Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill Officer J D Tippit?

[ChainzCooper]

Once heard a great explanation as to why there are so many conspiracy theories regarding JFK. If you put on a scale the Holocaust you get an equal balance, biggest crime against humanity, biggest criminals. But if you put the JFK assassination on a scale you don't have a balance. You have President Kennedy and some no name loser Lee Harvey Oswald. So what makes the scale balance out evenly for Oswald? A conspiracy
Jordan

[Jonathan H]

Yeah ... we are going to have to agree to disagree as what you are saying about JFK is not based on anything I have written, or am arguing, or have cited from the historical record ... so best we leave it that.

[Errata]

A cold, cynical realist like JFK would have known that the boys were dying for nothing either from the start, or soon after the Communists matched the American escalation with their own -- which George Ball predicted, the one advisor who agreed in '62 with JFK about a missile swap with the Soviets to avoid, you know, a nuclear war.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on why LBJ left office.

And I wouldn't have a problem with a cold, cynical realist. The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support JFK actually being one. Sure he agreed to the missile swap. He agreed to a diplomatic approach, he agreed to a quarantine, AND he agreed to a full scale invasion. He could obviously be talked into anything. And right back out of it as well. And it could speak to him being a realist throwing out a bunch of ideas and seeing which ones stuck. Except they mostly weren't his ideas.

We know the man was a narcissist. And even that I don't have a problem with. Lots of Presidents have been narcissists. But he was an empty headed spoiled brat, who evidently did not have the sense god gave a toothbrush. He tried to sneak a whore into the White House. And didn't use the tunnels that were constructed for that very purpose. Who in their right mind would give J Edgar Hoover something to hold over you? He created EXCOMM because he couldn't be bothered with actually dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis before the news broke. He was out campaigning.

He wanted to be popular, his daddy wanted him to be powerful. But at no point did he show any sign that he actually wanted to govern. He would have been happier as a Hollywood up and comer. I honestly think he was just bright enough to realize that proposing legislation won elections, and passing legislation lost elections. And that's assuming Papa Joe, Bobby, or Teddy wasn't the brains behind literally every breath he took. Which is a tough assumption. After all, he couldn't even choose his own wife without a committee.

[Jonathan H]

To Errata

I like LBJ too, another flawed giant, and the last liberal President.

But he did not leave office because of health (actually he lost his self-discipline about his health once he was stuck on his ranch in retirement hastening hiss fatal heart attack) or because he was trying to end the war via disengagement, or trying to help a successor to do any such thing.

Johnson wanted the war to continue so that something called South Viet Nam would be left in place, and the boys would not have died for nothing.

He wanted to run again in '68 until Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy made that too humiliating an option if he lost the primaries against the 'doves' (yet Johnson would still would have been nominated because the state machines still controlled a majority of the delegates to the convention. Hubert Humphrey did not run in a single primary and yet had it sown up the moment he announced by simply making a few phone calls)

A cold, cynical realist like JFK would have known that the boys were dying for nothing either from the start, or soon after the Communists matched the American escalation with their own -- which George Ball predicted, the one advisor who agreed in '62 with JFK about a missile swap with the Soviets to avoid, you know, a nuclear war.

What I mean was that had Kennedy lived then civil rights would, tragically, have not got through, not for some time, and there would have been no War on Poverty either.

That's all bad, and shows him to be less effective and less idealistic than LBJ, for sure.

On the other hand, JFK would have brought the same cautious, cold and cynical attitude towards propping up that corrupt, undemocratic, and unstable regime in Saigon, and he would have not had to worry about re-election -- unlike LBJ.

But when JFK died he had not, publicly, made any declaration about maybe letting Saigon fall. That would have been political suicide in 1963 and 1964.

So, Truman, Ike, and Kennedy tied LBJ to quicksand, for Johnson was never going to go against a living Truman, Ike, or a martyred JFK, in foreign affairs, against the bipartisan policy to Contain the spread of Communism, or to even suggest that the Domino Theory was less than sound -- despite Clarke Clifford (who was not even a member of the govt. in '65) and a lonely George Ball trying to convince him -- and failing -- to avert a catastrophe.

A catastrophe whose consequences live with us today, every day.

Whereas a naturally sceptical Kennedy, who thought his generals were a bunch of four-star clowns, would have listened to both those advisers and then calculated how bad things would get, for himself, when Ho Chi Minh rode through the streets of Saigon on TV...?

He might have let it happen.

Not because he was an idealist but because he was not one.

[Bridewell]

Shadow

Yes. I noticed the difference in the tee shirt, but put the vee effect down to a shadow? I should think that he would remember both pretty clearly, to be honest. 'Clothes maketh the man' and I can remember what I was wearing on most of the notable occasions of my life.

