Jump to content
The Education Forum

Could a Conspiracy Theory Exist:


Recommended Posts

As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researced those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza,

"Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?"

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?

I'd go out on a limb here and (bear in mind I've been researching this thing for only a year so far and withoutdoubt have yet to cover alla spects to get the full picture) say yes, why not, as a possibility? But it seems to me, not in the way that the commissions pushed.

There are very serious reasons to believe that there is a coverup of evidence and that there were more than one shooter and that there are/were people who are very concerned about the full truth being known/not known.

What Lee's actual role if that is none at all or part of the conspiracy, I can't say with certainty.

Some times I think that he may have been involved but in a far more serious way than a patsy, at other times I feel sure he was a total patsy who didn't start to see what was happening until his arrest in the theatre. Others, (and perhaps me at some stage in the future) can be more definite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen a convincing motive proposed for Oswald shooting at Kennedy. I also don't recall any convincing explanation of how he was in the second-floor lunch room, calm and collected, as soon as Baker got there. There is also the negative paraffin test.

I don't think Oswald fired a shot, nor was he on the sixth floor at the time of the shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researced those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza,

"Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?"

Jim Root

Jim,

The WC expended a lot of energy (and killed a lot of trees) in what amounted to a weak effort to assign motive. The "Lone Gunman" had to evolve to the "Lone Nut" because they could never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to motive. So, as was their way in many areas, they merely "took a powder" and proclaimed LHO a "nut." After all, if someone is a "nut" you don't really NEED to explain motive.

That said:

In this case, just about anything is possible...

I find it most likely that LHO was an unwitting (probably manipulated) conspirator. Although largely circumstantial, it appears likely that LHO was in some way attached to intelligence gathering, probably in the morass that was the Cuba situation. (I find the circumstantial case here to be as strong, if not stronger, that the WC's nearly wholly circumstantial case).

I find it less likely that LHO was an actual first-hand, active, conspirator. It is not impossible, of course, especially in light of the Richard Nagell story, but seems to be a less consistently held viewpoint and less bolstered by circumstantial evidence than the previous theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researced those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza,

"Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?"

Jim Root

LHO, unwitting co-conspirator? Sure!

Shooter? Serious doubts!

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is also the negative paraffin test.

Ron (others) - I'm not familiar with many of the less known details of the case. Tell me (us) more about the test, I imagine other members will find it informative as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

After examining all available testimony, reports and notes of his interrogators, as well as press interviews conducted with Occhus Campbell, and other stories in the press based on conversation overheard between Truly and police on the afternoon of the assassination, I have concluded his alibi was solid. He gave facts which he could not have known without being there. This information not only placed him in the domino room eating lunch and buying a coke on the 2nd floor, it also placed him in the building a number of munites after the WC had him "fleeing".

1. The WC claimed Oswald said he ate lunch with Junior and Shorty. Since both denied this, his alibi was deemed a lie. The fabrication however, was not Oswald's. A look at Fritz' notes and Bookhout's report show LHO's only claim was to have seen the pair "come in". Since they did indeed, reenter the building at the time Oswald was being questioned about. It is entirely unlikely Oswald could have known this unless he was where he said he was.

2. From PO inspector Holmes testimony:

Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he

said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up." He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him. You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me." Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the

building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then.

The highlighted part is what suggests Oswald left later than claimed as it states clearly Oswald interected with more than just Baker.

It in fact mirrors the accounts of others who were waiting to leave the building.

From CE 1381:

Mrs Herman Clay:

"I left my office at about 2:00pm on November 22nd, 1963, went downstairs

and after being checked out by the police, I left the building at about

2:20pm..."

Georgia Ruth Hendrix:

"I left my office at 2:00pm on November 22nd, 1963, went downstairs and

after being checked out by the police, I left the building at about

2:20pm..."

Carl Edward Jones:

"I left the building at about 2:30pm after being questioned by the

police."

Patricia Ann Lawrence:

"I left my office at about 2:00pm on November 22nd, 1963, went downstairs

and after being checked out by the police, I left the building at about

2:15pm."

Martha Reed:

"I left the Texas School Book Depository building when I was finally

permitted to do so by officers at about

Mrs Robert E Saunders:

"At approximately 2:00pm, I was told I could leave the building and after

signing out with a police officer on the first floor, I left for my

residence."

Joyce Maurine Stansbury:

"Following the shooting... I returned to the Depository building and

remained in the building until approximately 2:00pm or 2:30pm when I left

the building as officers cleared the building."

Sarah D Stanton:

I left the Depository building about 2:20pm on the afternoon of 11-22-63

after giving the police our names and addresses." [sic]

Again, how could Oswald know people were being cleared by police prior to leaving unless he was actually there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron (others) - I'm not familiar with many of the less known details of the case. Tell me (us) more about the test, I imagine other members will find it informative as well.

A paraffin test was performed to look for gunpowder residue on Oswald's hands and right cheek. There was no residue on the cheek. The test was positive for the hands, but nitrates on the hands can come from other things besides gunpowder.

The WC said that paraffin tests are "completely unreliable," and that gunpowder residue would not be expected to be found on the cheek from firing a rifle.

This raises the question of why a paraffin test was performed. If nitrates had been found on Oswald's cheek, would paraffin tests then suddenly have become reliable?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0292b.htm

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, it was not the WC that ordered the paraffin test, of course.

Would the WC's position have been different had there been nitrates found on Oswald's cheek? Well, I suspect so, don't you?! It was clearly the role of the WC to prove that Oswald did it.

I suspect if Oswald had lived and been tried and had hired Specter as his defense attorney Specter would have made mincemeat of the SBT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the WC's position have been different had there been nitrates found on Oswald's cheek? Well, I suspect so, don't you?!

