Items from the assassination that eat at me!

[Jim Root]

John

Most conspiracy theories contain an Oswald element to some degree or another. If nothing more than the patsy that was placed in the TSBD building to be blamed for the assassination. I still have trouble understanding why a conspiracy that needs to explain away Oswald as a patsy is any better than a conspiracy that could involve Oswald as a shooter.

Without Oswald as a shooter we need to add numerous others to the group of assassins (spoters, logistic people, planners for the motorcade route, at the hospital, control of the autopsy, to eliminate witnesses, for each involved person to escape, to murder Tippit, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, to have Oswald shot at Walker, Marina to provide a note about the Walker shooting, etc., etc.) as well as then also having the ability to control the FBI investigation and the Warren Commissioners. Each layer adds additional personel that might, at some time, have talked. Each layer in turn needs additonal conspirators to explain away why Oswald could not have been a shooter within the conspiracy.

I for one do not believe in the Lone Nut scenario but I certainly do believe that the conspirators used Oswald. I guess I just believe that they used him to a greater degree than others seem to want to believe that Oswald was used. In this scenario Oswald would still need to be eliminated within hours of the assassination (much the same way that Admiral Darlan's assassin was eliminated-I bring this up because I believe that some of the same people may have been involved in both crimes-John B. Hurt makes a comment on the assassination of Admiral Darlan in his papers as well).

Rather than believing that the consiracy involved an ever larger number of people, I believe that the assassination conspiracy has been so successful because it was tighly held with fewer rather than more people involved.

In my scenario the biggest piece of misinformation that has been provided to the public to keep them from discovering the truth about a conspiracy is that Oswald could not have been a shooter. While the the Warren Commission provides for an impossible "lone nut" conclusion, we must all accept that Oswald is an integral part of the assassination story. US intelligence agencies, I believe we could all agree, have in the past put out misinformation on a variety of subjects. Why could the intelligence agencies not have planted the belief that Oswald was not a shooter? Does US intelligence have the ability to plant that thought (Oswald could not be a shooter) into the minds of a majority of Americans by introducing it into movies, into books, on talk shows, in dramatic recreations, at seminars, etc. (especially if it keeps investigators from focusing on Oswald as an intelligence asset that was used more than once)?

We all seem to have been able to accept anything else except this alternative possibility for the past 40 years. Could we have been misled?

Jim Root

Edited May 3, 2006 by Jim Root

[John Dolva]

I must agree with what you say Jim. I've noticed in the past that you take a very rational approach to the case. Unlike my own more speculative approach.

With regards to silence, the network was already in place. For example if the assassins were WKKKK then one need only to pop over to parts of Alabama and Mississippi to find communities which knows all / tell nothing to outsiders. The hate for Kennedy (and MLK and RFK) was deep and the tie to silence established, so it is possible to see a scenario where more conspirators is possible. The FBI seemed to be local, ex and WC. Differing loyalties but connected. So again not impossible. Though as you say, the rational approach is fewer conspirators.

The thing that would(IMO) alter that is where one does have in place secrecy where those in the know become 'co conspirators' while not actually having anything to do with the assassination itself.

With regards to Oswald, yes why not? I'd place him as a manipulated 'outsider', not fully in the know, left out on a limb. Whether he fired the headshot or not is another question. At the moment I see the headshot as separate and the tie to the room behind the room full of smoke and mirrors. (all IMO)

Gaeton Fonzi did write that each of the teams investigating was able to establish a scenario that hung together for the various usual suspects. This complicates things.

[Michael Hogan]

"I didn't shoot anyone...." Lee Oswald

In my opinion there are many reasons to believe Oswald was used in a conspiracy. For forty years I have wondered, that if he were a/the shooter, why on earth would he purchase a substandard weapon that could be traced to him, then leave it in the depository? Everything about his life indicated he was smarter than that.

In my mind, any scenario that posits Oswald as a shooter needs to address that issue, among others.

Mike Hogan

[Jason Vermeer]

John

Most conspiracy theories contain an Oswald element to some degree or another. If nothing more than the patsy that was placed in the TSBD building to be blamed for the assassination. I still have trouble understanding why a conspiracy that needs to explain away Oswald as a patsy is any better than a conspiracy that could involve Oswald as a shooter.

Without Oswald as a shooter we need to add numerous others to the group of assassins (spoters, logistic people, planners for the motorcade route, at the hospital, control of the autopsy, to eliminate witnesses, for each involved person to escape, to murder Tippit, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, to have Oswald shot at Walker, Marina to provide a note about the Walker shooting, etc., etc.) as well as then also having the ability to control the FBI investigation and the Warren Commissioners. Each layer adds additional personel that might, at some time, have talked. Each layer in turn needs additonal conspirators to explain away why Oswald could not have been a shooter within the conspiracy.

