Could a Conspiracy Theory Exist:

[Pat Speer]

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.

Steve, you're forgetting that the WC (I think it was Liebeler) developed the BIG MAN motivation, as in Oswald was anxious to prove to everyone what a BIG MAN he was. Robert Oswald buys this to this day. This theory holds that Oswald had ambitions but had accepted the fact that he was essentially a LOSER who couldn't please or provide for his own wife. It holds that her refusal to get back together with him was the last straw.

While it's always possible--Texas is the site of numerous Luby's massacres--I just don't see Oswald giving up at age 24, with two young daughters. Oswald was out to show how smart he was--while killing the President would put his intelligence on display for all the world to see--it would have been to no avail outside of self-glorification. If anything, Oswald was looking for a cause. His embrace and then rejection of Russian communism can only be taken as a search for self-glorification if you're an ignorant redneck without any understanding of Oswald's attraction to the cause of civil rights and/or socialism. The killing of Kennedy to impress Marina is WAY TOO CYNICAL a move for the Oswald portrayed by those who knew him, including de Mohrenschildt, to have made.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Pat, thanks for the memory jog. Of course the BIG MAN theory only really works if Oswald says upon capture "Yeah, I shot the SOB, now give me a friggin medal" or words to that effect. IMHO "I'm just a patsy", tends to negate this particular theory.

[Ron Ecker]

The killing of Kennedy to impress Marina is WAY TOO CYNICAL a move

Shooting the president to impress some movie actress would make a lot more sense. (This actually happened once, using another magic bullet!)

[Pat Speer]

The killing of Kennedy to impress Marina is WAY TOO CYNICAL a move

Shooting the president to impress some movie actress would make a lot more sense. (This actually happened once, using another magic bullet!)

Have you ever read the book by Hinkley's parents? They published some of his writings. It turned out that Hinkley wasn't trying to impress Jodie by killing Reagan, but by shocking the country into enacting gun control legislation, something to which he was deeply committed. He was trying to impress her with his dedication to a good cause, not with his blood-lust.

After reading that I felt sick. It was clear to me that the media had cooperated with the Reagan White House in ignoring Hinkley's real motivation. While the predominantly left-wing media (on the issue of gun control) and the Democrats were probably concerned there would be a backlash AGAINST gun control if Hinkley's real motivation were exposed, the Republicans undoubtedly wanted it to be hidden as well, as it might make Hinkley sympathetic to some, and bring his cause the attention it deserved. Better just say he was a whacko than deal with this country's gun obsession. The Bush Administration's snuffing out the Brady Bill was the final act in this cover-up, IMO.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Ron Ecker]

I don’t believe that Hinckley shot Reagan any more than Oswald shot Kennedy.

But I guess I’m another victim of “conspiracism,” which today’s Jerusalem Post (echoing the Peter Jennings school of corporate media thought in the US) characterizes as a “mental illness.”

The Post article is interesting in that it addresses some questions raised in the Rabin assassination (questions with which I was totally unfamiliar), and then offers some really lame answers, thus stupidly raising suspicion where none might have existed before one read the article.

On the question of someone yelling during the assassination that the shots were blanks, the article says that that means nothing, because “People commonly believe that real gunfire is blanks.” Say what? Maybe in Israel people think they’re hearing blanks when guns are fired (why would they think that?), but when I hear gunfire next door or down the street here in Anytown, USA, I sure as hell don’t think it’s blanks. Why would the thought even enter my mind? I know lots of people who own guns, but I don’t know anyone with blanks. Maybe they have some, but what for?

The article states that in the hospital, Rabin was said to have three wounds, but this was “later corrected” to only two, both in the back. Shades of the Parkland medical personnel all being wrong about what they saw! Who made this mistake about Rabin's wounds, and when and by whom was it corrected?

And then the article asks, if there was a conspiracy, why does the accused assassin still insist that he did it? Well, maybe because he still thinks that he did! Sheesh.

But I’m sure that suspecting any conspiracy behind the Rabin assassination would be, as the article would have us believe, a sure sign of mental illness.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apa...icle%2FShowFull

Edited February 2, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Frank Agbat]

...

But I guess I’m another victim of “conspiracism,” which today’s Jerusalem Post (echoing the Peter Jennings school of corporate media thought in the US) characterizes as a “mental illness.”

...

Ron,

I think there is a certain and demonstrable line between "inquiry by a healthy mind" and "conspiracism" (which I think probably does exist and probably is a form of mental illness).

Example: There is NOT a massive conspiracy that causes me to hit the same doggone red light on my way to work every day... To see conspiracy in this might move from the realm of healthy inquiry to something less healthy, in my opinion. (The red light is undoubtedly the result of a traffic flow model, and if given all the data, I'm sure I could independently verify its behavior as being benign...)

On the other hand, I find no evidence of mental illness to question conclusions that do not seem consistent with available data, to question the data itself, or to question the testing methodology. Heck, in college I was taught and encouraged to do precisely this. I took any number of classes that were directed specifically at honing one's ability to do this...

