Jump to content
The Education Forum

Leading arguments Oswald was innocent/guilty of personally shooting/killing JFK


Recommended Posts

Also Claude--on Frazier saying Lee told him he was buying his lunch that day, note that testimony is months later. I read some of Wesley's testimony as him reconstructing what he thought was going on, and attributing that to Lee. "What's that in the bag there Lee?" (no answer from Lee) "Oh, I remember, you said you were going to get some curtain rods, right" (from which Frazier reasons Lee must be buying his lunch that day, from which Frazier reconstructs in memory months later Lee telling him that).

In fact Lee did not buy his lunch that day as is clear, and the only source for his lunch was the bag he carried with him that morning. So he must have brought his lunch with him. The only issue then is whether Wesley Frazier remembered rightly or wrongly Oswald telling him he was not bringing any lunch, not that Oswald did bring a lunch. I think Frazier could remember wrongly or mistakenly on the exact wording, without meaning Frazier was being untruthful (which involves intent). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Still wondering why we have to believe that the Carcano had to have been disassembled to get it into the TSBD...there may be other ways an assembled Carcano could have been taken into the TSBD (one example by Greg)...? Perhaps this assumption needs more exploration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian,

I stated my hypothesis about the carcano in the ...Package.... thread. LHO IS complicit in the murder of JFK. Many forum members are vested in LHO's innocence, therefore are resistant to the possibility of LHO bringing a weapon to the TSBD on the 22nd. Time for a thought experiment. I'm a conspirator in the assassination of JFK. I want to lay the blame for JFK's murder at the feet of LHO. How do I do that? You already know a lot about your prospective patsy. He's been to Russia, has Marxist leanings and he wants to get to Cuba, join the revolution. As stated by RC Nagell, wouldn't it make sense to approach LHO as a Castro G2 agent. Dangle the possibility of fulfilling his dreams of joining the revolution in exchange for help in eliminating a Castro nemesis. And with the promise that LHO doesn't even have to fire a shot. This scenario might explain LHO's presence at RedBird airport with his confederates. Now, as a means of assuring his participation in the plot. He's told to disassemble the carcano, package each section separately with the agreement that LHO brings one part and his confederate(s) bring the other part. The confederates take care of the rest with LHO given a promise of becoming a revolutionary. BTW having the barrel and scope sighted at the Irving gun shop lends credence to the scenario that the rifle was indeed fired and not just a prop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why it is implausible that Oswald would have thought he was helping Castro by assassinating JFK

Claude, I cannot understand the idea that Oswald would be part of killing JFK out of love for the Cuban revolution, whether on his own or at the instigation of real or fake Castro agents—unless there are also invoked ad hoc assumptions of irrationality on Oswald's part for which there is no evidence.

There is some logic and rationality for the US directly or through third parties to get rid of Castro, for those plans involved followup and regime change in Cuba, whether with or without invasion, favorable to US interests. Assuming there was no war with the USSR or other unacceptable costs, killing Castro would advance US interests in this calculus. 

But it does not work in reverse. Castro knew the Kennedy administration was trying to kill him and Castro could bluff and say, "you better look out yourself" hoping his letting them know that he knew, and might retaliate (by means of some terror attack or killing on some lower level, would be the logical interpretation of that) . . . but there is no rational sense for Castro to actually assassinate JFK, because it would not be followed by regime change in the US favorable to Cuba's interests. On the contrary it would unleash the wrath of God on Cuba from the US. Cuba would risk annihilation. Unless Castro had kamikaze logic he would be deterred, on any rational grounds, in a way that is not the reverse with the US trying to kill Castro.

Oswald knew that. His writings show he was intelligent and reasoned rationally. He said himself directly in his interrogation that changing one US president for another was unlikely to make a difference in policy toward Cuba.  

Even if real or fictitious Castro agents--they could not be real on the reasonable assumption that Castro was no kamikaze and was not suicidal, so would have to be impersonators--told Oswald that a killing of JFK is what Castro wanted done, how would Oswald reason in his own mind that the revolution in Cuba was going to benefit? There is no reasonable calculation of a benefit to the Cuban revolution from a Castro assassination of Kennedy. It would not have a public relations benefit of killing a hated evil figure—JFK was loved by the world! Therefore one can only postulate this kind of scenario or logic with Oswald by invoking an additional component of irrationality. But the problem is there is no plausibility or grounds for such an assumption. Where in Oswald's makeup or writings or words to those who knew him is there indication of irrationality? There isn't. 

It is unclear that the Walker assassination attempt was a real assassination attempt as opposed to a fabricated one as some Dallas police thought, but if it was real there would be a certain logic to it. With Walker, he was viewed like a potential Hitler. Assassination of Hitler of Germany would have meant policy differences likely in Germany. Even if it was still Na-zis running Germany the main charismatic one would be gone and other Na-zis did not necessarily share the same military strategies or ambitions. But killing Kennedy in order to have LBJ as president instead, as making a difference for the better for Cuba? Especially if Castro was held responsible for the killing? That makes no sense.

And who might the alleged impersonating Castro agents be, influencing Oswald? None of the known associates or contacts of Oswald in Dallas or New Orleans are easily identifiable in that category, meaning such a theory has to further suppose or invoke secret associates, secret contacts, unknown in all the known information about Oswald.

And Oswald never said a word against Kennedy! All who knew him said he loved Kennedy! 

Yes there is a case for Oswald dreaming of ending up in Cuba. But killing Kennedy as the price of getting there? Makes little sense. 

There is also a case that Oswald was a US agent, with leftist views that were real enough but still working for US agencies underneath the optics, including when he was in the Soviet Union as a defector, perhaps for the specific purpose and intent of being recruited as a Soviet agent and serving as a double agent for the US (that would make sense of some things). Oswald pointedly did not defend Soviet aggressions in the world, and pointedly did not advocate violent revolution in his personal papers, though he did write of what might be called a left-libertarian vision something like democratic socialism minus a powerful state. A theory that Oswald was used, chewed up and spit out, an imperfect covert agent because he did not do well with authority or state apparatuses and thereby made himself disposable as opposed to dependable ... would that be an approximate description of Oswald?       

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...