I for one do not believe in the Lone Nut scenario but I certainly do believe that the conspirators used Oswald. I guess I just believe that they used him to a greater degree than others seem to want to believe that Oswald was used. In this scenario Oswald would still need to be eliminated within hours of the assassination (much the same way that Admiral Darlan's assassin was eliminated-I bring this up because I believe that some of the same people may have been involved in both crimes-John B. Hurt makes a comment on the assassination of Admiral Darlan in his papers as well).

Rather than believing that the consiracy involved an ever larger number of people, I believe that the assassination conspiracy has been so successful because it was tighly held with fewer rather than more people involved.

In my scenario the biggest piece of misinformation that has been provided to the public to keep them from discovering the truth about a conspiracy is that Oswald could not have been a shooter. While the the Warren Commission provides for an impossible "lone nut" conclusion, we must all accept that Oswald is an integral part of the assassination story. US intelligence agencies, I believe we could all agree, have in the past put out misinformation on a variety of subjects. Why could the intelligence agencies not have planted the belief that Oswald was not a shooter? Does US intelligence have the ability to plant that thought (Oswald could not be a shooter) into the minds of a majority of Americans by introducing it into movies, into books, on talk shows, in dramatic recreations, at seminars, etc. (especially if it keeps investigators from focusing on Oswald as an intelligence asset that was used more than once)?

We all seem to have been able to accept anything else except this alternative possibility for the past 40 years. Could we have been misled?

Jim Root

Jim, I have been saying essentially the same thing for years. I have maintained the majority of the available evidence is accounted for with Oswald as an active participant in a conspiracy.

You queried whether or not US intelligence had the ability to have effect on the minds of the American public and to that I would say a resounding YES. One of the most effective methods of public perception control is the deliberate creation of dichotomy. Oswald as the LONE NUT or Oswald as the COMPLETE PATSY both accomplish the goal of diverting attention from Oswald's associates prior to and after the assassination. Mr. Hogan questioned the use of the Carcano in his post and I would say given what was presented to the public the Carcano fits Oswald's legend perfectly and suites other purposes.

Jason Vermeer

[Shanet Clark]

Great Thread...........

Stephen lays out a pretty good list of ANOMOLIES that day...

The number of shots, holes, fragments, misses, etc.

The situation on the overpass, 18 or more observers directly over the limousine

The hairpin turn, missing film frames and sloooow braking performance of the SS driver

The rifle itself.............

Didn't some Mannlicher Carcano il duce palace guard grade rifles get picked up by OSS in Rome in 1943?

Were these used and then linked to the Oswald junk?

I think they were/

>>> >>> >>>

[Bruce Cormier]

John

Most conspiracy theories contain an Oswald element to some degree or another. If nothing more than the patsy that was placed in the TSBD building to be blamed for the assassination. I still have trouble understanding why a conspiracy that needs to explain away Oswald as a patsy is any better than a conspiracy that could involve Oswald as a shooter.

Without Oswald as a shooter we need to add numerous others to the group of assassins (spoters, logistic people, planners for the motorcade route, at the hospital, control of the autopsy, to eliminate witnesses, for each involved person to escape, to murder Tippit, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, to have Oswald shot at Walker, Marina to provide a note about the Walker shooting, etc., etc.) as well as then also having the ability to control the FBI investigation and the Warren Commissioners. Each layer adds additional personel that might, at some time, have talked. Each layer in turn needs additonal conspirators to explain away why Oswald could not have been a shooter within the conspiracy.

I for one do not believe in the Lone Nut scenario but I certainly do believe that the conspirators used Oswald. I guess I just believe that they used him to a greater degree than others seem to want to believe that Oswald was used. In this scenario Oswald would still need to be eliminated within hours of the assassination (much the same way that Admiral Darlan's assassin was eliminated-I bring this up because I believe that some of the same people may have been involved in both crimes-John B. Hurt makes a comment on the assassination of Admiral Darlan in his papers as well).

Rather than believing that the consiracy involved an ever larger number of people, I believe that the assassination conspiracy has been so successful because it was tighly held with fewer rather than more people involved.

In my scenario the biggest piece of misinformation that has been provided to the public to keep them from discovering the truth about a conspiracy is that Oswald could not have been a shooter. While the the Warren Commission provides for an impossible "lone nut" conclusion, we must all accept that Oswald is an integral part of the assassination story. US intelligence agencies, I believe we could all agree, have in the past put out misinformation on a variety of subjects. Why could the intelligence agencies not have planted the belief that Oswald was not a shooter? Does US intelligence have the ability to plant that thought (Oswald could not be a shooter) into the minds of a majority of Americans by introducing it into movies, into books, on talk shows, in dramatic recreations, at seminars, etc. (especially if it keeps investigators from focusing on Oswald as an intelligence asset that was used more than once)?

