Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why does this man think his brother killed JFK?


Guest Richard Bittikofer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because he did!!!!

Richard you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps there are those on the forum who will be interested in debating you. Is it necessary to start so many threads? Perhaps we could have one thread where those interested in the LN-CT debate can participate, endlessly debating the single-bullet theory, etc. Or perhaps you would be more confortable over at alt.assassination.jfk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he did!!!!

Richard you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps there are those on the forum who will be interested in debating you. Is it necessary to start so many threads? Perhaps we could have one thread where those interested in the LN-CT debate can participate, endlessly debating the single-bullet theory, etc. Or perhaps you would be more confortable over at alt.assassination.jfk

His posts do push the real discussions off the front page, possibly through design.

Oh well, we're used to digging for info on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he did!!!!

The presence of Mr. Bittikofer illustrates the danger of cherry-picking only that which suits one's fancy. Yes, we all know that Robert Oswald has resigned himself to accepting that his brother murdered the President, underscoring the putative fact that there was no conspiracy involved. But those who trouble themselves to actually read what Robert Oswald had to say, back in the day when it counted, don't encounter the same man:

Representative Boggs: Have you in your own mind reached any conclusions on whether or not your brother killed President Kennedy?

Mr. Oswald: Based on the circumstantial evidence that has been reported in newspapers and over the radio and television, I would have to say that it appears that he did kill President Kennedy.

Representative Boggs: Would you, having reached that conclusion under the circumstances that you outlined a moment ago, and having known him all of his life, although not too intimately the last year of his life, would you give us any reason for why he may have done this?

Mr. Oswald: No, sir: I could not.

Representative Boggs: It came as, I would think, a great shock to you?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; it certainly did, and I might add that the Lee Harvey Oswald that I knew would not have killed anybody.

........................

If Mr. Bittikofer would trouble himself to actually read the testimony of those who knew Oswald best, he would encounter sentiments similar to those expressed to the Warren Commission by brother Robert Oswald. Even Marina Oswald, the single most damning witness against her late husband, has spent the past few decades denying that her husband was guilty.

But, then, it is apparent from Mr. Bittikofer's posts here that he has no intention of going to such trouble, or entertaining any evidence that might prove exculpatory to the presumed assassin. It takes remarkable time and energy to learn the details of the case and then reach one's own conclusions, when compared to how easy it is to simply allow others to do his thinking for him, as seems the case.

Instead, we have witnessed Mr. Bittikofer posting spurious photos of TSBD trees featuring either pruned or withered foliage, with the proclamation that it would have been an "easy shot." In order to reach so vacant a conclusion, Mr. Bittikofer must ignore the salient detail that no marksman on earth has ever duplicated what he characterizes as "easy shots," even with stationary targets and no trees to obstruct the shots. But why let facts get in the way when a bit of bile and scurrilous misrepresentations can stir the pot so effectively?

Other members here have taken great umbrage at Mr. Bittikofer's fraudulence, as though it is the first time they have encountered those who indulge in sleight of hand and falsity to game the result. Perhaps they would benefit from bearing in mind that Mr. Bittikofer's punch-lines are all contained in his post-headings, with nothing of substance in the actual body, and thereby avoid bothering to read them. Once he realizes that his bait isn't being taken, he'll move elsewhere in his bid to cause offense.

There are those persons of good faith and breeding who have bothered to acquaint themselves with the facts of this case, and can make a cogent argument for beliefs that are the polar opposite to those held by the majority of Forum members.

My advice to Forum members is to save their ammunition for someone of that sort, who actually presents a worthy target. Mr. Bittikofer is not that man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her saying she was unknown doesn't gel with the number of 1959 clippings in Lee's possession box 6) (some of them headlines) about the Fort Worth mother whose son defected to Russia. She talks of the many sympathetic contacts people made etc. She also mentions Lee liking movies as well as saying that she'd ather read about him going to russia than read about him killing someone or becoming a dope fiend.

(image)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion of "Oswald as Communist" also does not gel with his statements that he turned to Communism after reading Das Kapital, while elsewhere said no, and laughed at the idea, to a question if he had studied political economy in the US.

Das Kapital is basically a book on Political Economy. "In this book, you will find basic concepts of labour theory of value (what determines the value of a commodity); monetary theory (the evolution of money); the Theory of Surplus Value (what is profit and how does it come about - .. and lastly, the mechanism of production."- Review Written by O. B. Makhubela (amazon)

The idea of the "Communist Pretender" gels with this mistake and with his expressed admiration for the Minutemen, and with him finding Soviet life too booring to put up with. I've come across 'wreckers' of this kind, so Lee as such is not that farfetched to me.

(image)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the things where the 'Oswald did it' theory falls down is the shooting of General Walker. One point being if Oswald was such a good shot from the 6th floor window, how come he missed Walker who was sitting in a very easy position for someone to have 'missed'. My theory being whoever shot at Walker was supposed to miss just to set up this whole thing.

The second point which lone nutters always seem to miss is that it makes no sense for Oswald, a so called 'communist' to try and kill Walker, who was ultra right wing and then go on to shoot JFK, who was at the opposite end of the political spectrum and who was often accused of being 'soft on communism'.

It just doesn't 'fit' with a very believable motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, Francesca. I think you answer your own question. It's a mirror, smoke.

