JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[caz]

As for our assassin, Castro’s point was not that the assassin was stupid; far from it. He did refer to ‘the plot’ which had succeeded in its aim. He specifically said that for Oswald to have been the assassin would have been suicidal which many people other than Castro saw from day one. Fidel was obviously well informed of the shenanigans in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and being on the CIA hitlist, he knew a conspiracy when he saw one.

I thought you said Castro made the 'screamingly obvious point' that no assassin would surely shoot the President from their place of work.

No moving the goal posts please, cobalt. He either made that point or he didn't. If he did, it stands to reason that the conspirators would have had to be beyond stupid to set up Oswald as a lone gunman who was meant to have done precisely what no assassin would surely do.

It can be said of many assassins that their actions were 'suicidal', and Oswald would have been no exception, all things considered.

[caz]

The list of things that Oswald did that made himself look guilty is a long one Caz. A simple one like lying about the curtain rods on its own is enough to completely dismiss the idea of Oswald being an innocent patsy.

Ive just had a thought Caz. What if there was a real AJ Hidell and he was from Cornwall? So when Oswald was in police custody he tried giving us a clue to this by saying “I am just a pasty.”

Ill get my coat.

Nobody would have swallowed that, Herlock.

[cobalt]

The CBS results still prove you wrong, even when you move the goalposts.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^strun of 5.

William Fitchett: 6.50 seconds (3 borderline hits) on his 1^st run of 3.

John Bollendorf: 6.80 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 4.

You do understand the meaning of the word 1st, don't you?

Just about. But I also understand, just about, the word 'exceeded.'

You could just about argue that Flitchett was better than the assassin (but with no head shot.) The others are as good.
Check my posts, as you obviously do, and you will find that I always referred to the ability on the first three shots. This was the point made by the Olympic shooting gold medallist back in 1963- I think he was Austrian. I have a vague memory of the interview as a boy. Very few in the UK bought the LG theory after Oswald was executed then, and I doubt hardly any buy it today.

[cobalt]

And how would Oswald's obvious communism give LBJ leverage over anyone? The only risk of nuclear war was if the American public came to believe that Oswald was acting on orders from Castro or Moscow.

I think that makes the point as clear as it could be. Mexico City was where that was supposed to happen.

The JFK assassination was a political assassination and LBJ cowed the Warren Commission into denying it was motivated in Moscow or Cuba via the person of Oswald. (LBJ’s ‘40 million dead in nuclear war’ scare.) The ugly truth was far nearer to home as LBJ would have known from his base in Texas. Warren Commission worthies Russell and Boggs were racists who Bertrand Russell (no relation) described as having ‘brought shame on their country.’ Gerald Ford, a man described by LBJ as ‘so dumb he can’t fart and chew gum at the same time’ was a Goldwater supporter, the Goldwater akin to Farage or Le Pen in present politics. These were right wingers protecting their own backs and their own power base.

The main voices in support of the Warren Commission have remained right wing. McAdams was screaming ‘conspiracy’ as a university professor some years back when an identity/woke crisis was orchestrated with his considerable help. Except McAdams confected ‘conspiracy’ was about left wing Marxists trying to stifle debate. On this site the bias towards leader worship (sometimes in the form of ‘experts’ or warriors like Bugliosi or saints like Earl Warren or Ruth Paine) is generally from WC advocates.

[cobalt]

How do conspiracy believers explain why there would be unambiguous evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald as a lone gunman in any such surviving written communications? Isn't it 'screamingly obvious' to them that such evidence would never have been allowed to see the light of day if it had once existed?

It never existed and never could have. Anymore than evidence that Macbeth killed King Duncan when he was a guest inside Macbeth’s castle. The ‘patsies’ were killed by Macbeth himself in a fake act of fury. Very convenient. Macbeth became wiser through experience and found a few Jack Ruby types to bump of Banquo. Mass murder followed for both Macbeth and Johnson to consolidate power (in foreign lands in Johnson’s case) until they were removed as a result. Unfortunately for the USA the murder, on the home and foreign front, continues as a result of the Johnson coup d’etat and can be measured in millions.

Johnson controlled the investigation and controlled the verdict. Anyone who did not fall into line was in danger of their career or perhaps worse. There’s no evidence: just scraps and gaps.

[cobalt]

But miracles do happen, and while the conspirators may only have shared the one brain cell between them, Oswald played right into their clammy hands by proving to be his own worst enemy.

