How did Oswald just happened to get a job at the place where he was needed to be the patsy?

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Sandy,

Some people seem to ignore the meaning of the word “conspire” when it suits them. The etymology of the word is instructive:

“late Middle English: from Old French conspirer, from Latin conspirare ‘agree, plot’, from con- ‘together with’ + spirare ‘breathe’.”

It relates to the word “whisper” which is “to speak very quietly, using the breath but not the voice, so that only the person close to you can year you” (Cambridge Dictionary)

Hence, people who look for “hard evidence” of conspiracy are talking nonsense.

The conspirators who were so powerful as to be able to bypass FBI boss Hoover apparently – as Douglass described it – and prevail on Hoover’s subordinate Gheesling to remove Oswald from the watchlist and his other subordinates to falsify witness statements, for example, could easily exert “downward causation” so as to intimate by nods winks and whispers through intermediaries to someone like Linnie Mae Randle that important people want someone placed in such a place to carry out top secret work for the government.

Most people “go along to get along” and most people know that there are certain things you must go along with if you don’t want your life destroyed. That’s how our authoritarian societies work, and Cold War America was very authoritarian.

That may explain Linnie Mae Randle’s persistent evasiveness in her WC testimony in her responses to questions on the topic of Oswald getting a job in the TSBD arose and who raised it.

In the following extract from LM Randle’s testimony Joseph Ball puts eight questions to her. I have numbered each of these questions. Randle’s responses to three of these questions, numbers 5, 7 and 8, which are particularly pertinent to the above mentioned topic and which I have highlighted, are overtly evasive.

Her responses to questions 1, 2 are also evasive, though less overtly so.

Her replies to the remaining three questions, numbers 3, 4 and 6, are straightforward, but these questions are topic-neutral and so her replies don’t shed any light on the matter.

In the following extract I’ve highlighted the relevant exchanges in the following extract from her testimony:

1.    Mr. BALL. Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee Oswald? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby. Of course. I didn't know where he was or anything. And of course you know just being neighborly and everything, we felt sorry for Marina because her baby was due right away as we understood it, and he didn't have any work, so they said, so it was just-- 
2.    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation. 
3.    Mr. BALL. Marina didn't take part in the conversation? 
Mrs. RANDLE. No. She couldn't. So far as I know, she couldn't speak. 
4.    Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. 
5.    Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work. 
So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned. 
6.    Mr. BALL. What were some of the other places mentioned? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am. It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service. 
Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I mentioned those. 
7.    Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there. 
8.    Mr. BALL. But did you mention it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening…

They do indeed seem evasive, and I suppose there could be sinister reasons, or others. Her brother worked there, and lived with her. She doesn’t answer the question about mentioning TSBD, but it seems likely that she did. Is there evidence that her brother and Shelley were acquainted? I would need to comb through his testimony, but thought someone might know. 
It makes sense to put the patsy in place, and any that were part of doing so wouldn’t need to know why. 

I noticed that Matt didn’t respond to my request for clarification. He is one of many rude posters that have joined in here. What motivates them? Does anyone else wonder? Is it just a reflection of the breakdown of civil discourse in the US? 

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

By this point , it's obvious to Linnie Mae who and how Oswald got the job is a "big deal'.

Yes, I don't think there's any doubt Linnie Mae Randle felt horrible about her innocuous statement at a coffee chat leading to employment for the accused assassin of the President. That is precisely how any normal person would feel.

[Jonathan Cohen]

32 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I noticed that Matt didn’t respond to my request for clarification. He is one of many rude posters that have joined in here. What motivates them? Does anyone else wonder? Is it just a reflection of the breakdown of civil discourse in the US? 

Paul, I presume you're referring to me as one of the rude posters? My motivation is that many people on this forum make bold assertions that are not based on actual evidence but rather a seemingly endless supply of what-ifs, maybes and grasping at staws. They appear to blindly believe in preposterous conspiracy theories that have perfectly reasonable, alternative explanations. It makes the research community look foolish.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Jonathan Cohen

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Interesting.   Cite about the application please.

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

Some recently arrived posters here seem to exist

only to needle people and insult them for their

views. I would encourage such posters to contribute

more meaningfully to the site by offering research

and ideas of their own instead of just popping up

regularly to mock or attack other people without

adding anything substantial to the discussion. Debate

is valuable, but it should be well-informed and not

just insults without substance. Just saying someone

is wrong (or making personal insults) is meaningless without

offering contrary evidence that holds up under scrutiny.

 

Michael Griffith, on the other hand, actually offers views of his own

backed up by scholarly research. Some of us may

disagree with him or think he leaves out contrary

evidence, but he contributes meaningfully. Jim DiEugenio

has engaged him with, in my view, highly knowledgeable

and fuller, more accurate views. That kind of discourse

is welcome. But it's unfortunate that when I posted

views disagreeing with Griffith's, he wrote that he

he wants to stifle and prevent contrary views, such as mine.

That is contrary to the spirit of civil discourse.

