Oswald and his twisted mind
Steve
pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine gun"
and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
Does anyone who defends this guy actually belive that this is "normal"
for someone to think this way-and then not believe that someone with
this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Steve,
I believe the details are on the Oswald in Russia website. He was
helping a friend learn English and they were goofing around.
I would imagine groups of Marines who have had a drink or two have
been known to talk about killing Commies or another enemy. We do know
about prisoner abuse, don't we?
I believe all humans have a fantasy component to their thinking. Be it
in dreams, in daydreaming about annoying bosses, in wondering if the
motorist ahead of you has a brain .....
A very popular pastime nowadays, Steve, are video games where
realistic looking folks are killed.
Very popular. Sony and Microsoft have made millions on folks having
fun killing pretend people.
Take a look at some TV shows sometime. Lots of violence and killing to
entertain the couch potatoes, eh?
PF
>
Steve
Oswald killed two people in one day, the 35th president of the United
States, and a Dallas police officer and came close to killing a second
police officer.
He shot at one man through the window of his home and nearly hit him. He
slit his own wrists in a suicide attempt.
To say " I believe all humans have a fantasy component to their
thinking. Be it in dreams, in daydreaming about annoying bosses, in
wondering if the motorist ahead of you has a brain ....."
is pretty twisted thinking as well, when it comes down to your making up
an excuse for your pal Oswald.
You pretty much just told on yourself, Peter.
Your logic makes no sense at all.
John Blubaugh
"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1107807285.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Actually in my experience, it is exactly the opposite. The "talkers" don't
have the guts and they make a big deal of owning guns and showing how bad
they are but the really dangerous people are the ones who carry guns and
never talk about it and their exploits. They are much more likely to shoot
someone.
JB
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>I don't understand your logic, Peter.
That's ok. Logic is tough for some people. I scored an A in logic at
university.
> Oswald killed two people in one day, the 35th president of the United
>States, and a Dallas police officer and came close to killing a second
>police officer.
> He shot at one man through the window of his home and nearly hit him. He
>slit his own wrists in a suicide attempt.
> To say " I believe all humans have a fantasy component to their
>thinking. Be it in dreams, in daydreaming about annoying bosses, in
>wondering if the motorist ahead of you has a brain ....."
Is something I said not true, Steve?
> is pretty twisted thinking as well, when it comes down to your making up
>an excuse for your pal Oswald.
What is twisted? Is something I said not true?
I hate to be tough on you Steve, but in this case you deserve it. You
snipped your ENTIRE comments from the original post. Didn't you? And
did you insert a <snip>? Nope. Instead you begin by saying that you do
not understand my logic and then proceed to ignore my response in the
context of your original comment. Instead, you have invented several
strawmen arguments.
My reply (which was truncated in your second post along with the
deletion of your entire original comment) was a direct response to
your ORIGINAL post. Steve wrote:
<quote on>
Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and his
pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine
gun"
and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
Does anyone who defends this guy actually believe that this is
"normal" for someone to think this way-and then not believe that
someone with this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
<quote off>
I pointed out that it IS completely normal for folks to fantasize
about violence. I pointed out that plenty of folks play video games
which involve killing realistic figures. I pointed out that folks are
entertained by violence on TV, and pay money to go to movies where
killing is a common occurrence. I see children on playgrounds playing
cops and robbers and pointing fingers at each other and going "Bang,
bang, you're dead." I have a daughter who recounts her playground
experiences to me on a regular basis. She tells me about the violence
that occurs while boys are "playing". Military commanders discuss how
to kill people too, Steve.
There was nothing confusing in my response to you. You asked about two
grown men sitting together over a tape recorder. One fellow invited
the other fellow over to help him learn English. That was the context
of Oswald's comment. I believe that he also read a script of some
sort. I suggested a website where you could get more details.
Now, instead of reading my entirely intelligent and rational comments
and accepting them for what they were -- a response to your ORIGINAL
comments - you posted a list of OTHER events and jumped to the hasty
conclusion that I "defend" Oswald for those crimes and then you made
the absurd and false association that I am a "pal" of Oswald.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you didn't take the
time to THINK about what you were writing and posting before you did
so. I refuse to believe you would deliberately make such a false
association and draw such a phoney conclusion ON PURPOSE. If you did
so, then you owe yourself and me an apology.