We all seem to have been able to accept anything else except this alternative possibility for the past 40 years. Could we have been misled?

Jim Root

Jim, I generally agree with your principle that smaller is better, but offer a few reasons why I'm highly suspicious of the LHO as shooter scenario.

First, as you accept the notion of a conspiracy to kill, how could its architect reasonably settle on LHO as a principal marksman? This is serious business, in which LHO had demonstrated no discernible proficiency, and such a choice would give new meaning to the notion of "starting at the top." IMO, you get one shot at this (forgive me), and it would be foolish to count on this guy as a marksmark.

Second, the timeline between the shooting and witnesses, including a police officer, finding a calm, composed LHO in the lunch room is, IMO, sufficient reason to reject this fellow as a shooter. Indeed, that anomaly and the fact that no staircase witnesses recall seeing LHO make his way from the 6th floor down the staircase torpedo the WC's principal finding.

Third, merely at a gut level, LHO's "I'm a patsy" declaration has to me always had a ring of authenticity.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I must agree with what you say Jim. I've noticed in the past that you take a very rational approach to the case. Unlike my own more speculative approach.

With regards to silence, the network was already in place. For example if the assassins were WKKKK then one need only to pop over to parts of Alabama and Mississippi to find communities which knows all / tell nothing to outsiders. The hate for Kennedy (and MLK and RFK) was deep and the tie to silence established, so it is possible to see a scenario where more conspirators is possible. The FBI seemed to be local, ex and WC. Differing loyalties but connected. So again not impossible. Though as you say, the rational approach is fewer conspirators.

The thing that would(IMO) alter that is where one does have in place secrecy where those in the know become 'co conspirators' while not actually having anything to do with the assassination itself.

With regards to Oswald, yes why not? I'd place him as a manipulated 'outsider', not fully in the know, left out on a limb. Whether he fired the headshot or not is another question. At the moment I see the headshot as separate and the tie to the room behind the room full of smoke and mirrors. (all IMO)

Gaeton Fonzi did write that each of the teams investigating was able to establish a scenario that hung together for the various usual suspects. This complicates things.

one need only to pop over to parts of Alabama and Mississippi to find communities which knows all / tell nothing to outsiders.

Hate to "burst your bubble"! However, the MS & AL "rednecks" did not even come close to matching the Southern Louisiana (especially New Orleans vicinity) discrimination.

The "average" Mississippian/Alabamanian, was an uneducated farmer who not unlike many Civil War & Son Tay Prison Raiders, was merely "kept in the dark and fed only horse xxxx".

Many of these persons were afforded the opportunity to "homestead" land as a result of their participation in the Revolutionary War, and since they had little if anything where they were, they travelled into the rural South and acquired land which they cleared and farmed with their "own" hands.

The great majority of the "Mississippi Plantations" which actually owned slaves, were located directly along the Mississippi River, and most of these persons/families actually deemed New Orleans as their home and the Plantations were frequently run by "Overseer's". If one will recall, this was all a part of "Louisiana Territory", long before it was sub-divided into Mississippi Territory, etc.

There were virtually ZERO slave owning plantations in southern Mississippi and most of South Alabama, as it was areas of timber.

Early maps of the Mississippi River will demonstrate the "Plantation" ownership of those areas along the border of the river, where most of the cotton, sugar cane, as well as rice was grown under the "Slavery Plantation" means of production.

Many of these plantations pre-dated the Revolutionary War, and were well established prior to the 1803 Louisiana Purchase acquisition of this land, which encompassed the West side of the Mississippi River.

And, in that regards, it should also be noted that ALL of the Southern Counties across the Mississippi Coast, all the way to Mobile, AL, were also a portion of the lands acquired during the Louisiana Purchase.

This is also why so much of the wealth of New Orleans also owned "Summer Homes" across the Mississippi Coast (along the beach) where the summer heat was more tolerable due to the coastal breeze.

Such homes were of the "Beauvoir" type at Biloxi, MS, where Jefferson Davis was allowed to live out the remainder of his life.

Therefore, in event you lived in Biloxi, Gulfport, D'Iberbville, Pascagoula, etc; prior to 1803, you were actually a resident of "Louisiana, Territory", (of which some areas the Spainish also claimed).

