Are you arguing that Oswald was the shooter, but was put up to it by someone else, or what, exactly?
No, nothing definitive, My opinion is based on what I’ve read in a few books. I don’t think our Government is trustworthy. I tend not to believe anything they put out there. If they say Oswald acted alone I’m inclined to think there were probably lot’s of people involved.
I think Oswald was for sure involved and probably took a couple of shots at the car. Like I said, I think there was point where he realized that he was going down for the murder and feared for his life (being silenced), and panicked. He was killed before he could formulate what to do next.
Thanks for putting up with me.
Plums
It’s not just “The Government” saying this, though-It’s a lot of experts that have analyzed all the evidence currently available. How far does this paranoia extend?
Fair enough, but that sounds indistinguishable from Oswald shooting Kennedy on his own, then shooting a police officer so as to not be apprehended for it. Do you have any evidence that rules out that scenario, and points to yours?
In your first post you said
What evidence do you have that there was any other shooter?
Not much hard evidence exists to support my opinion, Lot’s of circumstantial evidence and background information which points to a conspiracy. The film of the shooting which has been rehashed over and over has made an impression on me. It’s the totality of it.
I think the tying of the available evidence to the suspects is just too convenient. Finding a fake identification for A. Hidell in Oswalds wallet which tied him to the purchase of the rifle is kind of curious to me. Kind of like the bundle of evidence James Earl Ray left behind to be found. His fingerprints on empty beer cans? Laundry tags with his name on them. Who would be that stupid?
Common people who tried to do extraordinary things, then failed on the follow-through. Not that hard to comprehend, really.
Why would Oswald think Tippett was a hired assassin to kill him to cover up a conspiracy, instead of a police officer who was going to find out that Oswald was running away after shooting the President?
Oswald knew long before hand he probably wasn’t going to get away with it. He left his wife his wedding ring, a farewell note, and all the money he had left that morning, as if he expected to die shortly.
And I don’t understand your theory. Oswald did shoot JFK, and there is no evidence that any other shots were fired except from the Texas School Book Depository. Why did Oswald think he was going to be made the patsy only after he tried to get away? He was the only one who fired.
Regards,
Shodan
Where should Oswald have kept his Hidell ID? If the police got it from his wallet, that meant he’d been captured, and the whole jig was up anyway. I don’t see why it’s stupid or incredible for him to have his ID on his person, it’s not like he had anything to lose by doing so.
Further, if you accept that Oswald shot Kennedy, do you also accept that he bought the Carcano he used via mail order, under the name Hidell?
Yeah, I can see how it would have been confusing. When you speak with a man in a police uniform sitting in a police cruiser, he could be anybody. Watch yourself out there.
(Excuse me, my eyes are rolling down the street. Gotta chase 'em.)
Oh, come on, you’re being needlessly mean. His point is valid,* assuming a conspiracy*.
I believe Plums is basically describing the “Parallax View” version of the conspiracy. In this, a “patsy” is maneuvered into position to look like he is an assassin, and to be killed before he can reveal anything to prove he is not.
In this case, “they” found the perfect one in Oswald. He’s already close to actually assassinating JFK anyway, so they use him as the patsy. Oswald bought the rifle, but “they” couldn’t be sure he would actually shoot, or actually hit JFK, so they used their own shooter. When Oswald ISN’T the shooter, he realizes he’s being set up. He believes (correctly, assuming a conspiracy) that he will be killed before he can talk, so he runs. When he gets stopped by the trooper, he incorrectly assumes the trooper is one of “them” and he is about to be killed. Turns out he was wrong. But, in Plums’ theory, there was someone intending to kill Oswald, he just didn’t get a chance before Oswald was arrested (or, he was Ruby.).
The beauty of this kind of CT is that the facts of the actual assassination fit whether or not Oswald was the shooter. It’s the perfect closed-loop scenario. You don’t even have to specify who “they” is.
Don’t let my user name fool you - I don’t believe this. But it isn’t as eye-rollingly bad as you imply.
(post shortened)
Yeah, it is. There have been 18,799 days of conspiracy talk since JFK was assassinated. Officer Tippit had received a description of JFK’s assassin. Oswald didn’t want to be arrested by Officer Tippit. Oswald shot Officer Tippit.
CT’s can make any unsubstantiated claim they wish but that doesn’t prevent eyes from rolling.