I guess in the new "school of corporate media thought", we are supposed to merely accept "official" conclusions" even though they are accompanied by partial data (or no data), or even worse, by false/fabricated data. All for reasons of what? Security? A "smooth-running society?" If in the days ahead, healthy inquiry and skepticism are to be branded a "mental illness", I suspect I'll be collected by some "nice men in white coats" any day now. I've got dibs on the padded cell with a view of the beach...

[Greg Parker]

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.

Hi Pat,

There are numerous problems here.

1. In his assassination day affidavit - taken in the presence of Oswald, Baker did not ( a ) give an accurate physical description of Oswald, nor ( b ) point to Oswald and say "that is the man I encountered in the TSBD".

2. In that same affidavit, he said the encounter happened on the 3rd or 4th floor.

Since I have far greater faith in the veracity of the earliest statements, I believe this shows that, whoever Baker encountered - it was not Oswald.

As for what Oswald claimed (or was said to have claimed) -- it is supported by Fritz' notes, Bookhouts report of 11/24, Holmes' testimony and by the very earliest newspaper accounts. Some of those accounts were based on interviews with Occhus Campbell prior to 3:00pm on 11/22, others were based on Truly's overheard conversation with Fritz when reporting Oswald missing, while the remainder were based on police statements.

Those stories based on the words of Campbell and Truly state that Oswald was first noticed in a 1st floor storeroom. I can provide the texts if needed, but need to dig for them.

This is from the initial reports in the Sydney Herald:

During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were

posted at exits to the warehouse.

Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the

door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman.

Oswald told the policeman that "I work here," and when another employee

confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said.

The whole Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is a crock to cover up Baker's actual encounter on a higher floor and to place Oswald in a "better" location to be the upper floor shooter. I believe Reid's statement necessitated the 2nd floor lie even though placing it a floor or two higher would have been preferable (ie more believable).

[Jason Vermeer]

Hello Jim,

I most certainly believe Oswald was a conspirator and was firing the carcano from the infamous window 11-22-63 and I have maintained this position for a number of years. To keep things relatively simple in a highly complex case, I've always tried to remember that the scenario of Oswald as a LONE assassin was an incredible stretch and the totality of the evidence weighed against it. By the same token, Oswald being a completely framed patsy is also a stretch given the totality of the evidence.

This may sound "X-fileish" but I happen to believe that this dichotomy (Oswald as complete patsy) vs. (Oswald as the only shooter) has been actively promoted by our and other foriegn bodies. Why? Simple diversion. It served as an effective tool to polarize investigative efforts away from Oswald's aqaintences and/or accomplices. If you have an interest in researching or investigating the crime and you are steered to believe Oswald was a lone nut...everyone around him in the years and months prior to the assassination fade in importance, they don't merit a closer look. Same goes if you are steered to see him as a complete and unwitting patsy...those close to him are evil forces putting him into position (not working with him) or they are also unwitting.

There also lies the possibility that Oswald was deceived during those fateful moments in Dealey Plaza. I could outline a scenario where Oswald intentionally put a slug in the tree, shot the curb and put another slug in the grass (later recovered by FBI agent). He is framed in that a "demonstration" where he was supposed to be picked up as a pro-marxist Castro tainted wanna be killer and later released...finds out in the break room the president was actually shot. Oswald fired his three shots per orders never knowing the president was hit. Speculation.

Oswald as a shooter involved in a wider conspiracy has been the least researched angle. Why?

Jason Vermeer.

[Tim Carroll]

There also lies the possibility that Oswald was deceived during those fateful moments in Dealey Plaza. I could outline a scenario where Oswald intentionally put a slug in the tree, shot the curb and put another slug in the grass (later recovered by FBI agent). He is framed in that a "demonstration" where he was supposed to be picked up as a pro-marxist Castro tainted wanna be killer and later released...finds out in the break room the president was actually shot. Oswald fired his three shots per orders never knowing the president was hit. Speculation.

This is the point of the Fake Assassination Attempt thread that was active within the past few days. Oswald was involved in some deep doo doo, but not as deep as what he found himself involved with suddenly that afternoon. Some would argue that the parafin test precludes him as having fired the Carcano, which leaves the possibility that he delivered the rifle and then waited by the phone.

T.C.

[Jason Vermeer]

Tim, I would ask those that argue the paraffin test the DPD conducted on Oswald and ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS AN ACCURATE TEST IN TERMS OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY to step forward. I have not found any literature that supports the methodology used in that paraffin test as accurate. To use it to rule out Oswald firing a rifle would be premature. It would be premature to use it to rule in Oswald shooting any handgun. I would put forth the reliability of the test was low enough to render it's validity useless. Jason Vermeer.

[Ron Ecker]

I would ask those that argue the paraffin test the DPD conducted on Oswald and ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS AN ACCURATE TEST IN TERMS OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY to step forward. I have not found any literature that supports the methodology used in that paraffin test as accurate. To use it to rule out Oswald firing a rifle would be premature.