It is not a good practice to smear other posters, Steve, and falsely
stating I was a PAL of Oswald or am DEFENDING Oswald is an outrageous
slur.
I seek the truth. I have reasonable doubt, and until I overcome my
reasonable doubt (just as any juror in any fair trail has a right to
do) I will exercise my right to consider reasonable and rational
alternatives.
Frankly, I would be ashamed if I had responded to a poster's comments
in the manner you have in this case.
It's wonderful you have no doubts about Oswald's guilt, Steve. I don't
berate you for your position. Why do you find it necessary to raise
strawmen arguments and absurdly accuse other posters of being Oswald's
PAL or DEFENDER simply because they have reasonable doubt?
That is not logical, Steve. Nor is it very becoming of you.
Sorry for being so harsh, but the moderators have had to reject
several comments by you in other posts today. IT just seems you are
having trouble distinguishing between legitimate debate about the
issues and personal attacks.
> You pretty much just told on yourself, Peter.
Yes I did, and stand by my comments. Unfortunately, it seems you "told
on yourSELF," Steve.
> Your logic makes no sense at all.
It makes perfect sense if you are capable of understanding logic.
PF
>
Denis Morissette
Steve, have not you ever wished to kill someone on alt.conspiracy.jfk? :)
John Hill
> I don't understand your logic, Peter.
>
> Oswald killed two people in one day, the 35th president of the United
> States, and a Dallas police officer and came close to killing a second
> police officer.
> He shot at one man through the window of his home and nearly hit him. He
> slit his own wrists in a suicide attempt.
The problem is, of course, that you were not talking about these things. You
were talking about something Oswald said in Russia.
Peter was, of course, responding to the what you said about what Oswald said
in Russia, not what you just said above.
Redefining the discussion in mid-stream so you can attack your counterpart
is not terribly attractive, or convincing.
> To say " I believe all humans have a fantasy component to their
> thinking. Be it in dreams, in daydreaming about annoying bosses, in
> wondering if the motorist ahead of you has a brain ....."
> is pretty twisted thinking as well,
There is nothing "twisted" about saying everyone has fantasies, some of
which are less than adorable. Are you going to tell us you never have?
> when it comes down to your making up
> an excuse for your pal Oswald.
Peter made no "excuse" for anyone. He pointed out a rather well known
thing - people have fantasies, not all of which are pleasant. And that
having such fantasies is a FAR cry from acting on them.
> You pretty much just told on yourself, Peter.
Not at all.
> Your logic makes no sense at all.
Your denial of a terribly common thing speaks volumes of your single-minded
pursuit of declaring Oswald guilty at any cost.
--
John Hill (joisa)
John Hill
news:OKUNd.39051$4I2.20202@attbi_s01...
Good point.
--
John Hill (joisa)
>
> JB
>
>
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and his
Suppose you were arrested on the basis of a FALSE accusation that you
had murdered the President of the United States and a police officer.
Suppose, in fact, that you knew or suspected that you had been framed
with these crimes.
What would your reaction be? How would you respond if you knew that
you had been falsely accused of the crime of the century?
Well, I know how I would react. I'd smirk at the cameras and make a
Communist clenched-fist salute. Wouldn't you? What could be more
consistent with consciousness of innocence than that?
------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
- Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
black...@aol.com
Forgive me jumping in, this caught my attention.
<snippage, before and after>
> It is not a good practice to smear other posters, Steve, and falsely
> stating I was a PAL of Oswald or am DEFENDING Oswald is an outrageous
> slur.
>
> It's wonderful you have no doubts about Oswald's guilt, Steve. I
don't
> berate you for your position. Why do you find it necessary to raise
> strawmen arguments and absurdly accuse other posters of being
Oswald's
> PAL or DEFENDER simply because they have reasonable doubt?