I don’t find the ‘parallax view’ CT any more palatable than the rest; most CTs are internally consistent because they can make up any details they like to frame the argument.
However, I guess some part of me is relieved to know that even such a CTer would not be so ignorant as to fail to know the basic circumstances of Tippitt’s murder.
I guess I’m having some trouble here. So Oswald buys the rifle, heads up to the depository, takes a few shots at Kennedy, and MISSES. But then he sees Kennedy die anyway. So then he realizes he’s been set up? So he runs, and when Tippet stops him, he figures Tippet is one of them, so he shoots him?
How is this scenario different than one where Oswald shoots at Kennedy and hits him? I mean, if you go up to the snipers nest and shoot at the President, you’re not exactly a patsy even if you’re such a bad shot that you can’t get a hit.
And what sort of conspiracy is so thorough that they set up Oswald to take the shots, but assume that he’s going to miss, so they need a second/third/fourth shooter on hand to finish the job? Why not figure that only a bumbling incompetent would miss the shot, and let well enough alone?
See, if I were a conspirator who wants Kennedy dead, and Oswald tells me he’s gonna take a shot at the president, I just pat him on the back and tell him to do his best. If Kennedy ends up dead, great. If Oswald fucks up, then there are plenty of other ways to kill Kennedy.
The only conspiracy theory that makes any sense to me is the theory that Oswald had help, that he wasn’t a lone nut, he was a group nut. That’s a conspiracy theory that would at least be consistent with the facts as we know them. The problem with the theory is that there’s no evidence that Oswald was anything but a lone nut. I mean, we know he was a nut. Even if he had spent years building up a false identity to throw off the trail as to his real motives, he’s still a nut because only a nut would spend years building up a network of false motives.
But still, it’s possible there was a Svengali who pointed Oswald at the target, and then had Ruby kill him to shut him up. Can you prove it DIDN’T happen? But the problem is, Oswald didn’t mention any such person, there’s no evidence for such a person, there’s no motive for such a person, there’s no anything.
So there’s the official theory: Oswald the lone nut got the rifle, climbed up to the Depository, fired three fairly easy shots and killed Kennedy, ran away, got stopped by Tippet, killed Tippet, got arrested, then got shot by Ruby on a whim during a prisoner transfer. And what would be the difference between this version of events, and a different theory, and what evidence is there for any other theory? Of course something different could have happened, but in order to actually believe something different happened we’d have to have some reason to believe something different happened, beyond, “I just have a feeling that something different must have happened”.
Plums1974 has realized he’s in the wrong thread for simply assuming a conspiracy, however like most CTs he is just assuming there was a conspiracy and not presenting any real reason for the conspiracy. We’re missing the advantage that was gained or desired by this conspiracy.
Nor was there a need for such a person. Oswald didn’t need money, or special equipment, or anything but a $30 rifle, some range time, the training he’d already received as a Marine, and a he already had in job in a building that happened to overlook the parade route. If he was being backed by some cabal, there’s not much of anything they could have done to contribute to such a low-tech, foolproof plan…maybe buy him a FAL, G3, or AR-15 instead of his junky Carcano.
Plum already said it plainly: “The government lies to us.” Therefore the official account must be a lie. All else is [del]finding[/del] [del]inventing[/del] fabricating details to make that so.
Heh. Can you imagine being Oswald’s drinking buddy/co-Commie who talked the ideas through with him, and spending the rest of your life waiting for the knock the door?
Why do CTers consistently say that Oswald must not have wanted to use the publicity as his platform, just because he didn’t preach during the first 48 hours of incarceration?
While in jail, he tried to get in touch with attorney John Abt, who was chief counsel for the Communist Party of the USA. Barring that, he wanted an ACLU lawyer.
That’s at least some evidence that Oswald was planning a “politicized” defense of his beliefs as a Communist (in line with his support for Cuba and his attempted defection there). It would appear he was planning on being a “martyr” for the communist cause.
So why didn’t this come to fruition? Because he was murdered a mere 2 days after being arrested, before he was ever led to the stage referenced in Plums1974’s quote.
His use of “patsy” is in line with “victim” (as in, the guy with the black eye), and nothing more. Besides claiming to be a patsy, he claimed that he didn’t own a rifle, although it’s plain he did. So he was a liar and his own testimony is unreliable. Saying that he was a patsy doesn’t prove anything.