not hit him - he would have to accept that the result was intended to provoke a drastic political or military response towards Cuba.  Given that any deal extended to him to do that and reward him by helping get him into Cuba would certainly seem to put him right in the middle of a firestorm inside Cuba and seem to be contrary to his desire to get there in the first place. 

That was a motivation described in an early post how a way to bring him into such a plot.

In regard to the higher level individuals desiring to kill JFK but not start a war, I suspect that was a remark made about people above those CIA officers directly involved at JMWAVE.

 

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Matt,  to condense my points - if we assume he was told it was an operation to point a failed attack towards Castro - especially if he was asked to himself fire at the President but not hit him - he would have to accept that the result was intended to provoke a drastic political or military response towards Cuba. 

Yes, but I've not seen any indication that would have bothered him in the least.

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Given that any deal extended to him to do that and reward him by helping get him into Cuba would certainly seem to put him right in the middle of a firestorm inside Cuba and seem to be contrary to his desire to get there in the first place. 

Again, I don't know of any evidence that suggests this would have bothered him. He claimed he wanted to fight for Castro at one point.

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

In regard to the higher level individuals desiring to kill JFK but not start a war, I suspect that was a remark made about people above those CIA officers directly involved at JMWAVE.

Oh I'm sure there were plenty of the higher-ups at CIA that didn't want war with Cuba. Probably many that didn't want JFK killed, either. But I don't think our favorite suspects at JMWAVE really cared what those people thought.

 

It would be cool if you, and everyone else, would share with us what you speculate Oswald's role was. I agree that this type of conversation can be constructive, and I don't want to be the only one sharing my thoughts lol

[Larry Hancock]

Matt,  what I was getting at was that if Oswald truly supported Cuban socialism and the Castro regime,  hence he wanted to go to Cuba, I don't see how he would have wanted to participate in a false flag operation, including himself shooting, which was intended to provoke action against Cuba and oust the Castro regime.  That would be the Oswald taking a deal to actively participate in a false flag attack.

I also don't see how he would have thought he would be well received in Cuba if he was named as a suspect in attacking the President in the name of Cuba - something that would provoke all sorts of problems for the Castro regime even if the US did not respond militarily.  I can't see that he would find that acceptable to Cuba even if he didn't mind taking the blame?

My responses here are totally in regard to the False Flag premise - which many have proposed in the past but I don't seem ,many folks stepping in with details to support?

As to my thoughts on his role - I don't see him participating actively or even deniable in a false flag attack - although I do see him being manipulated and set up as a patsy without his knowledge.  But as has been pointed out in a separate thread, one major challenge to almost every scenario is a rifle tied to him showing up in the TSBD.  That's probably a tie breaker in the scenarios - and I wish I had the answer, at this point I don't.

I'll expand on what I think did happen in regard to setting up Oswald once David and I have the Red Bird Leads paper ready for general distribution,  sources and leads are what drives my own views so that needs to be done before I get ahead of the facts and context we are assembling

Edited September 28, 2021 by Larry Hancock

[Chuck Schwartz]

I agree with Larry when he says"I do see him (LHO) being manipulated and set up as a patsy without his knowledge"

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Matt,  what I was getting at was that if Oswald truly supported Cuban socialism and the Castro regime,  hence he wanted to go to Cuba, I don't see how he would have wanted to participate in a false flag operation, including himself shooting, which was intended to provoke action against Cuba and oust the Castro regime.  That would be the Oswald taking a deal to actively participate in a false flag attack.

I also don't see how he would have thought he would be well received in Cuba if he was named as a suspect in attacking the President in the name of Cuba - something that would provoke all sorts of problems for the Castro regime even if the US did not respond militarily.  I can't see that he would find that acceptable to Cuba even if he didn't mind taking the blame?

My responses here are totally in regard to the False Flag premise - which many have proposed in the past but I don't seem ,many folks stepping in with details to support?