I was a CT from way back, just about back to 11/24 when Ruby
effectively silenced Oswald. I used to write articles published in
local papers and give lectures with a bootleg Z-film (a bit later)
raising CT sorts of questions. While I still have a number of questions
relating to conspiracy, I have come to feel that there is a POSSIBILITY
(narrow, but possible) that the shooting MIGHT have been by one person,
and that it becomes increasingly harder to absolve Oswald of any guilt
in this. I have come to feel that he was almost certainly knowingly
involved - the mechanics of faking all of the damning evidence seems
far too complicated to me. But if it was one person, and it was Oswald,
that does not rule out the possibility that some of his apparent
associations
might have been conspiratorial.
But for all this, I have been called a "Warren Commission defender", as
if I didn't have the intellectual capability to distinguish between
aspects of the WC that I accept and those I reject. After being stung
by this a few times a few years back, I suggested that those who
doggedly accept Oswald's pleas of innocence while denouncing any who
conributed to the considerable evidence against him as "liars" might
just as easily be called "Oswald defenders". I don't think either
description is really fair. BOTH sides seem to get so polarized and
radicalized by this.
John Hill
Excellent.
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ifrf01t0e5889t6c7...@4ax.com...
John Hill
Peter,
You are correct on all points. (Well, I have to take your word on getting an
"A." <BG>)
Steve totally changed the argument in mid-stream , but he had to - he had
not a leg to stand on with his original anti-Oswald screed.
Your response below is very intelligent and well said.
Points well taken.
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:mdhg01hj8hc0agnia...@4ax.com...
John Hill
news:1107807285.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
1) Not everyone who feels the evidence might support Oswald NOT being the
shooter is trying to DEFEND Oswald. Some are simply interested in exploring
all the evidence to get at as much of the truth as possible - and let the
chips fall where they may. **IF** any of those chips fall to Oswald's
"favor," so be it.
2) No, it's not particularly normal in my book. But I'm not altogether
certain there's anything particularly "normal" about anyone, when you get
right down to it. :-)
3) I don't know that saying such a thing is somehow final and certain proof
of a "sick" mind.
4) I do not know that SAYING such things automatically makes one a potential
killer. Untold numbers of people throughout time have made murderous
statements, yet never killed a single person.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Peter Fokes
<quote on>
Peter,
You are correct on all points. (Well, I have to take your word on
getting an "A." <BG>)
Steve totally changed the argument in mid-stream , but he had to - he
had not a leg to stand on with his original anti-Oswald screed.
Your response below is very intelligent and well said.
Points well taken.
<quote off>
Peter writes:
Thank you, John. It is a time-consuming task to read through dozens of
posts every day from folks with varying opinions on this case. I try
my best to be fair to all posters, as do Chad and John. (Chad and John
can attest to that fact.) When a poster makes false associations as
Steve did in his post, I will respond truthfully and honestly and
unmask any false associations or accusations. I make no apology for
unmasking incorrect impressions presented about my character on the
newsgroup. Telling me I have "told on myself" is a comment about me,
not the JFK assassination.
I don't mind if a poster takes umbrage with any argument I make with
regards to the JFK assassination, but if a poster tries to impugn my
credibility or reputation by suggesting I am "pal" of Oswald or a
"defender" of Oswald, then I will respond with the truth. When a
poster makes the superficial comment that I have "told on myself", I
have every right to respond with the facts that show such a comment is
not only false but ridiculous. Remember, it is not me who opened the
door to discussing character. It was Steve. Since he opened the door,
I do not feel particularly restricted in walking through the same door
to the extent that I defend myself against his false comments, and
point out the context in which they were offered.
PF
Martin Shackelford
recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading things
into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
a point.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Feb 2005 17:38:21 -0500, "Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and his
>>pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
>>Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine gun"
>>and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
>>
>>Does anyone who defends this guy actually belive that this is "normal"
>>for someone to think this way-and then not believe that someone with
>>this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
>
>
>
> Suppose you were arrested on the basis of a FALSE accusation that you
> had murdered the President of the United States and a police officer.
