Can Oswald's denials be reconciled with the Lone Nut position?

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 6:14 AM, Tom Gram said:

I did not ignore your theory. I just think it’s absurd. I’ll paraphrase what I wrote in another thread:

You want us to believe that 1) a completely delusional, psychotic, suicidal Oswald murders a President to win some sort of twisted approval his wife and the Cubans; and 2) Oswald has a epiphany upon his arrest, hatches a master plan to become famous, and becomes a completely rational Oscar worthy actor in the span of about 20 minutes. 

This “motive” isn’t only inconsistent with the lone assassin theory, it’s just inconsistent, period. You have pure emotionally fueled delusion and desperation to the point of murdering a cop in an attempt to escape transforming into pure rationality and opportunism so quickly it’s ridiculous. 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 8:16 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Lance,

Your argument is irrelevant because the the part of your premise I highlighted is false. The evidence clearly shows -- many times over -- that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.

For example, a gunshot residue test on Oswald's cheek showed that he did not fire a rifle earlier that day.

Another example is that the gaping wound on the back of JFK's head -- as witnessed and corroborated by ~20 Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses -- was located in a position that could not have have come from the Texas School Book Depository.

 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe Oswald pictured an elaborate trial that would cement his place in history as he explained, under the sympathetic questioning of Abt, his own brilliant political philosophy, the glories of Marxism and Castro’s Cuba, and the failings of capitalism in the U.S. and Leninism in the USSR.

Right. I said essentially the same thing in a blog post but you said it better:

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-LHO Would Have Admitted Guilt? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

My point is simply that conspiracy theorists point toward Oswald's denials as evidence of his innocence, and I believe his denials are completely consistent with his guilt.

I'll grant you that. But it's a two-way street. You should also add that many if not most LNs have incorrectly claimed Oswald smirked in self-satisfaction during the midnight press conference. 

It's not possible to determine his guilt/innocence by his behavior once in custody. Agreed? 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

My point is simply that conspiracy theorists point toward Oswald's denials as evidence of his innocence, and I believe his denials are completely consistent with his guilt.

Yes, I agree. And not only are Oswald's denials completely consistent with his guilt (IMO), but his actions right after the assassination are most certainly consistent with his guilt as well. E.G., fleeing the TSBD within minutes of the JFK shooting; going home to get a gun; killing J.D. Tippit; and all the lies he dished up to the police after his arrest.

Plus: Those actions are also totally consistent with his denying he killed Kennedy too. He obviously didn't want to be caught. So he ran. And then he denied his guilt after he was caught.

When people ask: Why didn't Oswald confess if he was wanting to become famous for his crime?

I think he probably wanted to play the part of the "Innocent Patsy" to the hilt for a while longer (maybe forever). But it's possible he would have confessed at some point down the road, but since he was killed just two days later, we'll never know.

But also keep in mind that by just playing the part of the "Patsy", Oswald was still becoming ultra-famous.

So he knew he didn't have to shout "I did it" from the rooftops to gain the fame and attention he might have been seeking. Just by clamming up and NOT confessing and pretending to be the snow-white patsy was serving his "fame" purposes just fine, thank you.

 

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 8:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

I'll grant you that. But it's a two-way street. You should also add that many if not most LNs have incorrectly claimed Oswald smirked in self-satisfaction during the midnight press conference. 

It's not possible to determine his guilt/innocence by his behavior once in custody. Agreed? 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[W. Tracy Parnell]

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Your argument is irrelevant because the the part of your premise I highlighted is false. The evidence clearly shows -- many times over -- that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.

When will you be contacting the media to let them know? I hear Morley can get you a good rate at the National Press Club.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But it's possible he would have confessed at some point down the road, but since he was killed just two days later, we'll never know.

I think he would have confessed to avoid the death penalty (given that option). He could always recant later ala James Earl Ray.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Honest to God, this is too funny. No need to discuss the question posed in my original post because - well, hey, we all know Oswald was not in fact a lone assassin! It's so simple one has to wonder why forums like this even exist. Curiously, just yesterday - no, really - when I was reading a couple of posts discussing some detail of the conspiracy, the thought occurred to me "Do you realize how many completely unproven assumptions you have articulated in your lead-up to the obscure detail you wish to discuss?"