As to my thoughts on his role - I don't see him participating actively or even deniable in a false flag attack - although I do see him being manipulated and set up as a patsy without his knowledge.  But as has been pointed out in a separate thread, one major challenge to almost every scenario is a rifle tied to him showing up in the TSBD.  That's probably a tie breaker in the scenarios - and I wish I had the answer, at this point I don't.

I'll expand on what I think did happen in regard to setting up Oswald once David and I have the Red Bird Leads paper ready for general distribution,  sources and leads are what drives my own views so that needs to be done before I get ahead of the facts and context we are assembling

A JFKA explanation that holds water may have to rest upon some actors not acting rationally...which tends to undermine even the true explanation's power, in cool-thinking retrospect. 

Lack of logic is everywhere: Even the "lone nut" explanation rests upon LHO leaving incriminating evidence at the scene, and carrying a wallet with both his identities inside---let alone shooting the President from his place of employment (why not cross the street and shoot from the roof of the Dal-Tex building)? 

I posit LHO was desperate for a break in life. Having lived in rooming houses, and having run a struggling furniture business for 20 years, I can assure readers that logic does not always govern human behavior.

Also, promises of something better, huge upsides, are part-and-parcel of the con-man's tool-kit. Every financial rip-off follows that format. The conned want to believe. 

Suppose we first posit that LHO was conned into an operation.  LHO was told there would be huge upside for participating in a JFKA event, and the risks would be handled. After all, the CIA can provide a new identity, and blunt investigations with false trails, or close off certain avenues by positing "national security." 

And LHO wanted to believe in a huge upside. He needed a lucky break. That led to poor judgement on LHO's part. After all,  we are talking about a guy who slit his wrists in Moscow. Probably took a fake potshot at Walker. Waved a gun around in the Russian Embassy. 

So, if we accept that LHO was not acting rationally....then we can accept LHO being conned into fake false-flag JFKA.

Yes, LHO wanted to start a new life. His participation in a fake false-flag JFKA would deliver that---he thought. 

Of course, I am only speculating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matt Allison]

54 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I agree with Larry when he says"I do see him (LHO) being manipulated and set up as a patsy without his knowledge"

Lots of people do and that's great. But unless a plausible scenario is presented that can show it's possible, we're likely to just be described as conspiracy theorists.

[Larry Hancock]

So Ben,  if I understand it, in that view Oswald was made an offer by somebody he trusts inside the agency to join in a False Flag attack,  shoot at the president,  not hit him, and then be taken away to go into seclusion with a ton of money in the bank and just enjoy the next few decades living a great life without working.  Certainly he would have to buy into being a total recluse to protect himself and the Agency as part of such an agreement - or is there something else that would come into play afterwards? 

He brings in his own weapon, knowing that he will be the symbol of the attack, it will all point towards Cuba and in retribution JFK will be forced to take some strong action against the threat Cuba represents - perhaps not invasion if Oswald was just a lone nut and only influenced by Castro.  Or was he supposed to be part of a Castro hit team in which case a military response would be fully justified?

So Oswald is totally duped, guilty of shooting but not trying to kill JFK and after being taken into custody and charged with murder - certainly knowing he is going down because of what he left in the TSBD -  he stays calm, plays ball, and accepts what's coming for him probably due to what - fear of being assassinated if he talked.  But of course that didn't work out for him, he would have to at least consider he was too great a risk to the Agency to let live anyway?  

Just interested in seeing a fleshed out version of the False Flag/Oswald totally involved scenario that you are thinking about...its an option that has always intrigued me.

 

 

[Matt Allison]

Perhaps it was presented as a protest type of thing. Stevenson got spit on a few weeks earlier by right-wingers, so maybe the idea of Castroites creating a bigger incident wasn't that surprising. 

Jack Ruby seemed to expect some sort of incident, as he asked Arlen Fuhlendorf if he wanted to "watch the fireworks" from the Post Office steps as the motorcade rolled through Dealey Plaza.