>
> Suppose, in fact, that you knew or suspected that you had been framed
> with these crimes.
>
> What would your reaction be? How would you respond if you knew that
> you had been falsely accused of the crime of the century?
>
> Well, I know how I would react. I'd smirk at the cameras and make a
> Communist clenched-fist salute. Wouldn't you? What could be more
> consistent with consciousness of innocence than that?
>
More WC myths. Oswald did not smirk. He grimaced and yelled his
innocence. And he did not salute with a Communist clenched fist. He had
handcuffs on and his hand was only raised because a cop was holding his
arm up by the elbow. Get your facts straight before leaping to conclusions.
Mike Bull
"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1107807285.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steve
First I must say that I have read the responses to your post
by Peter and others, and that I tend to agree that you are trying to make
too much of this "fantasy" in Russia.
Secondly, you really must stop thinking that anyone who disagrees with
your conclusions about Oswald's sole guilt is an "Oswald defender." Please
admit the possibility, not just that you are wrong, but also that those who
disagree with you (for the great part) are just as honest as you.
On a related point of interest; a while back I conversed with Diane
Holloway Ph.D (author of THE MIND OF OSWALD). I really only had one question
for her (as she didn't seem especially well versed generally about the
assassination): did her expert reading of Oswald's writings lead her to
think that this was a man capable of cold-blooded murder? It is not
generally understood just how difficult it is for a human being to take
anothers' life. While her responses to my emails were very friendly, even
always inserting some unsolicited personal remarks about herself, she kept
avoiding answering that question, and eventually (even though I remained
very polite and deferential) effectively, but still very nicely, terminated
the conversation. I concluded that the unspoken answer to my question was
"no." FWIW
Mike :-)
Drumrolls3
>From: Peter Fokes justplai...@rogers.com
>Date: 2/8/2005 12:34 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <mdhg01hj8hc0agnia...@4ax.com>
>
>On 7 Feb 2005 23:04:14 -0500, "Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't understand your logic, Peter.
>
>That's ok. Logic is tough for some people. I scored an A in logic at
>university.
Good for you!
>> Oswald killed two people in one day, the 35th president of the United
>>States, and a Dallas police officer and came close to killing a second
>>police officer.
>> He shot at one man through the window of his home and nearly hit him. He
>>slit his own wrists in a suicide attempt.
>
>
>> To say " I believe all humans have a fantasy component to their
>>thinking. Be it in dreams, in daydreaming about annoying bosses, in
>>wondering if the motorist ahead of you has a brain ....."
>
>Is something I said not true, Steve?
>
>> is pretty twisted thinking as well, when it comes down to your making up
>>an excuse for your pal Oswald.
>
>What is twisted? Is something I said not true?
>
You are assuming that people have fantasies of killing other people, or
did I miss something here? Speak for yourself, Peter.
>I hate to be tough on you Steve,
Oh please. anyone who makes it a habit to ridcule a poster who has posts
rejected whenever the opportunity arises by bringing it up so as to
humiliate the person has no problem with "being tough" on anyone.
but in this case you deserve it. You
>snipped your ENTIRE comments from the original post. Didn't you? And
>did you insert a <snip>? Nope.
Not intentionally. I just responded to what you said.
Instead you begin by saying that you do
>not understand my logic and then proceed to ignore my response in the
>context of your original comment. Instead, you have invented several
>strawmen arguments.
>
>My reply (which was truncated in your second post along with the
>deletion of your entire original comment) was a direct response to
>your ORIGINAL post. Steve wrote:
>
><quote on>
>
>Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and his
>pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
>Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine
>gun"
>and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
>
> Does anyone who defends this guy actually believe that this is
>"normal" for someone to think this way-and then not believe that
>someone with this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
>
><quote off>
>
>I pointed out that it IS completely normal for folks to fantasize
>about violence.
It is?
I pointed out that plenty of folks play video games
>which involve killing realistic figures. I pointed out that folks are
>entertained by violence on TV, and pay money to go to movies where
>killing is a common occurrence.
To call this "normal", imo is not a fact.