See Al Carrier's post in this thread (post #11) on the paraffin test.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Carroll]

I have not found any literature that supports the methodology used in that paraffin test as accurate. To use it to rule out Oswald firing a rifle would be premature.

Al Carrier's post makes it clear that the paraffin test's unreliability was skewed toward the false positive rather than the false negative.

The problem with the paraffin tests are that they produce too many false positives.... 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.

It seems very unlikely, especially considering Al's points, that Oswald could have fired the Carcano and then have his cheek test negative for any rifle firing.

T.C.

[Gerry Hemming]

Hello Jim,

I most certainly believe Oswald was a conspirator and was firing the carcano from the infamous window 11-22-63 and I have maintained this position for a number of years. To keep things relatively simple in a highly complex case, I've always tried to remember that the scenario of Oswald as a LONE assassin was an incredible stretch and the totality of the evidence weighed against it. By the same token, Oswald being a completely framed patsy is also a stretch given the totality of the evidence.

This may sound "X-fileish" but I happen to believe that this dichotomy (Oswald as complete patsy) vs. (Oswald as the only shooter) has been actively promoted by our and other foriegn bodies. Why? Simple diversion. It served as an effective tool to polarize investigative efforts away from Oswald's aqaintences and/or accomplices. If you have an interest in researching or investigating the crime and you are steered to believe Oswald was a lone nut...everyone around him in the years and months prior to the assassination fade in importance, they don't merit a closer look. Same goes if you are steered to see him as a complete and unwitting patsy...those close to him are evil forces putting him into position (not working with him) or they are also unwitting.

There also lies the possibility that Oswald was deceived during those fateful moments in Dealey Plaza. I could outline a scenario where Oswald intentionally put a slug in the tree, shot the curb and put another slug in the grass (later recovered by FBI agent). He is framed in that a "demonstration" where he was supposed to be picked up as a pro-marxist Castro tainted wanna be killer and later released...finds out in the break room the president was actually shot. Oswald fired his three shots per orders never knowing the president was hit. Speculation.

Oswald as a shooter involved in a wider conspiracy has been the least researched angle. Why?

Jason Vermeer.

---------------------------------

MY, OH MY !! Somebody is getting close. Check the "Wall Street Ticker" for the company that manufactures "Whiteout" !! Just might be a surge in sales earlier than anticipated ??!!

--------------------------

[Jason Vermeer]

I have not found any literature that supports the methodology used in that paraffin test as accurate. To use it to rule out Oswald firing a rifle would be premature.

Al Carrier's post makes it clear that the paraffin test's unreliability was skewed toward the false positive rather than the false negative.

The problem with the paraffin tests are that they produce too many false positives.... 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.

It seems very unlikely, especially considering Al's points, that Oswald could have fired the Carcano and then have his cheek test negative for any rifle firing.

T.C.

Al is off on this one. Check the research.

There are a number of tests that were showing false negatives as well. The point is that the test conducted by the DPD AT THE TIME, is completely flawed. It was simply unreliable. Al may say that the paraffin test produces too many false positives while other experts proclaim it produced too many false negatives. Either way, that SEVERELY HAMPERS the VALIDITY of the test. Al's point is meaningless given the TEST administered AT THE TIME. I'm sure if Al reads this he will understand what I am saying and modify his response accordingly. He can no more say that the DPD test ruled out Oswald shooting a rifle that day than he can say the test ruled it in because RELIABILITY effects VALIDITY. In one report, in 1965 the CIA were conducting tests on Vietnamese known to have been discharging weapons. The paraffin tests were horribly useless in that they produced a large number of false negatives on the cheek and hand region. They pontificated that testing the inside of the nostrils and checking disturbed ear wax may be a better measure....Yes, I'm serious on this one. Jason Vermeer

[Pat Speer]

Al is off on this one. Check the research.

There are a number of tests that were showing false negatives as well. The point is that the test conducted by the DPD AT THE TIME, is completely flawed. It was simply unreliable. Al may say that the paraffin test produces too many false positives while other experts proclaim it produced too many false negatives. Either way, that SEVERELY HAMPERS the VALIDITY of the test. Al's point is meaningless given the TEST administered AT THE TIME. I'm sure if Al reads this he will understand what I am saying and modify his response accordingly. He can no more say that the DPD test ruled out Oswald shooting a rifle that day than he can say the test ruled it in because RELIABILITY effects VALIDITY. In one report, in 1965 the CIA were conducting tests on Vietnamese known to have been discharging weapons. The paraffin tests were horribly useless in that they produced a large number of false negatives on the cheek and hand region. They pontificated that testing the inside of the nostrils and checking disturbed ear wax may be a better measure....Yes, I'm serious on this one. Jason Vermeer

Jason, while I don't think the paraffin test PROVED Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, it certainly should be taken into consideration. I doubt it makes sense to compare the nitrates released by WWII-era bolt-action rifles to those released by 1965 South Vietnamese weapons--probably M-16s. As stated, Weisberg was able to establish that nitrates were found on the cheeks of everyone who test fired the rifle. I'll try to locate his evidence if need be.