Hi Tel,

I wondered about the possibility of shadow too, so perhaps you're right. To be honest, I think it would be impossible to make a positive ID of anyone from such a grainy image.
It would be good to know, with certainty, exactly what Oswald told the officers who interviewed him.

Regards, Bridewell

[Tel]

Hi Tel,

On the subject of Lovelady: The JFK Assassination was probably the biggest event in his life. Which is he more likely to have misremembered - the clothes he was wearing or where he was standing when JFK was shot?

Oswald's T-shirt has a round neck. The man in the doorway is wearing a T-shirt with a V-neck. The figure may not be Lovelady, but it may not be Oswald either. I don't think it is - because it doesn't look like him.

Regards, Bridewell.

Yes. I noticed the difference in the tee shirt, but put the vee effect down to a shadow? I should think that he would remember both pretty clearly, to be honest. 'Clothes maketh the man' and I can remember what I was wearing on most of the notable occasions of my life.

[TomTomKent]

Short answer: Yes, and he tried to shoot another officer.

[Errata]

Kennedy was the complete cynic, a charmer but a cynic, who spent most of his life in incredible pain from illness, and yet we would have been better off if he had lived -- because he was a cynical careerist.

For he had no intention of sacrificing his career, or his popularity, for African-Americans or for the South Vietnamese.

How would his unwillingness to sacrifice his popularity for African Americans, the Vietnamese, and (let's be honest) U.S. Troops benefit us? Johnson worked ten times harder on Great Society legislation than Kennedy, and had enough regard for US troops to sacrifice his career for them. He couldn't see a way to win or a way to get out. So he gave up his second term so somebody could end the war. And he had enough regard for the American people that when his health started failing, and he became afraid he might die during a second term, he chose to leave office rather than put the public through that again.

Kennedy never would have. And in fact didn't. He was the first person with Addison's disease to survive surgery. Which was mostly a function of luck. The odds were still terrible, so god forbid he herniated himself and had to go under the knife. And god help the doctor who "killed" him because no one was willing to admit that the President had a life threatening condition. Kennedy had the opportunity and the will to remove US troops from Vietnam in '63. But he didn't think he could get re-elected if he did, so he left them there. And how anyone could benefit from a continuance of Jim Crow laws and violence against African Americans is beyond me.

[Jonathan H]

It's comments like that by the previous poster which remind me, an Australian, how fortunate the world was to have JFK as the US leader in 1962 -- but we needed him in 1965 too.

The Viet Nam War ruined everything, in the short term and the long term ...

[sdreid]

Kennedy's approval rating had dropped to 56% a month before his death but I think it is most likely that he would have been reelected in 1964 against Goldwater although not by as large a margin as the LBJ election. Reagan's rating was 35% in 1983 and in 1984 he was reelected by the largest margin ever.

The guilt or whatever it is regarding the assassination has resulted in Kennedy being the most overrated President. We will never know what he would have done in the presumed next 5 years but in the 3 previous that we do know about he really didn't do much other than claim a victory in the Cuban Missile Crisis when it was at best a compromise - the Soviets got two things out of us and we only got one thing from them.

[Jonathan H]

No to Escalation

President Kennedy was a great statesman at saying 'no', at being cautious, to not get things done (eg. invade Cuba to make the Bay of Pigs 'work' as Nixon, LBJ and Goldwater wanted).

When the issue was civil rights his caution comes over as weak and timid (though he was the head of the party that had been for segregation, while another wing now wanted to end it).

When the same cautious attitude is applied to launching an American invasion of Cuba -- which would have destoyed the world -- during the 1962 missile crisis, he is comparable to Bismarck in his cold and calculating statesmanship (an anguished Khruschev too).

Only two members of an almost hysterical Cabinet (it's captured on tape) backed the missiles swap deal.

Only two!

One was Kennedy and the other was not Bobby, but Under Secretary of State, George Ball. The others were so ashamed of how the crisis resolved itself that they lied for a generation that it was not a missile-swap: Cuba for Turkey.

Kennedy knew that his 'best and the brightest' advisors and generals could be stupid, useless, and obsessed with anti-Communism -- with being like Joe MCCarthy clones (whereas JFK was good friends with fellow Irish-Catholic 'Tail-gunner Joe', the latter nearly marrying one of his sisters).

If JFK had lived he would have to have cut some sort of deal with Ho Chi Minh, one he knew would not last -- but he would not have faced re-election either. Maybe neutralism?

Kennedy would have been pilloried over the fall of Saion in 1965. As he said o his chief aide Dave Powers, I will be the most unpopular president ever.

Or, he might have thought that they could do it in a year, with just enough troops and just enough Rolling Thunder.