Yes, that's why I asked the above rhetorical question. (The question was rhetorical.)

The problem with the paraffin tests are that they produce too many false positives. Too many other foreign objects will produce a false positive such as handling metals, carbon paper, and many more. I mention carbon paper because LHO was a order filler and would handle carbon paper regularly in his duties at the TSBD. Both hands, unless washed well would likely show a false positive for nitrates that would not be distinguishable from firing a powder charged weapon. The cantaminates in the firing of the weapon would be the powder discharge, the azoid composites in the primer and the exposed base of the projectile that dispurses micro particles when relieved from the casing.

The Warren Commission quoted the FBI Firearms Lab in saying that a shooter would not have nitrates deposited on their cheek when firing a closed bolt weapon such as the MC. That is ridiculous for anyone who is educated in this field. The MC has a rather high acceptable facing value for the weapon to operate in comparison to modern day rifles such as the Remington 700. And the Remington 700 will still discharge nitrates in a closed bolt firing mode. With a single shot equation, the shooter will be infected by the nitrates in the region of the nose up to the hair line due to the shooter having to utilize a cheek weld on the weapon when firing a scoped rifle. In multiple shot equations, the shooters strong cheek will be exposed to the nitrates as the bolt is manipulated and the cheek pulls off and exposes the stock to the nitrates and then presses back against the stock for the next shot. An open bolt after firing produces a high level of nitrates in the hot mode. To believe that LHO's cheek tested negative for nitrates in the paraffin tests and believe he still fired a three shot volley is ridiculous.

Al

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the WC's position have been different had there been nitrates found on Oswald's cheek? Well, I suspect so, don't you?!

Yes, that's why I asked the above rhetorical question. (The question was rhetorical.)

The problem with the paraffin tests are that they produce too many false positives. Too many other foreign objects will produce a false positive such as handling metals, carbon paper, and many more. I mention carbon paper because LHO was a order filler and would handle carbon paper regularly in his duties at the TSBD. Both hands, unless washed well would likely show a false positive for nitrates that would not be distinguishable from firing a powder charged weapon. The cantaminates in the firing of the weapon would be the powder discharge, the azoid composites in the primer and the exposed base of the projectile that dispurses micro particles when relieved from the casing.

The Warren Commission quoted the FBI Firearms Lab in saying that a shooter would not have nitrates deposited on their cheek when firing a closed bolt weapon such as the MC. That is ridiculous for anyone who is educated in this field. The MC has a rather high acceptable facing value for the weapon to operate in comparison to modern day rifles such as the Remington 700. And the Remington 700 will still discharge nitrates in a closed bolt firing mode. With a single shot equation, the shooter will be infected by the nitrates in the region of the nose up to the hair line due to the shooter having to utilize a cheek weld on the weapon when firing a scoped rifle. In multiple shot equations, the shooters strong cheek will be exposed to the nitrates as the bolt is manipulated and the cheek pulls off and exposes the stock to the nitrates and then presses back against the stock for the next shot. An open bolt after firing produces a high level of nitrates in the hot mode. To believe that LHO's cheek tested negative for nitrates in the paraffin tests and believe he still fired a three shot volley is ridiculous.

Al

I believe it was Harold Weisberg who got ahold of the FBI records of the paraffin tests taken after the experimental firing of Oswald's rifle. Everyone who fired the rifle had nitrates on their cheek... As Tim said, if Oswald had had Specter as his attorney, he may have walked.

Greg, as I understood the passage you cited, Oswald was talking about his run-in with Baker, only he moved it to the front door. (Perhaps to put himself further away from the stairs.) Oswald was either lying or had forgotten where he he had his run-in with Baker, OR Holmes simply remembered Oswald's story incorrectly. I vote for the last explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I now tend to believe (in part based on the paraffin test) that Oswald was not a shooter, he could, of course, have been a conspirator without being one of the shooters. However, for other reasons I also tend to believe that he was, as he claimed, a "patsy". I suspect that this opinion is shared by most members of this Forum.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Al,

Thanks! That is great information, and confirms for me something that my own research had indicated about the MC weapon (having never fired one personally).

This is another example of how the facts in this case were selectively accepted or, as in this situation, ignored to force or support a predetermined conclusion.

Pat points out that had Oswald been defended by Arlen Specter, he would have walked. I'll go one step beyond that... If Oswald would have been defended by *any* defense lawyer worth a damn, the best the prosecution could have hoped for was (perhaps) a few misdemeanor charges sticking as a result of the scuffle at the Texas Theater. Convictions in the Tippit shooting and JFK murder would be unlikely, at best.

But then again, this shows us how absolutely necessary it was to silence Oswald and to do it quickly. A trial would have been sensational and covered extensively by the press. The chances of some truth leaking out, even if payoffs, bribes, threats, etc. were employed, were too great. Pardon the ruthlessness and insensitivity of this next comment, but silencing Oswald was substantially more efficient and effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Jim, I started a thread many months ago titled "Oswalds strange motivation" It was intended as a bookend to another thread of mine "Rubys strange motivation"Where as someone who has worked as a mental health professional for over 25 years, I attempted to assign a workable psychological motive to these seemingly motiveless crimes. I failed, I dont intend to rehash all the possible reasons I postulated, only to knock down, if people are interested revive the original thread, let it surfice to say that if Oswald did pull the trigger he did it for reasons neither I, nor Co - workers I have asked can fathom. If the physical evidence in this case is weak, the psychological evidence is non existant. Or to quote the WC (not verbatim) He did it for reasons that noone can explain, or will ever be able to. Well how nice for them..Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...