The conspirators pulled it off so they were smart enough. The decision to inaugurate LBJ at Love Field Airport shows the nervousness that existed - he could have been inaugurated on his return to Washington save for fear that RFK had the authority to baulk him. Pulling Jackie Kennedy into the ceremony, whose husband had died in her arms barely two hours earlier, remains one of the crudest public exhibitions of power seizure imaginable. That photo still has the power to shock in terms of its callousness and speaks to the character of those who installed Johnson.

As for clammy hands, the degree to which Oswald was a willing or unwitting participant in the conspiracy is a matter that few can agree upon.

[cobalt]

I am not having it both ways on Oswald being the perfect patsy as I shall explain. The CIA advice in January 1967 was to emphasise how unsuitable Oswald would have been as part of a conspiracy, so they themselves spotted a problem. That advice is clearly still being taken.

Oswald’s credentials as a ‘patsy’ are glowing in the dark as I have previously explained. He was earmarked for his place in history all right. The surprise job at the TSBD was aided by Ruth Paine who is worth more comment at a later time. The TSBD was not in need of casual labour in October 1963: we know this since about six of the staff were being deployed as a floor laying crew. Rather than lay off staff it made sense to keep them occupied on some menial duties until they could be returned to more urgent activities. Oswald seemed to jump the queue and was given the job of filling orders, a job which required him to visit all the floors of the TSBD. Only once Oswald was inside the TSBD was the decision made (although it may well have been anticipated) to drive the motorcade past the TSBD.

Castro’s argument against Oswald being an unlikely assassin is not an argument against Oswald being a strong candidate as a ‘patsy.’ Castro was a politician himself so he knew how power and propaganda work. He saw off countless US presidents, closed the mafia casinos and brothels and never bowed to the Yankee dollar so he must have known something.

Of course you don’t need to be Castro to see it is ludicrous that any assassin would shoot from his workplace on a whim; any rational person can see that. But if the assassin is presented as a malcontent, a weirdo, a psycho, a Marxist then the US public might just accept that. If he kills a policeman less than an hour later then that removes lingering doubts about his guilt. Not many will question the narrative much after that, save the usual suspects.

Oswald failed to be the perfect ‘patsy’ when he was not killed while resisting arrest. Remember that no less than three policemen drew a gun on him that afternoon yet he made it back to DPD jail, possibly a unique first in that part of America. His execution by Ruby was clumsy and was probably the moment that most of the world smelled a rat, but by then most assumed Oswald was guilty anyhow. Had he been gunned down as planned by a member of the DPD then I doubt his name would be much more remembered than those of other alleged assassins of the 1960s.

[FISHY1118]

I am not having it both ways on Oswald being the perfect patsy as I shall explain. The CIA advice in January 1967 was to emphasise how unsuitable Oswald would have been as part of a conspiracy, so they themselves spotted a problem. That advice is clearly still being taken.

Oswald’s credentials as a ‘patsy’ are glowing in the dark as I have previously explained. He was earmarked for his place in history all right. The surprise job at the TSBD was aided by Ruth Paine who is worth more comment at a later time. The TSBD was not in need of casual labour in October 1963: we know this since about six of the staff were being deployed as a floor laying crew. Rather than lay off staff it made sense to keep them occupied on some menial duties until they could be returned to more urgent activities. Oswald seemed to jump the queue and was given the job of filling orders, a job which required him to visit all the floors of the TSBD. Only once Oswald was inside the TSBD was the decision made (although it may well have been anticipated) to drive the motorcade past the TSBD.

Castro’s argument against Oswald being an unlikely assassin is not an argument against Oswald being a strong candidate as a ‘patsy.’ Castro was a politician himself so he knew how power and propaganda work. He saw off countless US presidents, closed the mafia casinos and brothels and never bowed to the Yankee dollar so he must have known something.

Of course you don’t need to be Castro to see it is ludicrous that any assassin would shoot from his workplace on a whim; any rational person can see that. But if the assassin is presented as a malcontent, a weirdo, a psycho, a Marxist then the US public might just accept that. If he kills a policeman less than an hour later then that removes lingering doubts about his guilt. Not many will question the narrative much after that, save the usual suspects.