The moderators, unfortunately, have been silent on that issue.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Some recently arrived posters here seem to exist

only to needle people and insult them for their

views. I would encourage such posters to contribute

more meaningfully to the site by offering research

and ideas of their own instead of just popping up

regularly to mock or attack other people without

adding anything substantial to the discussion. Debate

is valuable, but it should be well-informed and not

just insults without substance. Just saying someone

is wrong (or making personal insults) is meaningless without

offering contrary evidence that holds up under scrutiny.

 

Michael Griffith, on the other hand, actually offers views of his own

backed up by scholarly research. Some of us may

disagree with him or think he leaves out contrary

evidence, but he contributes meaningfully. Jim DiEugenio

has engaged him with, in my view, highly knowledgeable

and fuller, more accurate views. That kind of discourse

is welcome. But it's unfortunate that when I posted

views disagreeing with Griffith's, he wrote that he

he wants to stifle and prevent contrary views, such as mine.

That is contrary to the spirit of civil discourse.

25 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

The moderators, unfortunately, have been silent on that issue.

 

Joseph,

One of the posters you speak of is Jonathan Cohen. And as a moderator, he is on my radar. (Take this as an informal warning, Jonathan.) But I didn't see Michael Griffith's post that you found offensive. If you have an issue with a post, you should report it so that moderators are aware of it.

On the other hand, we can't expect every post to be perfectly fair. I think you should report only posts that are particularly offensive, or ones that occur repeatedly.

 

[Joseph McBride]

Sandy, Here is the exchange that contains Michael

Griffith's offensive post trying to stifle

free speech on this site. I included a note

to the moderators as a response. -- Joe McBride

 

Michael Griffith

• 
• Members
• •  283
• Gender:Male
• Location:Virginia
• Interests:religion, history, politics

• Author

Posted Tuesday at 03:55 PM

   On 10/25/2022 at 2:17 PM,  Joseph McBride said: 

Noam Chomsky -- who has claimed he would never write about

two subjects, the JFK assassination and 9/11, although he

actually has written two books about both -- writes in

his book attacking Oliver Stone's JFK that the US "won"

the war in Vietnam not in the military sense but in the

sense that the people who perpetrated it made out

like bandits, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower

warned about. Halliburton was a major player in Vietnam

as in the Iraq War, etc. Also, Stone's film mentions by name

Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics (both also Texas

firms). Wars are a way of ripping off the taxpayers

and funneling vast sums of money to the military

contractors who support those in power; the

profiteers don't care how many Americans or

foreigners are killed.

 

LBJ was put in power to expand the war in Vietnam.

He knew the war couldn't be won from the spring

of 1964 onward, at least, but felt powerless to stop expanding it. Around the time

JFK was being declared dead at Parkland, LBJ

was in a secluded part of the hospital making

a call to his tax lawyer in Houston, J. Waddy Bullion,

lamenting, "Oh, I gotta get rid of my goddamn Halliburton

stock." But ultimately LBJ did not have to do so, because

he monitored his so-called "blind trust" from telephone

lines in the Oval Office and the LBJ Ranch to deal

on trades involving his stock holdings. Waddy Bullion

was one of the trustees.

The US has not "won" a war since 1945 (when

we won World War II with the major help of the USSR and our other

allies), unless you count the farcical attack on the tiny island of Grenada

in the Reagan years. We lost in Korea and Vietnam

and in the Middle East, but the military-industrial complex

keeps getting richer. It is no concidence that the last

war we actually won in the conventional sense was

the last time we declared war. Since then all the wars we have

fought have been illegal under the Constitution, which is

routinely ignored.

If you want to share your far-left views about the Vietnam War, this is not the thread to do so. Chomsky is an abject loon. Anyway, we're talking about the point that if the plotters viewed the Vietnam War as a major motive to kill JFK, it is very hard to understand why they let LBJ so horribly mismanage the war effort. So, there are two possibilities: (1) Vietnam was not a vital issue for the majority of the plotters, or (2) the plotters were not powerful enough to control LBJ's handling of the war effort. 

I've answered many of your claims about the war in my "Oliver Stone's New JFK Documentaries and the Vietnam War" thread.

•  
• Quote

Joseph McBride

• 
• Members
• •  1.1k
• Gender:Male

 

Posted Tuesday at 04:55 PM (edited)

Note to Moderators: Michael Griffith is telling me I can't

share my political views on this thread. Naturally I will

keep doing so, as I always do, everywhere I am. But I object to his attempt to stifle free

speech on this forum. What will the moderators do

about that?

Edited Tuesday at 06:06 PM by Joseph McBride

•  

Edited October 31, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[John Cotter]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

They do indeed seem evasive, and I suppose there could be sinister reasons, or others. Her brother worked there, and lived with her. She doesn’t answer the question about mentioning TSBD, but it seems likely that she did. Is there evidence that her brother and Shelley were acquainted? I would need to comb through his testimony, but thought someone might know. 
It makes sense to put the patsy in place, and any that were part of doing so wouldn’t need to know why. 

