LHO, his general character, not exactly a lone nut...

[Jean Ceulemans]

Lee Harvey Oswald sure was one odd LONE NUT, one that :

- was handing out leaflets in a crowdy street, talking, making fun, all of that in front of a TV camera

- was on TV, giving interviews, debating

- was on the radio, ibidem

- gave a speech in a school, interacted with the people there

- visited family members, was interested in his ancesters

- goes in debate at a Walker meeting

- went to social gatherings, were he would talk with people about politics, or just have a chat with a Japanese musician, etc

- in Russia we see him attending dances, talking to just about everybody, he had some friends at the factory he worked, went on a hunting trip, wanted to have a relation, etc

- and a lot more

Now if people think he was guilty, ok, their opinion, but calling him a lone nut is just beyond crazy talk IMO

True lone nuts in general don't interact, or they live isolated, like in a cabin in the mountains...

Usually have no family life, or don't try to have one

[W. Niederhut]

Indeed, Jean.

And let's not forget about Oswald's associations with George De Mohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, Hosty, Guy Bannister, (working out of Bannister's Camp Street office) David Ferrie, (even borrowing Ferrie's library card) and Clay Shaw (aka Bertrand.)

It's an alleged "Trail of the Delusions" in the Lone Nut universe.

[Kevin Balch]

A lone nut would most likely have brought his pistol to work, watched the motorcade from the curb of Elm St. and shot the president at close range like the assassins of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Archduke Ferdinand, Roosevelt, Ford (twice!), Reagan etc.

Curry and Wade emphatically stated that Oswald was not a nut.

The Lone Nut legend was spun to preclude conspiracy, not as a defense of Oswald.

[Mark Ulrik]

It's my impression that terms like "Lone Nut" and "Magic (or pristine) Bullet" is mainly CT hyperbole intended to ridicule their dreaded opponents.

Edited August 15 by Mark Ulrik
typo edit

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It's my impression is that terms like "Lone Nut" and "Magic (or pristine) Bullet" is mainly CT hyperbole intended to ridicule their dreaded opponents.

Hyperbole?  Hardly.

Those are accurate descriptions of Warren Commission narratives pushed by Allen Dulles and Arlen Specter.

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

was handing out leaflets in a crowdy street, talking, making fun, all of that in front of a TV camera

- was on TV, giving interviews, debating

- was on the radio, ibidem

- gave a speech in a school, interacted with the people there

- visited family members, was interested in his ancesters

- goes in debate at a Walker meeting

- went to social gatherings, were he would talk with people about politics, or just have a chat with a Japanese musician, etc

- in Russia we see him attending dances, talking to just about everybody, he had some friends at the factory he worked, went on a hunting trip, wanted to have a relation, etc

Apparently he romanced his to-be wife from his hospital bed. The man had game.

Yet, taking all that into account, the Warren Commission could find none of his friends. The closest thing they could find to a friend was George de Mohrenschildt, a guy twice his age with opposite political views and who only met Oswald at the urging of a CIA operative.

[Sean Coleman]

Self important, intelligent, single minded & defo on one of todays many spectrums.

Not a nutjob.

Charlie Manson a (typical) nutjob.

[Jean Ceulemans]

59 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It's my impression that terms like "Lone Nut" and "Magic (or pristine) Bullet" is mainly CT hyperbole intended to ridicule their dreaded opponents.

I understand Mark, and it´s actually one of the reasons I posted this.  It got bad pretty fast, the CT vs LN crowd that is. So far I have seen little "working together to find out about things"? 

They have decided long ago "I´m with them, and against the other".  Some have changed their mind, true, but not a lot. Not to mention the business behind it all, doesn´t really help.

I was wondering, is it the typical US debate culture? Because IMO that is more about winning, less about the actual truth behind it?  Moral-ethics often are no where in sight.

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I understand Mark, and it´s actually one of the reasons I posted this.  It got bad pretty fast, the CT vs LN crowd that is. So far I have seen little "working together to find out about things"? 

They have decided long ago "I´m with them, and against the other".  Some have changed their mind, true, but not a lot. Not to mention the business behind it all, doesn´t really help.

