Why Assassination Necessary

[Paul Troglia]

Why would a plot to kill JFK be necessary if the conspiracy was as all powerful as described throughout this forum? Why not let the masses believe in the power of the president, while they (the conspiracy) pull the strings, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[Jim Root]

Paul

Seldom in my life have I seen a question so well asked!

"Why would a plot to kill JFK be necessary if the conspiracy was as all powerful as described throughout this forum? Why not let the masses believe in the power of the president, while they (the conspiracy) pull the strings, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Your question not only leads to motive, it also shines light on how much, in the United States, has been lost since the assassination. While we, the type of people who post on these forums, want to give so much credit to potential "conspirators," we fail to accept that these potential "conspirators" exposed themselves as the men "behind the curtain." A great loss to themselves.

Or perhaps, that is what Oswald had in mind.

Jim Root

Edited January 6, 2005 by Jim Root

[Paul Troglia]

Wow, now That's a plot, Jim. Oswald knows about the worldwide conspiracy and has to shoot the president to reveal it. Still think the guy wasn't nuts?

[Pat Speer]

Your question is confusing to me, Paul. A group of people disliked JFK's policies and had him removed. It's as simple as that. Obviously, there was something they wanted to happen that could not happen as long as JFK was alive. We look for the clues as to what that was, and who it was, by reading, and trying to understand, history. In JFK's case, there are a number of suspects.

I, for one, have made no claims that the conspirators were all-powerful. You are correct to assume that an all powerful group of men could have snapped their fingers and simply made their puppet JFK behave. If your point is that there is no such all-powerful group I agree with you. If you are trying to stretch that into saying that therefore there was no murder conspiracy then you've lost me.

[Jim Root]

Paul

Drawing from Pascal's Wager:

Each person gets to decide what they feel is true about Oswald. Heads, he shot at Kennedy, Tails he did not. Depending upon what WE choose, heads or tails, there is the potential for two different outcomes. If we choose heads the coin could come up heads or tails. If we choose tails the coin could come up heads or tails. There are, in reality, two choices that create four potential outcomes. On any one flip of the coin you have a 50 - 50 chance of getting the right outcome. The only way you have a 50 - 50 chance of being correct on multiple flips is to always bet only one choice. But then, with an infinite number of flips, you will never improve upon your 50% odds. But in this game there is only one flip so WE will be either 100% right or 100% wrong no matter how strongly we believe.

Form a logical sense, I always like to keep that in mind.

Oswald is an interesting person to say the least. He is a self educated man who somehow got to and into the Soviet Union with remarkable ease, never having traveled out of the country on his own before. He returns to the United States, without some difficulty and finds himself at the center of a controversy that has raged now for over 40 yeaars.

I do not underestimate him at all.

Jim Root

PS How much do you know about Jonathon Abt the attorney Oswald wanted?

[Jack White]

Paul

Drawing from Pascal's Wager:

Each person gets to decide what they feel is true about Oswald.  Heads, he shot at Kennedy, Tails he did not.  Depending upon what WE choose, heads or tails, there is the potential for two different outcomes.  If we choose heads the coin could come up heads or tails.  If we choose tails the coin could come up heads or tails.  There are, in reality, two choices that create four potential outcomes.  On any one flip of the coin you have a 50 - 50 chance of getting the right outcome.  The only way you have a 50 - 50 chance of being correct on multiple flips is to always bet only one choice.  But then, with an infinite number of flips, you will never improve upon your 50% odds.  But in this game there is only one flip so WE will be either 100% right or 100% wrong no matter how strongly we believe.

Form a logical sense, I always like to keep that in mind.

Oswald is an interesting person to say the least.  He is a self educated man who somehow got to and into the Soviet Union with remarkable ease, never having traveled out of the country on his own before.  He returns to the United States, without some difficulty and finds himself at the center of a controversy that has raged now for over 40 yeaars.

I do not underestimate him at all.

Jim Root

PS  How much do you know about Jonathon Abt the attorney Oswald wanted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim...all your postings about "Oswald" indicate that you are unaware of

the TWO OSWALDS. You need to read John Armstrong's Harvey&Lee so

that you can distinguish between Harvey and Lee. Otherwise everything

you say is meaningless.

Jack

[Jim Root]

Jack

Unaware or undecided?

Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself. It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely. I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more.

I apologize if I have wasted your time with meaningless posts.

Jim Root

[Paul Troglia]

Jack

Unaware or undecided?

Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself.  It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely.  I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more.

I apologize if I have wasted your time with meaningless posts.

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jack White]

Jack

Unaware or undecided?

Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself.  It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely.  I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more.

I apologize if I have wasted your time with meaningless posts.

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim...you have wasted none of my time. But you are wasting YOUR time if

you choose not to become informed about the two Oswalds and the two

Marguerites. See attachment.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack

Unaware or undecided?

Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself.  It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely.  I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more.

I apologize if I have wasted your time with meaningless posts.

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim...you have wasted none of my time. But you are wasting YOUR time if

you choose not to become informed about the two Oswalds and the two

Marguerites. See attachment.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you aware of the multiple Marguerites?