Oswald failed to be the perfect ‘patsy’ when he was not killed while resisting arrest. Remember that no less than three policemen drew a gun on him that afternoon yet he made it back to DPD jail, possibly a unique first in that part of America. His execution by Ruby was clumsy and was probably the moment that most of the world smelled a rat, but by then most assumed Oswald was guilty anyhow. Had he been gunned down as planned by a member of the DPD then I doubt his name would be much more remembered than those of other alleged assassins of the 1960s.

As ive maintained on this topic, to understand Who was responsible and How President Kennedy was Assassinated, one has have an comprehensive understanding of the political and very volatile landscape in which this treasonous act was committed .

If, like some posters here youve had your head in the sand as to American history during this time, then chances are your most likely talking to the people of today who are probably more educated in the lives of the Kardashians, than any real knowledge of the players in the political areana that changed the world that day .

And doesnt it show .

Good post Cobalt .

[GBinOz]

Great posts cobalt.

I've just watched a movie called "Executive Action", made in 1973, and starring Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan and Will Geer. The special feature showed the actors being interviewed and saying that they originally believed Oswald acted alone but their reading of the factual parts of the script prompted them to wonder otherwise. The film proposes the How and the Why in a persuasive manner, and shows how Oswald could have been set up as a patsy without his actual knowledge.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Great posts cobalt.

I've just watched a movie called "Executive Action", made in 1973, and starring Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan and Will Geer. The special feature showed the actors being interviewed and saying that they originally believed Oswald acted alone but their reading of the factual parts of the script prompted them to wonder otherwise. The film proposes the How and the Why in a persuasive manner, and shows how Oswald could have been set up as a patsy without his actual knowledge.

Cheers, George

So there's hope for the Apologist yet hey George ?

[DJA]

Executive Action 1973 HD

[GBinOz]

Executive Action 1973 HD

Cool. Thanks Dave. Any comment on the movie?

[FISHY1118]

Watching it now , Thanks Also Dave .

[Aethelwulf]

Great posts cobalt.

I've just watched a movie called "Executive Action", made in 1973, and starring Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan and Will Geer. The special feature showed the actors being interviewed and saying that they originally believed Oswald acted alone but their reading of the factual parts of the script prompted them to wonder otherwise. The film proposes the How and the Why in a persuasive manner, and shows how Oswald could have been set up as a patsy without his actual knowledge.

Cheers, George

Always enlightening to see what passes as credible evidence with you lot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The CBS results still prove you wrong, even when you move the goalposts.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^strun of 5.

William Fitchett: 6.50 seconds (3 borderline hits) on his 1^st run of 3.

John Bollendorf: 6.80 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 4.

You do understand the meaning of the word 1st, don't you?

Just about. But I also understand, just about, the word 'exceeded.'

You could just about argue that Flitchett was better than the assassin (but with no head shot.) The others are as good.
Check my posts, as you obviously do, and you will find that I always referred to the ability on the first three shots. This was the point made by the Olympic shooting gold medallist back in 1963- I think he was Austrian. I have a vague memory of the interview as a boy. Very few in the UK bought the LG theory after Oswald was executed then, and I doubt hardly any buy it today.

The only person trying to move the goalposts is you I’m afraid.

In terms of speed in loading and firing every single marksman beat Oswald’s time. This is simply a fact.

Oswald should be considered to have made 2 hits because an assassin wouldn’t aim to hit a victim in the back as there would be to great a chance of the victim surviving. I’d previously said that it should be considered that the shot in the back only counts as .5 but no, I was wrong. Hitting the back when aiming for the head is a missed target. The tests don’t specify which areas the marksmen were aiming at so it looks like they were just aiming at the target in general so it’s difficult to compare the accuracy in comparison with Oswald’s. Oswald however would have been aiming specifically at the head.

It also has to be pointed out again that Oswald was focused on killing the President, he wasn’t focused on shooting as quickly as possible as the marksman were.

We still have 9 shots ‘equalling’ Oswald and 2 beating him. It doesn’t matter if they did it on their first or there 3 attempts. They did it….with a rifle that they were unfamiliar with…..and with a rifle that wasn’t performing well for whatever reason.

Oswald was using a gun that he was familiar with….one that he’s had ample time to practice with….he wasn’t thinking about speed as the marksman were…..and his gun clearly didn’t exhibit any technical problems that the marksman’s gun with.

Duck and dive all that you want to Cobalt but the results speak for themselves. Nothing that Oswald did was either impossible or unlikely.