Yes, we know you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks Oswald standing on the steps of the TSBD would just be par for the course in the fiendish conspiracy. My point is simply that conspiracy theorists point toward Oswald's denials as evidence of his innocence, and I believe his denials are completely consistent with his guilt.

 

Well if you want to pretend that Oswald killed Kennedy for the sake of argument, go right ahead. I just see no point in it. It's like arguing why gravity on (pretend) flat-Earth has stronger pull on the ocean than on a flea.

 

3 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Imagine the reaction if I replied to every conspiracy-related thread with "Your point is irrelevant because there was no conspiracy." Gee, that was helpful.

 

The difference is that I gave evidence showing that Oswald did not kill Kennedy. You gave zero evidence showing that there was no conspiracy.

 

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The difference is that I gave evidence showing that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Can you summarize that bombshell evidence again, Sandy? I think I missed it. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 8:49 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well if you want to pretend that Oswald killed Kennedy for the sake of argument, go right ahead. I just see no point in it. It's like arguing why gravity on (pretend) flat-Earth has stronger pull on the ocean than on a flea.

 

 

The difference is that I gave evidence showing that Oswald did not kill Kennedy. You gave zero evidence showing that there was no conspiracy.

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Matthew Koch]

25 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

BTW, have you yet convinced any reputable publication, ideally a peer-reviewed one, to give space to your irrefutable proof (of something, I can't recall what) regarding discrepancies in Oswald's dental and school records?

You are rather arrogant for someone who's position was debunked by their own side.. 

 

[David Von Pein]

43 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

You [Lance Payette] are rather arrogant for someone [whose] position was debunked by their own side.

Only a person who demands 100% to-the-inch perfection in a Single-Bullet Theory re-creation like the one performed in October 2004 in "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"  would think that the SBT was actually "debunked" in that program.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

On 12/13/2022 at 9:27 AM, Matthew Koch said:

You are rather arrogant for someone who's position was debunked by their own side.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Matthew Koch]

24 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I asked Sandy an honest question. At one time, he was touting proof on both these issues. As I recall, the dental records associated with the exhumed Oswald were definitively not those of Oswald the Marine (even though the actual medical experts said they were). In other words, Harvey & Lee stuff. He was challenged back then to take his analysis to a reputable publication. Like all conspiracy "breakthroughs" that cause a brouhaha for a time on forums such as this, these seem to have faded into the woodwork.

Now he comes at me with the "gunpowder residue" issue that I thought ceased being an issue 40 years ago. Good grief.

You have no idea what "my position" is. The SBT has most emphatically not been "debunked." I'm not 110% convinced the SBT is essential to the Lone Nut explanation. I'm not even 110% convinced that more than two shots were fired. With a complex event such as this, we will never know exactly what happened, and those circumstances will never be exactly duplicated in an attempted recreation. If you must know, the video that actually caused my jaw to drop was a Carcano bullet being fired through 21" of solid pine and looking as pristine as the Magic Bullet. Proves nothing, but it was pretty amazing.

In case no one noticed, you went the familiar conspiracist route of ignoring the subject of the thread and launching into an unrelated "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" argument. And so it goes.

My arrogant comment was in regards to your LBJ laser beam, Big Foot comments.. 

You have written enough for me to know what your position is.. If you think you are original by giving the conspiracy theorist a bone so that you can beat them over the head with other stuff that is off topic like a lawyer does.. your not. 

Well when your premise (THE SBT) is that the wounds will line up if the people are put in the anatomical positions, and a test is done for that which disproves that (bullet exists JFK chest and strikes Connally in two ribs and not his armpit area) along with the fact that the bullet became damaged by the ribs, and the bullet did not have enough velocity to break the wrist bone and couldn't penetrate the thigh block. I would say that you are a lawyer that doesn't have a case. 

You never answered back about Occums Razor but if you want we can debate that because Lone Nutter theories don't hold up to scrutiny and are explained by more than one shooter.