I was wondering, is it the typical US debate culture? Because IMO that is more about winning, less about the actual truth behind it?  Moral-ethics often are no where in sight.

 

These days there is enormous division in the US. That is not an explanation for why there was opposition to the WC report. The split then was between the government and media on one side and the people on the other. Today’s LN crowd is an extension of the media and government coverup of the killing of a beloved president. They have refined their arguments but they cannot really rebut the enormous evidence of multiple shooters and thus conspiracy.

Edited August 15 by Paul Brancato

[Jean Ceulemans]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

These days there is enormous division in the US. That is not an explanation for why there was opposition to the WC report. The split then was between the government and media on one side and the people on the other. Today’s LN crowd is an extension of the media and government coverup of the killing of a beloved president. They have refined their arguments but they cannot really rebut the enormous evidence of multiple shooters and thus conspiracy.

I find it interesting to see how certain events changed the opinion of so many. Events like the first broadcasting of the Zapruder film, or the movie JFK.  

The "thing" is these events leaded to more people believing in a conspiracy?

Has there been an event that had the opposite effect?

Now, I am usually not impressed by MSM Discovery/History Channel/... documentaries, too many mistakes there IMO.  And I don´t think their influence is that big anyway. Not in these days where something that takes longer than 30 seconds will make you loose the audience.  In Tiktok terms even that is way too long.

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I understand Mark, and it´s actually one of the reasons I posted this.  It got bad pretty fast, the CT vs LN crowd that is. So far I have seen little "working together to find out about things"? 

They have decided long ago "I´m with them, and against the other".  Some have changed their mind, true, but not a lot. Not to mention the business behind it all, doesn´t really help.

I was wondering, is it the typical US debate culture? Because IMO that is more about winning, less about the actual truth behind it?  Moral-ethics often are no where in sight.

 

Jean,

    Antithetical concepts like Lone Nut vs. Conspiracy can't really be reconciled.

    The conflict is definitional-- a tautology.

    Did one person do it, or more than one person (i.e., conspiracy?)

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm pretty sure that the phrase "lone nut" comes from the narrative that one person alone -- i.e a nutjob -- killed Kennedy. Not from Oswald preferring to be alone.

Maybe WC apologists like Mark Ulrik wouldn't be offended if CTers referred to them as LNers rather than lone nuts. Referring to them as lone nuts makes no sense, and indeed IS offensive.

 

5 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

It got bad pretty fast, the CT vs LN crowd that is. So far I have seen little "working together to find out about things"?

 

CTers and LNers can't work together because we are here for different reasons. CTers are here to discover the details behind the conspiracy. LNers are here because... um... I don't know why they are here. @Mark Ulrik, why do you come here?

 

5 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I was wondering, is it the typical US debate culture? Because IMO that is more about winning, less about the actual truth behind it?  Moral-ethics often are no where in sight.

 

JFK assassination debate forums have two primary goals. The first is to discover what the truth is. The second is to broadcast the truth.

It is essential that those who know the REAL truth win the debate. Otherwise a falsehood will be broadcast rather than the truth.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

18 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Lee Harvey Oswald sure was one odd LONE NUT, one that :

- was handing out leaflets in a crowdy street, talking, making fun, all of that in front of a TV camera

- was on TV, giving interviews, debating

- was on the radio, ibidem

- gave a speech in a school, interacted with the people there

- visited family members, was interested in his ancesters

- goes in debate at a Walker meeting

- went to social gatherings, were he would talk with people about politics, or just have a chat with a Japanese musician, etc

- in Russia we see him attending dances, talking to just about everybody, he had some friends at the factory he worked, went on a hunting trip, wanted to have a relation, etc

- and a lot more

Now if people think he was guilty, ok, their opinion, but calling him a lone nut is just beyond crazy talk IMO

True lone nuts in general don't interact, or they live isolated, like in a cabin in the mountains...

Usually have no family life, or don't try to have one

JC-

There is a danger in ever placing too much faith in a government investigation, or indeed what, say, a book author says.

The adversarial process, or that which happens in a fair courtroom, may not be perfect, but it is one method to at least approach the truth.

The WC was, as noted by many, was a posthumous prosecution with no defense counsel present. No one cross-examined witnesses, brought in new witnesses, brought in new evidence, or offered other narratives regarding LHO and the JFKA.

