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

[Calvin Ye]

Oswald is not an lone nut.

[Calvin Ye]

9 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Yes, I have to agree with you Kirk.

Also we are told on the Friday evening Ruby attempted to enter the office where Oswald was being interrogated and told by an officer "You can't go in there Jack" or words to that effect.  I would also like to have explained how this night club owner could know of Oswald's link to 'Fair Play for Cuba Committee' at the Friday midnight press interview.  I have also read that Ruby was seen on that Friday evening up on the 4th floor of the DPD HQ.  All these incidents don't indicate that Ruby's killing of Oswald was just pure chance and ideal timing.

Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that bullshit. He said, 'I damn sure do!' [Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm, [In this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said, "if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, you're gonna learn a lot." And that was the last letter I ever got from him. In the note, Ruby claimed he was part of a conspiracy, and that his role was to silence Oswald. Not long before Ruby died, according to an article in the London Times, he told psychiatrist Werner Teuter that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed". He added: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald.

Most strange to me is why such a character as Jolly West should be a visitor to Ruby in his jail cell.  Is it any wonder conspiracy theories abound in this case?

Pete, declassified documents revealed that Jolly West was only there to continued the MKULTRA experiments.

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/dec/19/mkruby/

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It has been up there for years on end.  And he only now is aware of it now that I posted it?

LOL, nice one Lance. 😜

I used to do SEO for some attorneys and know all about how shy they are about publicity. It's probably back linked to his site. Maybe I'll check.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Cory Santos]

22 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I agree. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Lance is right and Oswald was so emotionally fragile that he’d kill a President to either prove to his wife that he was a historically important figure, or prove to the Cubans who rejected his Visa application that he was a legit Marxist, possibly with the hope that he’d be let into Cuba. 

Let’s also consider the supposed Type I and Type II “political assassin profiles”. The obvious armchair psychology implication of Lance’s motive(s) is that Oswald had low self-esteem and the assassination was an emotional reaction to repeated belittling, failure and rejection. Type I describes a completely rational political fanatic, so we can comfortably toss that one out the window. Type II fits the bill though, since Lance is proposing that Oswald was trying to generate the attention he’d been denied in the past from Marina and/or the Cubans by killing JFK. So what’s the problem here? 

Oswald’s original plan could not have been to be taken into custody, otherwise we have a big, big, problem with the Tippit murder. Also, if he just wanted to go out in a blaze of glory he could have just kept running or turned the Texas Theater into the OK Corral. Thus, our best option is that Oswald originally intended to escape - and Cuba seems like a likely destination.

If we’re correct about Cuba, Oswald must have believed that he’d be welcomed with open arms and offered asylum or something after killing the American President. Is it reasonable to assume that Oswald was that much of an idiot? We’ll go with yes for now.  

Oswald’s plan fails miserably and he gets captured by the DPD after killing an officer in a desperate attempt to escape. He immediately has an epiphany that sharing his political philosophy with an American audience could fulfill his secondary Type II ideological needs, so he puts the emotions on hold that just drove him to double murder, channels an almost superhuman level of self-control and Oscar-worthy acting skills that let him outwit the best interrogators in the region, and decides to deny everything until he can espouse the virtues of Marxism in a high profile trial. 

TL:DR: Lance’s theory suggests that Oswald transformed from a purely emotional homicidal egomaniac with crippling anxiety into a purely rational political fanatic with the self control of a Zen master in the span of a couple minutes. 

Tom great point which I have noted in the past, that is, if Oswald was ok with capture to obtain publicity then why shoot Tippit?  He could have just been arrested by Tippit or at the Depository- no not the one Ruth thought he was at lol.  No, the fact that a squad car went by the boarding house and beeped was the key.  He knew something was not right.  He was trying to go somewhere with a purpose.  

[Pete Mellor]

On 12/14/2022 at 11:32 PM, Calvin Ye said:

Pete, declassified documents revealed that Jolly West was only there to continued the MKULTRA experiments.