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

In 1810, after a revolt in West Florida, the United States annexed the region between the Mississippi and Pearl rivers (known today as the Florida Parishes of Louisiana). In 1812, the Mobile District was annexed (the region between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers, which now forms the panhandles of Alabama and Mississippi). The matter was not fully settled until the signing of the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819, in which Spain ceded all of Florida to the U.S. and the boundary between the Louisiana territory and the Spanish colonies was set along the Sabine, Red and Arkansas rivers and the 42nd parallel

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

The coastal counties of South Mississippi, extending to Mobile,Al , fell in an area which was claimed by Spain as well as by Louisiana. It has been referred to as the Florida Parish of Louisiana (the Louisiana ownership side) and Spainish West Florida (the Spainish side)

And, although Mississippi was opened to settlement in 1810 (lands East of the Mississippi River), the US Government accepted the prior ownership of those tracts of land which bordered both sides of the River, and thus few new plantations came into existence as the lands bordering the river were long prior claimed and settled. as well as were the costal communities of South Mississippi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

http://www.cr.nps.gov/delta/plantation/plantation.htm

Another example would be Vicksburg, MS. Of which many prominent Southern families claim heritage.

The Vicksburg side of the river is located on a high red clay formation which is conducive only to the natural tree growth there. There are NO Plantations/farms at Vicksburg.

The opposite side of the river (Louisiana side) contains the lowlands which have, since their earliest days, been the location of slave plantation farming.

Thus, even though one of importance may have in fact listed themselves as a "resident of Vicksburg", the actual plantations were all across the river on the Louisiana side of the river.

Thus the extremely close ties and frequent intermarriages of those from what is now classified as Mississippi who actually had wealth and owned slaves, with the wealth and slave owners of New Orleans.

The County in Mississippi in which I reside (George County) was not formed until 1910, and was originally a part of Jackson County, MS (& Greene County, MS).

Thus, my Grandmother (Howell family side) was born and died in virtually the same area, yet was born in what was then Jackson County, MS, yet died in what is now George County,MS.

Due to my family background, I am related to virtually thousands of George & Jackson County, MS residents, and of these, few if any owned any slaves at all.

Some did own one or even possibly two "family servants" (female) who were in fact much like members of the family who merely cooked, did laundry, and took care of children.

The only family member (Great-Great Uncle on the Howell side of the family/same side of the family as Varina Howell Davis-wife of Jefferson Davis) to own any slaves, had approximately 50 as he owned and ran a considerablely large turpentine gathering operation on the Chickasawhay River.

Of course, many of these residents were stupid enough to go off and get killed over the "slavery" issue of the Civil War, when in fact they neither owned any such persons, did not possess the wealth to acquire slaves, and were themselves extremely poor.

Out of one Confederate Company formed here, which consisted of approximately 110 men, only approximately 10 of them returned home, and virtually none of those killed owned any slaves.

Again demonstrating that the uneducated can be made to do some extremely stupid things when guided to do so by the educated wealth.

The "Educated Wealth" of the plantation owners easily convinced the "uneducated" that they should die for the "Southern Cause". Yet, few of the wealthy & educated were themselves so gallant.

New Orleans, LA was the CENTER of the wealth and education in the South. And despite what many think, much of this wealth actually had direct ties and connections back to New York and Boston.

Atlanta, GA wealth came from the original settlers in the Carolina's and Georgia. Therefore little if any "Eastern Wealth" existed there.

Atlanta was burned to the ground!

The "Carpetbaggers" from the Northern establishments moved in and thereafter gained control and ownership of most of the land and wealth.

New Orleans was surrendered without virtually a shot being fired, and the City was preserved as well as being completely protected under the Martial Law of General Butler.

Exactly WHO's wealth do you think it was that General Butler was protecting??????

[Jim Root]

John

Most conspiracy theories contain an Oswald element to some degree or another. If nothing more than the patsy that was placed in the TSBD building to be blamed for the assassination. I still have trouble understanding why a conspiracy that needs to explain away Oswald as a patsy is any better than a conspiracy that could involve Oswald as a shooter.

Without Oswald as a shooter we need to add numerous others to the group of assassins (spoters, logistic people, planners for the motorcade route, at the hospital, control of the autopsy, to eliminate witnesses, for each involved person to escape, to murder Tippit, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, to have Oswald shot at Walker, Marina to provide a note about the Walker shooting, etc., etc.) as well as then also having the ability to control the FBI investigation and the Warren Commissioners. Each layer adds additional personel that might, at some time, have talked. Each layer in turn needs additonal conspirators to explain away why Oswald could not have been a shooter within the conspiracy.

I for one do not believe in the Lone Nut scenario but I certainly do believe that the conspirators used Oswald. I guess I just believe that they used him to a greater degree than others seem to want to believe that Oswald was used. In this scenario Oswald would still need to be eliminated within hours of the assassination (much the same way that Admiral Darlan's assassin was eliminated-I bring this up because I believe that some of the same people may have been involved in both crimes-John B. Hurt makes a comment on the assassination of Admiral Darlan in his papers as well).

Rather than believing that the consiracy involved an ever larger number of people, I believe that the assassination conspiracy has been so successful because it was tighly held with fewer rather than more people involved.