Jack

[Paul Troglia]

Jim, your posts are not meaningless. In fact, they are provocative. However, the heads/tails thing escapes me. I guess I take too simple a view. The "raging" debate, really doesn't rage too much. A lot of people who weren't alive in 1963 now think Kennedy was killed by some elaborate conspiracy. They don't debate it, don't really know anything about it except to believe what everybody else believes. Certainly they have no passion, as those who write for this forum do. That's too bad, because in the end, the memory of a very vibrant leader who might have risen above the messy legend we read about today, gets bantered about in the same breath with Santos Traficante, Fidel Castro, et.al.

Anyhow, Oswald, that two-bit creep, is given credit, if that's the word, for brains, power, and strategy worthy of Boris Spassky, when, in fact, he was a nothing. Look at his grin in the Dallas jail. It speaks volumes.

[Dawn Meredith]

Great thread. Oswad is so fascinating, as we know so much, yet so little. Jack White's stuff blows my mind. I've always known there were many Oswalds, but never thought about Mom...god, how can anyone believe this was not a well thought out plot, with multiple back ups so that we'd still be guessing 41 years later?

Of course it was a group of "all powerful" leaders, but they are in conflict with other high level groups, so it is not just one group. Oglesby uses Civil war Yankee/Cowboy analysis and I agree most of the time with this, but think it's even more far reaching, and we two agree on this, that it's gotta be international, something Vince Salandria said decades ago.

So, why it DOES NOT matter to people is an UTTER mystry to me.

SO forums do matter. YOu find others who care as much as you do. And some who just say they do. You develop the instinct to know the difference. It's virtual spiritual warfare. But then, look at the damn wold....duh.

Dawn..

[Tim Gratz]

Anyhow, Oswald, that two-bit creep, is given credit, if that's the word, for brains, power, and strategy worthy of Boris Spassky, when, in fact, he was a nothing.  Look at his grin in the Dallas jail.  It speaks volumes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you call LHO a "two-bit creep" I think you must believe he played a role in the assassination. As posted in another thread, I think LHO was more intelligent than he was sometimes given credit for (this assessment of his intelligence is true whether or not he was involved in the assassination). Do not read too much into one smirk.

I am not sure myself if LHO had some participatory role in the assassination or was merely a "patsy". If he indeed played a role, it is unfortunate that those who strongly argue he was innocent are exonerating a man who played a role in such a heinous crime.

On the other hand, of course, if he was indeed an innocent patsy, how sad that he was himself murdered and how tragic that the current history books link his name to "the crime of the (20th) century".

[Jack White]

Anyhow, Oswald, that two-bit creep, is given credit, if that's the word, for brains, power, and strategy worthy of Boris Spassky, when, in fact, he was a nothing.  Look at his grin in the Dallas jail.  It speaks volumes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you call LHO a "two-bit creep" I think you must believe he played a role in the assassination. As posted in another thread, I think LHO was more intelligent than he was sometimes given credit for (this assessment of his intelligence is true whether or not he was involved in the assassination). Do not read too much into one smirk.

I am not sure myself if LHO had some participatory role in the assassination or was merely a "patsy". If he indeed played a role, it is unfortunate that those who strongly argue he was innocent are exonerating a man who played a role in such a heinous crime.

On the other hand, of course, if he was indeed an innocent patsy, how sad that he was himself murdered and how tragic that the current history books link his name to "the crime of the (20th) century".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody will understand LHO as long as they insist he was a single individual.

Both Lee and Harvey were agents. Harvey had assumed Lee's identity and

became the "patsy", and was killed by Ruby. Lee is likely alive today, living

in Florida under a fictitious name in a witness protection program.

Jack

Edited January 7, 2005 by Jack White

[Tim Gratz]

Anyhow, Oswald, that two-bit creep, is given credit, if that's the word, for brains, power, and strategy worthy of Boris Spassky, when, in fact, he was a nothing.  Look at his grin in the Dallas jail.  It speaks volumes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you call LHO a "two-bit creep" I think you must believe he played a role in the assassination. As posted in another thread, I think LHO was more intelligent than he was sometimes given credit for (this assessment of his intelligence is true whether or not he was involved in the assassination). Do not read too much into one smirk.

I am not sure myself if LHO had some participatory role in the assassination or was merely a "patsy". If he indeed played a role, it is unfortunate that those who strongly argue he was innocent are exonerating a man who played a role in such a heinous crime.

On the other hand, of course, if he was indeed an innocent patsy, how sad that he was himself murdered and how tragic that the current history books link his name to "the crime of the (20th) century".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody will understand LHO as long as they insist he was a single individual.

Both Lee and Harvey were agents. Harvey had assumed Lee's identity and

became the "patsy", and was killed by Ruby. Lee is likely alive today, living

in Florida under a fictitious name in a witness protection program.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack:

AS I said in another thread I can't wait to read the Armstrong book. (Please don't tell me Lee is in the Keys! Tampa, or St. Pete, would be better!)

Edited January 7, 2005 by Tim Gratz