But he would stll have got out in a year, as that is when McNamara reassessed -- and was frozen out by LBJ who could not revisit big decisions, and had to face re-election in '68.

Kennedy was the complete cynic, a charmer but a cynic, who spent most of his life in incredible pain from illness, and yet we would have been better off if he had lived -- because he was a cynical careerist.

For he had no intention of sacrificing his career, or his popularity, for African-Americans or for the South Vietnamese.

[Errata]

In my opinion he was somewhat (quite a lot really) better than you portray him...but certainly not the noble and gallant Lancelot of Camelot some would have us believe...but isn't that true of ALL successful political figures if one scratches beneath the surface? Nice guys really don't make it...

Ironically, I can respect real bastards. I even respect Nixon, and I'm pretty sure Nixon was the devil. In fact, I think that's what is on the 18 minute gap on the Watergate tapes. Him admitting he's the devil. Remember, he DIDN'T erase his plans to have the Hell's Angels kill war protesters. So it's hard to fathom what could be so terrible in comparison that warranted being erased. He shows Halderman that he's in fact Satan. Chanting, howling, chittering demons. Case closed.

I have a real pet peeve about people taking credit for other people's ideas. And all politicians do it, it's understood. And if you work on policy or legislation that a politician takes credit for, you can still put it on your resume and the guys who hire politicos know the system and know that it is in fact your work. But Kennedy crossed the line in a few ways, one totally not being his fault, and that's okay.

Kennedy took from family. And he took from family who were expected to run for office later in life, and they could not campaign on those ideas without betraying family.

He also took from people who were in the twilight of their careers, Adlai Stevenson for example. His appointment as UN ambassador meant that he couldn't challenge the president on it, and his waning career meant that he wouldn't win. And he wasn't happy about it.

Lastly, he died. And that's not his fault, but it meant that there were no letters of recommendation, no interviews about the policy teams, nothing that usually happens after a career as President that distributes credit where it was deserved. Because he died, anyone who needed their work attributed to them was out of luck. And what could they do? Call the "sainted President who was cut down in his prime" a liar? Or a plagiarist? My grandfather wrote the original test ban treaty language for Stevenson. They worked side by side, and the only reason Stevenson didn't credit him is because my grandfather was on the wrong side of HUAC and begged to remain anonymous. But Stevenson deserved that credit. That little proposal cost him his political career.

It's not that he was a bad guy. I can make peace with a terrible person. It's that he had no ideas of his own, but a raging sense of entitlement to other peoples ideas. Sort of makes him the worst boss ever.

[Bridewell]

The Shirt

Except that Bill Lovelady has been proven (and admitted) to have been wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, fully buttoned, on the day. That pig won't fly either.

Hi Tel,

On the subject of Lovelady: The JFK Assassination was probably the biggest event in his life. Which is he more likely to have misremembered - the clothes he was wearing or where he was standing when JFK was shot?

Oswald's T-shirt has a round neck. The man in the doorway is wearing a T-shirt with a V-neck. The figure may not be Lovelady, but it may not be Oswald either. I don't think it is - because it doesn't look like him.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Thanks

Hi Bridewell...You may not find his testimony as interesting as me, but with your backround I think you will enjoy all the testimony from early on. There is a web site www.historymatters.com They have all the testimony from the Warren comm. house invest. etc... Everything is on there...photo's and all. The seach engine works nice. I have many good sites saved-pro and con- so to speak. Please enjoy and let me know if you have a problem-I'm not to good at sending things over the comp. I will send you some photo sites, films , and things. There are a few good forums out there also. My favorite is a site run by John Simkin in England. It is part of his Spartacus educational site. They even have a little known and little used jtr forum. You may be surprised at some of the members

Hi Robert,

Thanks for that. I'll have a look at it over the next week or so.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

E's not the messiah....e's a very naughty boy...

In my opinion he was somewhat (quite a lot really) better than you portray him...but certainly not the noble and gallant Lancelot of Camelot some would have us believe...but isn't that true of ALL successful political figures if one scratches beneath the surface? Nice guys really don't make it...

Yes, there are indeed alleged to be problems with the research behind the Hersh book...I frankly think there's quite a lot of bullshit in there...but it's value, I believe, lies in it's shake-up qualities...one is forced to re-appraise all that one has formerly taken for granted...and that's no bad thing in itself...

As for it's long-term value...well I generally hang on to books, but I have to thin the collection down every now and again (My poor wife keeps me in order and I'm down to between two and three thousand books right now)...if I can't keep it, it (usually regretfully) goes to a good home...the Hersh book went straight back to the charity shop I bought it from - with no regrets...say no more...

Dave