In my scenario the biggest piece of misinformation that has been provided to the public to keep them from discovering the truth about a conspiracy is that Oswald could not have been a shooter. While the the Warren Commission provides for an impossible "lone nut" conclusion, we must all accept that Oswald is an integral part of the assassination story. US intelligence agencies, I believe we could all agree, have in the past put out misinformation on a variety of subjects. Why could the intelligence agencies not have planted the belief that Oswald was not a shooter? Does US intelligence have the ability to plant that thought (Oswald could not be a shooter) into the minds of a majority of Americans by introducing it into movies, into books, on talk shows, in dramatic recreations, at seminars, etc. (especially if it keeps investigators from focusing on Oswald as an intelligence asset that was used more than once)?

We all seem to have been able to accept anything else except this alternative possibility for the past 40 years. Could we have been misled?

Jim Root

Jim, I generally agree with your principle that smaller is better, but offer a few reasons why I'm highly suspicious of the LHO as shooter scenario.

First, as you accept the notion of a conspiracy to kill, how could its architect reasonably settle on LHO as a principal marksman? This is serious business, in which LHO had demonstrated no discernible proficiency, and such a choice would give new meaning to the notion of "starting at the top." IMO, you get one shot at this (forgive me), and it would be foolish to count on this guy as a marksmark.

Second, the timeline between the shooting and witnesses, including a police officer, finding a calm, composed LHO in the lunch room is, IMO, sufficient reason to reject this fellow as a shooter. Indeed, that anomaly and the fact that no staircase witnesses recall seeing LHO make his way from the 6th floor down the staircase torpedo the WC's principal finding.

Third, merely at a gut level, LHO's "I'm a patsy" declaration has to me always had a ring of authenticity.

Bruce

First Oswald shooting ability while a Marine: Just three weeks after joining the Marines, Oswald trained in the use of an M-l rifle. He shot a score of 212, which means he qualified for the second-highest position in the Marine Corps, that of a sharpshooter.

Near the end of his stay in the Marines in 1959, after being court-martialed twice and his morale was low, he went back to re-qualify himself on the range. Oswald still shot a 191, and still qualified as a marksman. That meant that he could hit a 10-inch target eight times out of ten from 200 yards away.

These scores were accomplished at a greater distance than the shots fired at Kennedy and without the assisstance of a telescopic site.

Once again to disprove Oswald as a potential shooter people have had to go to great lengths to argue that he was not a good shot when the facts show otherwise. The other side of this issue is perhaps more interesting. If Oswald was such a good shot why did he (as the Warren Commission states) only hit on two out of three shots fired? Perhaps he was in a hurry?

"First, as you accept the notion of a conspiracy to kill, how could its architect reasonably settle on LHO as a principal marksman?"

Because Oswald was available at the location and time when the conspirators could direct the motorcade past where he was working.

Once again the FBI was knowledgable of Oswald's work location by Nov. 4th (Hosty note, something that was never given an exhibit number by the Warren Commission, why?). The route was designed in Washington against the wishes of the authorites in Dallas (why?). Oswald movements began being monitored within days (April 21 vs April 10) of the assassination attempt on Walker (why?). I postulate that the same people that incerted Oswald into Russia (with Walker's involvement) would have been the only people who could identify Oswald as the perpatrator of the Walker incident. They knew they had a man with a rifle capable of taking human life. All they had to do was put the President within his sites. If he shoots and is successful they have pulled off a crime in which no one else is involved and they have had no direct contact with the shooter. The perfect assassination plot carried out by a group of consirators that are so distant that they will not be discovered, unless Oswald is examined as a shooter in both the Walker and Kennedy cases and if he is linked to Walker and intelligence.

My research draws a direct link between Walker, Maxwell Taylor and John J. McCloy. My research can show how Oswald was incerted into the Soviet Union with the help of Walker (Warren Commission failed to identify how Oswald traveled from London to Helsinki. Why?). My research shows that Oswald's attempted "Raleigh Call" to John Hurt may have been his death warrent because a real John B. Hurt was involved in classified signals intelligence work that is, to this day, still classified. Yet John B. Hurt was known to Walker, Taylor and McCloy as well as to the two NSA employees (Rowlett and Garner) who investigated Oswald's possible intelligence connections for the Warren Commission. Why were those two choosen to investigate Oswald's intelligence connections?

"Third, merely at a gut level, LHO's "I'm a patsy" declaration has to me always had a ring of authenticity."

I could not agree with you more on the "I am a patsy" statement except once again most conspiracy theories take it out of context. The true statement is closer to, "the reason I am being arrested is because I went to the Soviet Union. I am a patsy." This actually fits in quite well with what I stated above.