I see children on playgrounds playing
>cops and robbers and pointing fingers at each other and going "Bang,
>bang, you're dead."
No parallel here, Peter. Kids as opposed to grown men?
I have a daughter who recounts her playground
>experiences to me on a regular basis. She tells me about the violence
>that occurs while boys are "playing". Military commanders discuss how
>to kill people too, Steve.
>
See above, Peter.
>There was nothing confusing in my response to you. You asked about two
>grown men sitting together over a tape recorder. One fellow invited
>the other fellow over to help him learn English. That was the context
>of Oswald's comment. I believe that he also read a script of some
>sort.
"Script"? Involving his slashing the throat woman with the lof of bread?
"Script" of how, just because he didn't like their faces he killed 8
people with a machine gun, and it made all the newspapers?
I suggested a website where you could get more details.
>
>Now, instead of reading my entirely intelligent and rational comments
>and accepting them for what they were -- a response to your ORIGINAL
>comments - you posted a list of OTHER events and jumped to the hasty
>conclusion that I "defend" Oswald for those crimes and then you made
>the absurd and false association that I am a "pal" of Oswald.
>
You are either for him or against him, Peter. You think he is innocent
of killing JFK as the official findings suggested.
>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you didn't take the
>time to THINK about what you were writing and posting before you did
>so. I refuse to believe you would deliberately make such a false
>association and draw such a phoney conclusion ON PURPOSE. If you did
>so, then you owe yourself and me an apology.
I am not alone in believeing that you think O is innocent of killing JFK.
That was my one and only point, Peter.
>It is not a good practice to smear other posters, Steve, and falsely
>stating I was a PAL of Oswald or am DEFENDING Oswald is an outrageous
>slur.
>
You talk the talk.
>I seek the truth. I have reasonable doubt, and until I overcome my
>reasonable doubt (just as any juror in any fair trail has a right to
>do) I will exercise my right to consider reasonable and rational
>alternatives.
>
>Frankly, I would be ashamed if I had responded to a poster's comments
>in the manner you have in this case.
>
>It's wonderful you have no doubts about Oswald's guilt, Steve. I don't
>berate you for your position. Why do you find it necessary to raise
>strawmen arguments and absurdly accuse other posters of being Oswald's
>PAL or DEFENDER simply because they have reasonable doubt?
>
>That is not logical, Steve. Nor is it very becoming of you.
>Sorry for being so harsh, but the moderators have had to reject
>several comments by you in other posts today.
Something, I believe should remain privately between the mods and the
poster who has been rejected. That is no one elses business, Peter, but,
you seem to take great joy in mentioning this over and over when a person
who slips up once in awhile in here has a disagreement with you.
Drumrolls3
>Date: 2/8/2005 4:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xw6Od.32848$8a6.18115@trndny09>
separate photographs!
John Hill
news:1107872856....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Right you are.
--
John Hill (joisa)
John Hill
Quite right.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Canuck
Steve wrote:
> I don't understand your logic, Peter.
>
> Oswald killed two people in one day, the 35th president of the United
> States, and a Dallas police officer and came close to killing a second
> police officer.
> He shot at one man through the window of his home and nearly hit him. He
> slit his own wrists in a suicide attempt.
>
>>Why are you so certain that Oswald "killed two people in one day"? Just
because the Warren Commission came to that conclusion, doesn't make it a
fact, especially since they ignored much of the evidence that didn't match
their conclusions, and couldn't even agree on the "single bullet theory",
although under pressure they all pretended they did.
I believe it is just as likely that Oswald was set up, which I discuss
in my forthcoming article "Creating a Patsy", which will likely be
available on the net this fall (delayed intentionally, even though the
article is finished). As for Tippit's murder, one witness who decided not
to come forward but was tracked down by the HSCA (whom I learned has
died), Jack Tatum, described the killer firing a fourth shot from above
Tippit at point-blank range, into his head, even though Tippit was likely
already dead. The HSCA (and Gary Cornwell in his book REAL ANSWERS) have
pointed out that this is a classic example of a "coup degrace" associated
with organized crime. I frankly find it hard to believe Oswald would have
taken the extra time to carry out such a ceremonial final shot. Whoever
actually killed Tippit (and I have somone in mind) was clearly a
professional killer (a hitman), not a panic-stricken southern boy. - Peter
R. Whitmey (Canuck)
Anthony Marsh
What is your point? Are you trying to perpetuate WC defender myths?