It seems to me that the irrgualrities started with going to Russia. It seems that something made this 'the plan' which the numerous slips merely point to the unprofessional approach. Not exactly what one might expect from a 'master spy' but rather born of following instructions from someone that he placed his trust in judgement while this someone left the preparations incomplete. Lunacy, really. I'd look to a zealot outside the usual agencies.

Before during or after arrest Oswald had no signs of drug use like dilated pupils or sweating, or erratic enhanced reactions, so that wasn't a factor.

Patsy doesn't only mean scapegoat, but also 'cheated' or betrayed. His inconsistencies tell of peripheral involvement. Not as he thought when starting to play with the big boys, but used and dumped. Therefore killing him was essential before he realised just how much he had been left out in the cold.

EDIT::1 Remember that as far as Lee knew he was'covered' as far as the Walker shooting went. The police were looking for two and a car. A steel jacketed bullet which was far too mangled to match any particular rifle.

2 Lee played with the big boys and got burnt. They knew all along he was going to burn. They could hardly give him any inkling of that however, quite the contrary. Not until sitting in the Theatre did it begin to dawn on him what was going down. He still wasn't sure however, as he had no idea of any cop being killed. This he found out later. His white supremacy shackled-fist salute was an ID in preparation to going to jail.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, Francesca. I think you answer your own question. It's a mirror, smoke.

It seems to me that the irrgualrities started with going to Russia. It seems that something made this 'the plan' which the numerous slips merely point to the unprofessional approach. Not exactly what one might expect from a 'master spy' but rather born of following instructions from someone that he placed his trust in judgement while this someone left the preparations incomplete. Lunacy, really. I'd look to a zealot outside the usual agencies.

Before during or after arrest Oswald had no signs of drug use like dilated pupils or sweating, or erratic enhanced reactions, so that wasn't a factor.

Patsy doesn't only mean scapegoat, but also 'cheated' or betrayed. His inconsistencies tell of peripheral involvement. Not as he thought when starting to play with the big boys, but used and dumped. Therefore killing him was essential before he realised just how much he had been left out in the cold.

EDIT::1 Remember that as far as Lee knew he was'covered' as far as the Walker shooting went. The police were looking for two and a car. A steel jacketed bullet which was far too mangled to match any particular rifle.

2 Lee played with the big boys and got burnt. They knew all along he was going to burn. They could hardly give him any inkling of that however, quite the contrary. Not until sitting in the Theatre did it begin to dawn on him what was going down. He still wasn't sure however, as he had no idea of any cop being killed. This he found out later. His white supremacy shackled-fist salute was an ID in preparation to going to jail.

Also, didn't Nitrate tests on his right cheek prove that he had no traces of gunpowder and couldn't have possibly fired a rifle? It seems like this test alone would have exonerated him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to counter that, perhaps::

The particular matter which he expressed admiration for the Minutemen over was in the idea of bringing things to a head. Doing things that amplified contradictions. So him (acting under orders?) to shoot at and miss Walker may not be so contradictory at all. What it would do is set him up as the fall guy for the Kennedy assassination. Not that he had any idea that things would turn out like this. Did the German-Walker interview become known after Oswald was silenced? Was he at any time during his interviews asked about Walker? According to Mae: no. So then, until he was done away with he must also be kept quiet, ie if he knew he had been connected with the Walker incident he would also know without doubt he was being hung out to dry and would have started singing. (speculation of course) The Walker shooting-Oswald link was only made after he was dead. It did load the case against the now dead assassin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, Francesca. I think you answer your own question. It's a mirror, smoke.

It seems to me that the irrgualrities started with going to Russia. It seems that something made this 'the plan' which the numerous slips merely point to the unprofessional approach. Not exactly what one might expect from a 'master spy' but rather born of following instructions from someone that he placed his trust in judgement while this someone left the preparations incomplete. Lunacy, really. I'd look to a zealot outside the usual agencies.

Before during or after arrest Oswald had no signs of drug use like dilated pupils or sweating, or erratic enhanced reactions, so that wasn't a factor.

Patsy doesn't only mean scapegoat, but also 'cheated' or betrayed. His inconsistencies tell of peripheral involvement. Not as he thought when starting to play with the big boys, but used and dumped. Therefore killing him was essential before he realised just how much he had been left out in the cold.

EDIT::1 Remember that as far as Lee knew he was'covered' as far as the Walker shooting went. The police were looking for two and a car. A steel jacketed bullet which was far too mangled to match any particular rifle.

2 Lee played with the big boys and got burnt. They knew all along he was going to burn. They could hardly give him any inkling of that however, quite the contrary. Not until sitting in the Theatre did it begin to dawn on him what was going down. He still wasn't sure however, as he had no idea of any cop being killed. This he found out later. His white supremacy shackled-fist salute was an ID in preparation to going to jail.

[qoute]Also, didn't Nitrate tests on his right cheek prove that he had no traces of gunpowder and couldn't have possibly fired a rifle? It seems like this test alone would have exonerated him.

The Dallas Police conducted a parafin test which has been acknowleged by the FBI. It is unbelievable to me that they were still able to sell this turkey with this exculpitory evidence right before everyone's eyes. This clearly shows the power and determination of the people who did this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The humorous part about this thread for me was that I assumed from the subject heading that the discussion concerned David Atlee Phillips, or perhaps a brother of David Morales [that I wasn't aware of], or one of the actual shooters and new information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

move along...nothing to see...move along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...