Speaking of statements made by the accused assassin, Oswald's Spring Hill College speech is interesting. Given after the date of the assassination attempt on Walker, Oswald speaks of his anger with both the US and the Soviets for the failure of the Paris Summit that occured after the shoot down of the U-2. If Oswald was the "patsy" that provided the information to the Soviets necessary to allow them to down the U-2 we can see why Oswald's "anger" may have motivated him to kill. Only his "handlers" could have suspected this after the Walker assassination attempt.

In early November 1959, within days of Oswald's "defection" to the Soviet Union, a meeting of "The Secretary's Disarmament Advisors" met. There was a great deal of fear about the disarmament negotiations that were then taking place and the Summit meeting that was to be held early the next year. McCloy attended this meeting. The Summit did not take place because the U-2 was shot down. Coincidence?

McCloy had his fears of the summit meeting slated for May of 1960. The Summit did not occur because a U-2 was shot down. Oswald was a radar operator at U-2 basis. Oswald defects to the Soviet Union. Kennedy is shot and McCloy ends up on the Warren Commission. Interesting connections that I feel are worth continuing to research.

Jim Root

[Bruce Cormier]

John

Most conspiracy theories contain an Oswald element to some degree or another. If nothing more than the patsy that was placed in the TSBD building to be blamed for the assassination. I still have trouble understanding why a conspiracy that needs to explain away Oswald as a patsy is any better than a conspiracy that could involve Oswald as a shooter.

Without Oswald as a shooter we need to add numerous others to the group of assassins (spoters, logistic people, planners for the motorcade route, at the hospital, control of the autopsy, to eliminate witnesses, for each involved person to escape, to murder Tippit, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, to have Oswald shot at Walker, Marina to provide a note about the Walker shooting, etc., etc.) as well as then also having the ability to control the FBI investigation and the Warren Commissioners. Each layer adds additional personel that might, at some time, have talked. Each layer in turn needs additonal conspirators to explain away why Oswald could not have been a shooter within the conspiracy.

I for one do not believe in the Lone Nut scenario but I certainly do believe that the conspirators used Oswald. I guess I just believe that they used him to a greater degree than others seem to want to believe that Oswald was used. In this scenario Oswald would still need to be eliminated within hours of the assassination (much the same way that Admiral Darlan's assassin was eliminated-I bring this up because I believe that some of the same people may have been involved in both crimes-John B. Hurt makes a comment on the assassination of Admiral Darlan in his papers as well).

Rather than believing that the consiracy involved an ever larger number of people, I believe that the assassination conspiracy has been so successful because it was tighly held with fewer rather than more people involved.

In my scenario the biggest piece of misinformation that has been provided to the public to keep them from discovering the truth about a conspiracy is that Oswald could not have been a shooter. While the the Warren Commission provides for an impossible "lone nut" conclusion, we must all accept that Oswald is an integral part of the assassination story. US intelligence agencies, I believe we could all agree, have in the past put out misinformation on a variety of subjects. Why could the intelligence agencies not have planted the belief that Oswald was not a shooter? Does US intelligence have the ability to plant that thought (Oswald could not be a shooter) into the minds of a majority of Americans by introducing it into movies, into books, on talk shows, in dramatic recreations, at seminars, etc. (especially if it keeps investigators from focusing on Oswald as an intelligence asset that was used more than once)?

We all seem to have been able to accept anything else except this alternative possibility for the past 40 years. Could we have been misled?

Jim Root

Jim, I generally agree with your principle that smaller is better, but offer a few reasons why I'm highly suspicious of the LHO as shooter scenario.

First, as you accept the notion of a conspiracy to kill, how could its architect reasonably settle on LHO as a principal marksman? This is serious business, in which LHO had demonstrated no discernible proficiency, and such a choice would give new meaning to the notion of "starting at the top." IMO, you get one shot at this (forgive me), and it would be foolish to count on this guy as a marksmark.

Second, the timeline between the shooting and witnesses, including a police officer, finding a calm, composed LHO in the lunch room is, IMO, sufficient reason to reject this fellow as a shooter. Indeed, that anomaly and the fact that no staircase witnesses recall seeing LHO make his way from the 6th floor down the staircase torpedo the WC's principal finding.

Third, merely at a gut level, LHO's "I'm a patsy" declaration has to me always had a ring of authenticity.

Bruce

First Oswald shooting ability while a Marine: Just three weeks after joining the Marines, Oswald trained in the use of an M-l rifle. He shot a score of 212, which means he qualified for the second-highest position in the Marine Corps, that of a sharpshooter.

Near the end of his stay in the Marines in 1959, after being court-martialed twice and his morale was low, he went back to re-qualify himself on the range. Oswald still shot a 191, and still qualified as a marksman. That meant that he could hit a 10-inch target eight times out of ten from 200 yards away.

These scores were accomplished at a greater distance than the shots fired at Kennedy and without the assisstance of a telescopic site.