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/dec/19/mkruby/

Thanks for that Calvin, interesting article on West, and how 1984ish can you get when his Ruby visit was requested by a Dr. Hubert Winston Smith!!  You couldn't make this stuff up.

I have recently read a book by Tom O'Neill 'Chaos-Charles Manson, the CIA and the Secret history of the Sixties'.  A work that uncovers Louis Jolyon West's presence, working in the same building that was regularly being visited by Charles Manson. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Pete Mellor
Typo

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Thanks for that Calvin, interesting article on West, and how 1984ish can you get when his Ruby visit was requested by a Dr. Hubert Winston Smith!!  You couldn't make this stuff up.

I have recently read a book by Tom O'Neill 'Chaos-Charles Manson, the CIA and the Secret history of the Sixties'.  A work that uncovers Louis Jolyon West's presence, working in the same building that was regularly being visited by Charles Manson. 

I just read O’Neill’s book too and really enjoyed it. I don’t see how anyone can take Vince Bugliosi seriously after reading it. 

[Pete Mellor]

12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I just read O’Neill’s book too and really enjoyed it. I don’t see how anyone can take Vince Bugliosi seriously after reading it. 

Agree Tom.  O'Neill put decades of research into his publication & made 'Helter Skelter' a work of fiction.  I would question just who Bugliosi was writing for....employed by the same agency as West.

  

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 12/12/2022 at 4:22 PM, Lance Payette said:

If Oswald single-handedly assassinated JFK, as I believe he did, why did he deny having done so after he was arrested? If he’d always believed he was destined for an important place in history, as I believe he did, why didn’t he bask in the limelight of being a Presidential assassin when he had the opportunity? Why didn’t he spew anti-American, pro-Cuba and pro-Marxist rhetoric when he had the chance?

According to the 22 November 1963 website, http://22november1963.org.uk/why-did-oswald-deny-shooting-jfk, for example, “If Oswald genuinely had been motivated by a desire to get his name in the history books, he could be expected to boast about his crime rather than repeatedly deny that he was responsible.”

Is this true? Is it a massive problem for the Lone Nut position?

I admit it’s at least “a” problem that cries out for a plausible Lone Nut explanation.

One such explanation, of course, is that Oswald was himself assassinated by Ruby less than 48 hours after being arrested. He’d had no legal representation and was still hoping to make contact with John Abt. Can we really be so sure he “could be expected to boast about his crime” during this short period if recognition were his motivation? I won’t belabor the point, but his denials scarcely seem to me to weigh heavily in favor of his innocence.

In American Assassins: The Darker Side of Politics, published by Princeton University Press in 1982, political scientist James W. Clarke identifies four psychological types of political assassins. You can find them summarized at https://www.unl.edu/eskridge/cj394assassins.html, which I’ve also copied below. I haven’t read Clarke’s book but would see Oswald as an amalgam of Type I and Type II.

Oswald may or may not have expected to survive. He may have hoped to survive, escape and somehow use the assassination as his ticket to Cuba after his previous failure in Mexico City. Or he may have believed the assassination would vindicate him to the Cubans and Marina even if he died in the process (to the Cubans by showing the sincerity of his Marxist convictions and to skeptical Marina by showing he really was the historically important figure he’d always claimed to be destined to be).

Having survived the assassination, but not escaped, I believe he was shrewd enough to realize he’d been handed a golden opportunity to cement his place in history. If he’d confessed, this would’ve been the end of the matter. He’d just be a modern Leon Czolgosz. (Who? Czolgosz was the anarchist who assassinated President McKinley.)

I believe the key to what Oswald was up to is found in his hope that John Abt would represent him. Abt was the chief legal counsel for the Communist Party USA. Oswald said he didn’t know Abt personally “but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act.” (The Smith Act criminalized advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.)

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. He wouldn’t be just another forgotten Czolgosz but a deep political thinker who had sacrificed himself to expose the corruption of both capitalism and communism. My belief is that he knew he was likely to be convicted, but he was going to go down in a historical blaze of glory that a confession would’ve made impossible.