I noticed that Matt didn’t respond to my request for clarification. He is one of many rude posters that have joined in here. What motivates them? Does anyone else wonder? Is it just a reflection of the breakdown of civil discourse in the US? 

Paul,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. Please excuse my not responding direct to your previous post addressed to me. However, I think I answered the points you raised in replies to others.

The topic of the thread is “How did Oswald just happen to get a job at the place where he was needed to be the patsy?” My way of dealing with the question was mainly by reference to four paragraphs in James Douglass’s book.

I won’t repeat those paragraphs or my comments on them here. The gist of my argument is that (a) the evidence presented in those four paragraphs points to Oswald being controlled by the conspirators from before he got the TSBD job to the day of the JFKA and (b) therefore the conspirators were instrumental in him getting the job.  

After I had submitted this argument, Jonathan Cohen addressed me as follows:

“Please detail any evidence whatsoever that Oswald was being "controlled" by anyone in the weeks prior to the assassination.”

The definition of “evidence” in my copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Law is “That which tends to prove the existence or nonexistence of some fact”.

I don’t see how anyone could credibly claim that the combination of facts and inferences drawn therefrom which I had presented did not constitute “evidence”. (The key fact among others was Oswald being removed from the watchlist.)

That being the case, Jonathan Cohen was out of order to imply that no evidence “whatsoever” had been presented. It would have been a different matter if he had identified flaws in my argument, but he didn’t. (It’s worth noting that Matt didn’t either.)

The irony of this is that by not rebutting my argument and instead treating it as non-existent, he validated the argument. I should add that in saying this, I’m not claiming my argument is irrefutable.

That’s where the matter stands as far as I can see.

Edited October 31, 2022 by John Cotter

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

 

 

Thank you Matt.   So is it possible the application was just to get access to the roof for a shot at JFK? This might show premeditation on Oswald’s part. But this action hardly indicates RP or anyone else if he applied without any assistance from anyone.   Any more comments on this Matt?

[Matt Allison]

8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Any more comments on this Matt?

Recall that after New Orleans, Oswald originally planned to move to the Washington D.C./Baltimore area. If you consider that the general way of setting up Oswald was to have him "available" for use in a "scenario", then this jibes with that M.O.

Any person or persons looking to commit an assassination on JFK was always at the mercy of WH travel plans. No one had control over that other than Kennedy's closest and most trusted advisors.

Therefore getting the actual shooting accomplished required nimbleness, and being able to act within a small amount of time. That's why there was likely a potential scenario in any city JFK visited. Like the ones we already know about for sure: Chicago, Tampa, Miami, and Dallas.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

 

 

Boy, that is a fascinating document. 

Of course, the number of LHO sightings post-JFKA is legion.

And would LHO actually ask if one could see DT Dallas from the parking garage, or just go up and look? 

On the other hand a parking garage is probably a lot easier from which to shoot at someone and then escape, than an old enclosed building, such as the TSBD.  

Thanks for sharing....does the parking garage overlook the motorcade route? 

 

[Matt Allison]

21 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

But this action hardly indicates RP or anyone else if he applied without any assistance from anyone.   Any more comments on this Matt?

The idea that Ruth Paine set up Oswald at the TSBD to shoot JFK is pure nonsense.

Whoever originally floated the idea in the 60s was either uninformed and misguided, or was trying throw out a red herring to lead researchers on a goose chase and ultimately into a dead end.

Whatever it was, it got repeated enough times to become dogma, and therefore anyone questioning it was deemed a heretic.

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Recall that after New Orleans, Oswald originally planned to move to the Washington D.C./Baltimore area. If you consider that the general way of setting up Oswald was to have him "available" for use in a "scenario", then this jibes with that M.O.

Any person or persons looking to commit an assassination on JFK was always at the mercy of WH travel plans. No one had control over that other than Kennedy's closest and most trusted advisors.

Therefore getting the actual shooting accomplished required nimbleness, and being able to act within a small amount of time. That's why there was likely a potential scenario in any city JFK visited. Like the ones we already know about for sure: Chicago, Tampa, Miami, and Dallas.

Matt:

I think that is right, the actual assassination team was very small and nimble. We may be talking about two people. 

They could travel, and leverage local resources. 

This does not preclude higher-ups, but does not necessarily include higher-ups. 

In fact the truth may be in the middle: Someone high up says something like, "Do what you have to do to protect national security and I don't want to know about it." 

A lawyer once told me to, "Never put into writing what can be said, and never say anything if a nod will suffice, and never nod if a blank stare works." 

[Matt Allison]

edit: deleted

eh, didn't really add to the conversation.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Matt Allison

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

The idea that Ruth Paine set up Oswald at the TSBD to shoot JFK is pure nonsense.

Whoever originally floated the idea in the 60s was either uninformed and misguided, or was trying throw out a red herring to lead researchers on a goose chase and ultimately into a dead end.

Whatever it was, it got repeated enough times to become dogma, and therefore anyone questioning it was deemed a heretic.

Well said Matt.