Once again to disprove Oswald as a potential shooter people have had to go to great lengths to argue that he was not a good shot when the facts show otherwise. The other side of this issue is perhaps more interesting. If Oswald was such a good shot why did he (as the Warren Commission states) only hit on two out of three shots fired? Perhaps he was in a hurry?

"First, as you accept the notion of a conspiracy to kill, how could its architect reasonably settle on LHO as a principal marksman?"

Because Oswald was available at the location and time when the conspirators could direct the motorcade past where he was working.

Once again the FBI was knowledgable of Oswald's work location by Nov. 4th (Hosty note, something that was never given an exhibit number by the Warren Commission, why?). The route was designed in Washington against the wishes of the authorites in Dallas (why?). Oswald movements began being monitored within days (April 21 vs April 10) of the assassination attempt on Walker (why?). I postulate that the same people that incerted Oswald into Russia (with Walker's involvement) would have been the only people who could identify Oswald as the perpatrator of the Walker incident. They knew they had a man with a rifle capable of taking human life. All they had to do was put the President within his sites. If he shoots and is successful they have pulled off a crime in which no one else is involved and they have had no direct contact with the shooter. The perfect assassination plot carried out by a group of consirators that are so distant that they will not be discovered, unless Oswald is examined as a shooter in both the Walker and Kennedy cases and if he is linked to Walker and intelligence.

My research draws a direct link between Walker, Maxwell Taylor and John J. McCloy. My research can show how Oswald was incerted into the Soviet Union with the help of Walker (Warren Commission failed to identify how Oswald traveled from London to Helsinki. Why?). My research shows that Oswald's attempted "Raleigh Call" to John Hurt may have been his death warrent because a real John B. Hurt was involved in classified signals intelligence work that is, to this day, still classified. Yet John B. Hurt was known to Walker, Taylor and McCloy as well as to the two NSA employees (Rowlett and Garner) who investigated Oswald's possible intelligence connections for the Warren Commission. Why were those two choosen to investigate Oswald's intelligence connections?

"Third, merely at a gut level, LHO's "I'm a patsy" declaration has to me always had a ring of authenticity."

I could not agree with you more on the "I am a patsy" statement except once again most conspiracy theories take it out of context. The true statement is closer to, "the reason I am being arrested is because I went to the Soviet Union. I am a patsy." This actually fits in quite well with what I stated above.

Speaking of statements made by the accused assassin, Oswald's Spring Hill College speech is interesting. Given after the date of the assassination attempt on Walker, Oswald speaks of his anger with both the US and the Soviets for the failure of the Paris Summit that occured after the shoot down of the U-2. If Oswald was the "patsy" that provided the information to the Soviets necessary to allow them to down the U-2 we can see why Oswald's "anger" may have motivated him to kill. Only his "handlers" could have suspected this after the Walker assassination attempt.

In early November 1959, within days of Oswald's "defection" to the Soviet Union, a meeting of "The Secretary's Disarmament Advisors" met. There was a great deal of fear about the disarmament negotiations that were then taking place and the Summit meeting that was to be held early the next year. McCloy attended this meeting. The Summit did not take place because the U-2 was shot down. Coincidence?

McCloy had his fears of the summit meeting slated for May of 1960. The Summit did not occur because a U-2 was shot down. Oswald was a radar operator at U-2 basis. Oswald defects to the Soviet Union. Kennedy is shot and McCloy ends up on the Warren Commission. Interesting connections that I feel are worth continuing to research.

Jim Root

Thanks Jim. What about LHO's demeanor and the timeline problem -- my point #2 above?

With respect to his proficiency, I was really getting at what I perceive to be a world of difference between shooting at targets and taking out living breathing human beings, much less the President of the United States. My guess is that only an experienced killer -- or a bona-fide nut with remarkable fortune in his first assignment -- could have pulled this off. Think about it -- you've never killed a human being this way (indeed, your purported prior attempt vs Gen'l Walker was a whiff) and you are calmly and methodically going to gun down a sitting President? Either he did a lot of wet work we don't know about, or he is not someone I'd have hired for the job.

[Norman T. Field]

Re:

"McCloy had his fears of the summit meeting slated for May of 1960. The Summit did not occur because a U-2 was shot down. Oswald was a radar operator at U-2 basis. Oswald defects to the Soviet Union. Kennedy is shot and McCloy ends up on the Warren Commission. Interesting connections that I feel are worth continuing to research."

Unless the U2 was sabotaged to prevent the summit from occurring. I am unaware of any proof that a Soviet missle brought down the U2.

[Pat Speer]

[

Thanks Jim. What about LHO's demeanor and the timeline problem -- my point #2 above?