Bear in mind as well that he could’ve expounded on his politics at trial while still maintaining his innocence as a “patsy” of the Dallas Police Department who’d been arrested only because he’d been a defector to the USSR. Indeed, the “patsy defense” would have afforded a perfect opportunity to expound on his politics.

Here are the types from Clarke's book and the above site:

AN ASSASSIN TYPOLOGY

Type I - Assassins view their acts as a probable sacrifice of self for a political ideal. They are fully cognizant and accepting of the meaning, implications and personal consequences of their acts. Inherently personal motives, such as a neurotic need for recognition, are secondary to their primary political purpose. Type I's may or may not attempt to escape, but the sacrificial theme that characterizes their zeal and commitment suggests that capture, like death, is an acceptable, if not
preferred, risk. Emotional distortion is present only to the extent that political ideals supersede survival instincts. If captured, the Type I does not recant on his or her motivating principles or seek clemency or personal publicity. Unlike Types II, III, and IV, their extremism is rational, selfless, principled and without perversity.

Type II - Assassins are persons with overwhelming and aggressive egocentric needs for acceptance, recognition and status.  There is none of the cognitive distortion associated with psychoses. Emotionally they are characterized by moderately high levels of reality-based anxiety that exerts a strong influence on their behavior. Without delusion, they fully appreciate and accept the personal consequences of their acts. The primary characteristic they share is called a "political" personality.  That is, a personality which is inclined to project personal motives on public objects and rationalize them in terms of some larger public interest.  Such persons seek power in order to compensate for low estimates of self are most frequently a result of a deprivation of love and affection in their personal lives.  Thus there are always significant others in the personal lives of Type II subjects.  Under these circumstances, in every instance, the exercise of power in a public manner generates the attention that had been denied in the past. In some cases, the act may serve to place the burden of guilt on those persons in their disturbed
personal lives who have denied or rejected them. Assassins of this type anticipate capture or death and prepare for it. The neurotic Type II assassin is an anxious, emotional and ultimately depressed person who is primarily concerned with her/his personal problems and frustrations and only secondarily with causes or
ideals.

Type III - Assassins are either psychopaths or sociopaths who believe that the condition of their lives is so intolerably meaningless and without purpose that destruction of society and themselves is desirable for its own sake. Unlike ordinary psychopaths whose rage is usually directed at specific segments of society, this type of killer strikes at persons who personify the majority, or those who represent a cross-section rather than any particular segment. Type III subjects possess no positive political values and are belligerently contemptuous of morality and social convention. The amorphous rage and perversity that characterizes the lives of these persons may finally take form in some extreme act like suicide, mass murder, or assassination; but in the case of assassination, there is no political motive. Except for their perverse anger, they are emotionally dormant; the pendulum swings of emotion associated with some psychoses are absent. They also differ from Type I assassins in that they are rational in a negative and perverse Dostoyevskian sense and thoughtfully aware of their motives and the consequences of their acts. Feeling neither joy nor sadness and indifferent to death, they are unable to relate to others.  Thus, unlike Type II's, there are no significant others in their empty lives.  The Type III subject accurately perceives reality but is limited in his capacity to respond to it emotionally. He is not someone who has
lost his reason, rather someone who has lost everything but his reason.

Type IV - Assassins are characterized by severe emotional and cognitive distortion that is expressed in hallucinations and delusions of persecution and/or grandeur. Their contact with reality is so tenuous that they are usually unable to grasp the significance of their actions or understand the response of
others to them. Their acts are mystically or divinely inspired. They are simply irrational or insane.
 

Hi Lance,

I want to introduce the Nix Film Study.  It has no bias created by politicians.  Just the facts.

 

 

[Guest]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:21 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Hi Lance,

I want to introduce the Nix Film Study.  It has no bias created by politicians.  Just the facts.