Add on: Hearsay evidence was admissible.  This toxic brew has defined all too many government or congressional "investigations." And books, as well. Book authors do not take well to alternating chapters written by an opposing scribe! 

So, was LHO a leftie, loner, loser?

Larry Hancock is working up a biography on LHO, which promises to be the deepest, most comprehensive look yet. 

@Larry Hancock

[Robert Morrow]

On 8/15/2024 at 7:55 AM, Jean Ceulemans said:

Lee Harvey Oswald sure was one odd LONE NUT, one that :

- was handing out leaflets in a crowdy street, talking, making fun, all of that in front of a TV camera

- was on TV, giving interviews, debating

- was on the radio, ibidem

- gave a speech in a school, interacted with the people there

- visited family members, was interested in his ancesters

- goes in debate at a Walker meeting

- went to social gatherings, were he would talk with people about politics, or just have a chat with a Japanese musician, etc

- in Russia we see him attending dances, talking to just about everybody, he had some friends at the factory he worked, went on a hunting trip, wanted to have a relation, etc

- and a lot more

Now if people think he was guilty, ok, their opinion, but calling him a lone nut is just beyond crazy talk IMO

True lone nuts in general don't interact, or they live isolated, like in a cabin in the mountains...

Usually have no family life, or don't try to have one

Oswald got venereal disease while in the Marines: Does Lee Oswald's VD Suggest an Intelligence Connection? (jfk-assassination.net)

How is it possible to get STDs if you are all alone in your nuttiness? Oswald also married a pretty Russian girl and had two girls with her. How do you have two babies with your wife if you are a "lone nut?" Also, June and Rachel, Oswald's daughters were some of the pretty, popular girls in high school in Texas.

But the most important thing you will ever learn about Lee Harvey Oswald was that as a young teen he was OBSESSED WITH A HIGHLY ANTI-COMMUNIST TV SHOW THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY HOOVER'S FBI - The show was "I Led Three Lives" and it was all about a Herb Philbrick character infiltrating and breaking up communist rings for the government. 

Oswald, who memorized the Marine corp manual at age 12 and joined the Marines at age 17 sure wasn't not trying to be "alone" by joining the United States military. In the military you are forced to interact with other people and very quickly! You may be "nutty" in the military you sure are not alone!

Robert Oswald said that his brother Lee Harvey Oswald’s favorite TV show was I Led Three Lives about an FBI informant Herbert Philbrick who pretended to be a Communist. I wonder if this is what inspired completely innocent CIA Oswald to go into counterintelligence for the U.S. government?

A key page from Robert Oswald’s book – https://twitter.com/CONELRAD6401240/status/1259856311585583109/photo/1

QUOTE

          The center of Lee’s fantasy world shifted from radio to television when Mother bought a television set in 1948. When it was new, all of us spent far too much time watching variety shows, dramas and old movies. Lee, particularly, was fascinated. One of his favorite programs was I Led Three Lives, the story of Herbert Philbrick, the FBI informant who posed as a Communist spy. In the early 1950’s, Lee watched that show every week without fail. When I left home to join the Marines, he was still watching the reruns.

UNQUOTE

[Robert Oswald, Lee: Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother, p. 47]

I Led Three Lives starring with Richard Carlson, ran on TV from 1953 to 1956.

Note: Oswald was born on Oct. 18, 1939: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

The TV drama I Led Three Lives ran from Oct. 1, 1953 to Jan. 1, 1956. Oswald would have been age 13-16 during this time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Led_3_Lives

And the other most important thing you will ever learn about Lee Harvey Oswald was that he was a pre-selected patsy for the JFK assassination -

Absolute Proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was a *pre-selected* patsy for the JFK assassination: “5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds” https://robertmorrowpoliticalresearchblog.blogspot.com/2023/01/5-feet-10-inches-165-pounds-is-absolute.html Dallas Police Dispatcher was immediately using Marguerite Oswald’s description of Lee given to Dallas FBI in May, 1960

 

 

[Robert Morrow]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

JC-

There is a danger in ever placing too much faith in a government investigation, or indeed what, say, a book author says.