With respect to his proficiency, I was really getting at what I perceive to be a world of difference between shooting at targets and taking out living breathing human beings, much less the President of the United States. My guess is that only an experienced killer -- or a bona-fide nut with remarkable fortune in his first assignment -- could have pulled this off. Think about it -- you've never killed a human being this way (indeed, your purported prior attempt vs Gen'l Walker was a whiff) and you are calmly and methodically going to gun down a sitting President? Either he did a lot of wet work we don't know about, or he is not someone I'd have hired for the job.

I have great difficulty with Oswald as a shooter. He may have built the sniper's nest; he may have been a look-out stationed near the back stairs; but he wasn't a shooter. Shooting at a stationary target with an M-1 is not the same as rapid-fire shooting at a moving target from elevation with a Mannlicher-Carcano. Delgado and others said Oswald was particularly bad at rapid-fire shooting. The current 81/2 second scenario proposed by LNers is predicated on a first shot miss at 160, which didn't occur. Their upholding a first shot miss at 160, when there is much more evidence for a shot around 190, is reflective of their blindness and/or dishnoesty, IMO. There's also the problem that the last two shots were heard bunched together. If Oswald was a shooter he certainly wasn't the only one.

[Ryan Crowe]

I agree with everything Pat just stated, also we must remember, the MC is no where near the rifle a M1 Garand is.... also if Oswlad was praticing with this rifle, where are his cleaning supplies, extra ammo, patches, bore brushes, cleaning rods, solvents etc???? Has any of this stuff ever been found??? even a novice shooter has this stuff.....This is a "high stress" shooting, yet Oswald is found nice and calm...Reminds me of the movie the Alamo, where Jim Bowie tells David Crockett "those arent bears out there Davie".....

[Jim Root]

Re:

"McCloy had his fears of the summit meeting slated for May of 1960. The Summit did not occur because a U-2 was shot down. Oswald was a radar operator at U-2 basis. Oswald defects to the Soviet Union. Kennedy is shot and McCloy ends up on the Warren Commission. Interesting connections that I feel are worth continuing to research."

Unless the U2 was sabotaged to prevent the summit from occurring. I am unaware of any proof that a Soviet missle brought down the U2.

Norman

I have seen the arguments about the U-2. I attempt to work within known facts that no one can dispute and build toward what is missing:

1) Oswald operated radar at U-2 basis and was aware of the U-2 aircraft

2) Oswald "defected" to the Soviet Union

3) Us Intelligence (including McCloy) was apprehensive about a Paris Summit in 1960

4) The CIA was either unwilling or unable to identify how Oswald traveled from London to Helsinki

5) General Edwin Walker was traveling in Europe at the same time as Oswald

5) The U-2 went down

6) The Paris Summit was canceled because the U-2 went down

7) Before he returned to the US, Oswald displayed a concern that he might be prosecuted for crimes against the United States.

8) Walker's "Pro Blue Program" start date (that leads to Walker's resignation from the Army) begins within days of a State Department decission that Oswald would be allowed to return to the United States

It is my belief that these simple pieces of information can support a possibility that Oswald's "defection" to the Soviet Union played a roll in the downing of the U-2, however it was downed, and provides for the possibility of a Walker Oswald connection (which would provide Oswald with a motive to shoot at Walker).

Jim Root

[Jim Root]

Pat and Ryan

I believe that you bring up good questions. Just as we might speculate on how the U-2 was downed the fact remains that it was downed. The same holds true for Kennedy, he was assassinated. Because an accused assassin can act cool and calm after the fact does not prove or disprove anything about the action that occured. Because the rifle used on the firing range by Oswald the Marine is different from the Carcano it does not mean that he could not be as good a shot with another weapon with a scope attached at a shorter distance.

The rifle was stored at the Paines and I do not recall that any cleaning supplies were recovered or put into evidence. Once again that does not prove or disprove that those cleaning supplies did not exist at the Paines residence.

Jim Root

[John Dolva]

Bubble bursting most appreciated, Tom. It's a pleasure to read from you on these historical issues. I am describing a part of the picture. I have noticed that the more organisational MSC documants point to a power center in New Orleans, so I know your summation is fuller.

MS did seem to contain a lot of ready and able though? (One account about a separate issue (an MSC document) describes an interview with a MS farmer who says something to the effect that if Bobby came to them he would get what they gave Kennedy in Dallas.)

# Elsewhere you have discussed the owner of Greyhound. Is (was) that a national company or by state. Who owned the Greyhound that ran from New Orleans to Jackson MS for example?

# Also Tom, can you comment on what 'Patsy' may have meant to Oswald, please? one source makes 'tricked' or cheated an acceptable definition. What would it have meant in the 1960's to Oswald?

__________________________

As far as the question of Butler goes, I know one can likely check your previous postings on this and find the answer, but a guess for now is Beauregard.

EDIT ::I've read# more on this and must say I have no idea whose wealth Butler was protecting. (I would like to know though.)

#

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...ENHNO/home.html

Edited May 4, 2006 by John Dolva