 

 

Hi

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Calvin Ye]

5 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Agree Tom.  O'Neill put decades of research into his publication & made 'Helter Skelter' a work of fiction.  I would question just who Bugliosi was writing for....employed by the same agency as West.

  

Pete, someone wrote an article alleging that the Tate murders were false flag operations

https://ia.eferrit.com/ea/554ddfcde3b10cee.pdf

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

22 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I faithfully watched all 13:57. Leroy might improve his credibility if he'd lose the skull bandana and stop saying "and stuff like that," but I will give him credit for sincerity and diligence.

I see from Googling him that he believes 13 shots were fired. Such theories encounter the slight problem that all identifiable bullet fragments are traceable to Oswald's rifle. Yes, I suppose all 13 shooters could have been equipped with clunky Carcanos or at least 6.5 rifles, but does that seem likely? Moreover, if there were 13 shooters, at least 11 or 12 missed - so shouldn't there be fragments all over Dealey Plaza and perhaps a dead bystander or two (or three, or five)? If you're going to assassinate the President with an army of snipers in a public plaza, who cares if you take out two secretaries and a toddler or two?

Where Leroy sees a gunmen's eyes, rifles and rifle smoke, I see "something" that could be literally anything. Two problems here are that (1) modern rifles, unlike cars and people with pipes, cigars and cigarettes, don't emit discernible smoke, let alone the streams of smoke Leroy sees; and (2) it is unfathomab;e to me that if a conspiracy posited a patsy on the sixth floor of the TSBD, every additional gunman would not have been at a location behind JFK (and there were many) where the wounds and bullet trajectories could plausibly be attributed to said patsy on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

The core problem is that these elaborate conspiracy theories always "prove" too much. If the CIA, Army Intelligence, Dallas Police Department, KGB and/or Mafia had wanted to eliminate JFK, they could and would have done so neatly, cleanly, quietly and with an absolute minimum of folderol. Every elaborate conspiracy theory is self-evidently silly. It just is. The fact that CTers can't see this, and keep buying into ever-more-elaborate and implausible nonsense, is as mysterious to me as Christians who insist the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Leroy reminds me of Richard Hoagland, Richard C. Hoagland - Wikipedia, who happens to be a good friend of a good friend of mine. I bought one of his early books, chock full of photos of the Moon with captions like "You can clearly see the alien crystalline structures extending miles off the lunar surface." Well, no, Richard, I don't see anything - nada. Neither does 99% of the rest of the UFO community. Nevertheless, he once had a sizable following and still has a small one. As with JFK conspiracy theories and Young Earth Creationism, those who want to believe will believe.

 

What ever Leroy reminds you of does not change facts.  There are shots from the cement structure at the grassy knoll, fact.

Everything else is a narrative invented by politicians.

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

What ever Leroy reminds you of does not change facts.  There are shots from the cement structure at the grassy knoll, fact.

Everything else is a narrative invented by politicians.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

36 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

And it is "fact" because ... what? Because you agree with Leroy? Richard Hoagland and his followers believe it is fact that there are massive alien crystalline structures on the Moon.

I'll have to update my Conspiracy Game outline: In Conspiracy World, you not only get to have your own opinions but your own facts as well.

I just read what you said and I watched the Nix film without listening to LeRoy.

Can you believe I watched shots from the cement structure in the grassy knoll no matter what your opinion on this is.

Facts are facts and they don’t change no matter what you or anyone says.

 

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 10:09 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I just read what you said and I watched the Nix film without listening to LeRoy.

Can you believe I watched shots from the cement structure in the grassy knoll no matter what your opinion on this is.

Facts are facts and they don’t change no matter what you or anyone says.

 

Hi

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Point me to the exact time in the video where you saw shots from the cement structure.

Isn't this pretty much just Badge Man Revisited? These are all just conspiracy Rorschach tests, IMO. I'm not questioning that you sincerely believe you see what you say you see.

 

The link to the Nix study is in this thread.  Feel free to watch factual evidence of the assassination when ever you want to watch it.

Fact is fact.  Fact does not change with anyone’s opinion.