The adversarial process, or that which happens in a fair courtroom, may not be perfect, but it is one method to at least approach the truth.

The WC was, as noted by many, was a posthumous prosecution with no defense counsel present. No one cross-examined witnesses, brought in new witnesses, brought in new evidence, or offered other narratives regarding LHO and the JFKA.

Add on: Hearsay evidence was admissible.  This toxic brew has defined all too many government or congressional "investigations." And books, as well. Book authors do not take well to alternating chapters written by an opposing scribe! 

So, was LHO a leftie, loner, loser?

Larry Hancock is working up a biography on LHO, which promises to be the deepest, most comprehensive look yet. 

@Larry Hancock

"Hearsay" is completely acceptable in the search for historical truth. More than that, it is extremely valuable. The search for historical truth has absolutely nothing to do with what is admissible in a criminal court trial. The caveat is that it is often a good idea to try to "confirm" the original hearsay.

I will give you a good example of some informative history. Commander Dave Lewis, who I interviewed multiple times as the very end of his life, said that just a few days after Israel's savage attack on the USS Liberty Admiral Geis went to see Lewis while he was in the ship hospital. Admiral Geis then said I am going to tell you something but please never repeat it until after I am dead: we tried to send rescue planes to the USS Liberty but President Lyndon Johnson personally got on the military phone and said "Turn the planes back! I don't give a damn if the ship sinks and everyone dies! I will not embarrass MY ally (meaning Israel)."

That is HEARSAY. Dave Lewis did not hear Lyndon Johnson say that. Rather Dave Lewis SAID that Admiral Geis SAID that Lyndon Johnson SAID "I don't give a damn if the ship sinks, I will not embarrass MY ally."

That is not admissible in a criminal court trial but it damn sure is in the search for historical truth!!

One just has to determine whether one considers Dave Lewis and Admiral Geis credible on the transmission of this highly toxic LBJ anecdote.

Commander Dave Lewis, who was the head of the NSA unit on the USS Liberty, started publicly telling this anecdote in the year 1987; Geis had died a few years before.

Then a funny thing happened in 2007, the Chicago Tribune wrote a story on the USS Liberty and they interviewed a former sailor named Tony Hart.

New revelations in attack on American spy ship – Chicago Tribune 

["New revelations in attack on American spy ship," Chicago Tribune, 2007 (updated in 2021):

QUOTE

J.Q. “Tony” Hart, then a chief petty officer assigned to a U.S. Navy relay station in Morocco that handled communications between Washington and the 6th Fleet, remembered listening as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, in Washington, ordered Rear Adm. Lawrence Geis, commander of the America’s carrier battle group, to bring the jets home.

When Geis protested that the Liberty was under attack and needed help, Hart said, McNamara retorted that “President [Lyndon] Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.”

McNamara, who is now 91, told the Tribune he has “absolutely no recollection of what I did that day,” except that “I have a memory that I didn’t know at the time what was going on.”

The Johnson administration did not publicly dispute Israel’s claim that the attack had been nothing more than a disastrous mistake. But internal White House documents obtained from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library show that the Israelis’ explanation of how the mistake had occurred was not believed.

Except for McNamara, most senior administration officials from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on down privately agreed with Johnson’s intelligence adviser, Clark Clifford, who was quoted in minutes of a National Security Council staff meeting as saying it was “inconceivable” that the attack had been a case of mistaken identity.

The attack “couldn’t be anything else but deliberate,” the NSA’s director, Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, later told Congress.

“I don’t think you’ll find many people at NSA who believe it was accidental,” Benson Buffham, a former deputy NSA director, said in an interview.

“I just always assumed that the Israeli pilots knew what they were doing,” said Harold Saunders, then a member of the National Security Council staff and later assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs.

UNQUOTE

Now what Tony Hart said does not precisely match what Dave Lewis/Admiral Geis account of that LBJ said, but putting those words in McNamara's mouth is pretty darn close to what Admiral Geis said about what dyspeptic Lyndon Johnson said.

The original account of this story came from Dave Lewis recounting a hearsay anecdote and in my never humble opinion in 2007 Tony Hart, as reported by the Chicago Tribune, confirmed the story. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16 by Robert Morrow