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've heard
the
> recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading
things
> into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
>
> Martin
So we should be suspicious of stories that place
Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
street.
Jerry Shinley
Chad Zimmerman
Your point is well taken regarding the recording. You have two schools of
thought in this newsgroup and its members bounce around between the two.
The School of En Toto:
Students here consider the total evidence and then make a conclusion.
The School of Minutiae:
Students here pick apart the tiniest defect to try and expose a large hole.
CT's and LN's have to be students of both.
Whereas you are right in thinking that Oswald may have had some psychotic
violent fantasies, others look at this isolated incident apart from the
whole. You have a guy that tried to kill Walker, who threatened to kill
Nixon, who tried to kill himself, had wanted to join Castro and fight the
infidels, who wanted to hijack an airplane, who practiced on his balcony
with his rifle, who verbally and physically threatened his wife...etc.
In light of the majority evidence, Oswald suffered from violent ideas quite
regularly during his marriage with Marina. Perhaps he also felt this way
earlier in his life and was passively enacted during this recording.
Perhaps not.
Only Lee knew the answer to that.
Chad
"Drumrolls3" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20050208090615...@mb-m02.wmconnect.com...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Steve,
>Your point is well taken regarding the recording.
What point? His point was that anyone who did not think this event
indicated Oswald's mind was twisted was wrong. That point is
incorrect.
> You have two schools of
>thought in this newsgroup and its members bounce around between the two.
Which has nothing to do with this specific event, as you yourself
admit at the end of this post.
>The School of En Toto:
>
>Students here consider the total evidence and then make a conclusion.
>
>The School of Minutiae:
>
>Students here pick apart the tiniest defect to try and expose a large hole.
>
>CT's and LN's have to be students of both.
>
>Whereas you are right in thinking that Oswald may have had some psychotic
>violent fantasies,others look at this isolated incident apart from the
>whole.
"May have" or may not have....but Steve says it can only be one way.
He suggests you must conclude Oswald's mind was twisted because of
this one EVENT. That was the point of his original post. He used one
piece of Minutiae in his original post and drew a conclusion.
One must also consider the positive aspects in Oswald's emotional
behaviour. To solely list or consider just one side of the human
spectrum of emotions is certainly not an example of examining Oswald
"en toto".
Oswald loved his children, and also exhibited concern for Ruth's
child. Oswald fell in love and was married as well. These actions show
another element in his emotional spectrum. It is a spectrum we all
share....moving from feelings of love and hate. It is a universal
trait of human beings. Oswald wrote home frequently while in Russia.
Perhaps this reflects affection for his brother, or mere homesickness.
Oswald befriended folks in Russia. The example Steve provides us with
is an insight into Oswald's friendliness with another person.
>You have a guy that tried to kill Walker,
Assumed
> who threatened to kill
>Nixon,
Assumed
> who tried to kill himself,
Was it a real suicide attempt?
> had wanted to join Castro and fight the
>infidels,
But he didn't. Instead he was in New Orleans where a CIA agent was
funneling funds to anti-Castro Cubans. He became involved in both
sides of this political feud.
> who wanted to hijack an airplane,
Wanted or simply said for effect?
> who practiced on his balcony
>with his rifle,
Rifles are very popular in the US. The NRA is a very popular
organization. His rifle was not loaded. He was not actually shooting
at anything. I'm sure on any given night in the US, there are
thousands of folks who own rifles who are holding them, polishing
them, looking at the mechanics. Chad himself has purchased a MC and
used it to conduct experiments. Chad sent me a bullet. I do not
believe Chad is psychotic.
> who verbally and physically threatened his wife...etc.
Many men verbally and physically threaten their wives on a DAILY
basis. Many of them are psychotic. Oswald was never diagnosed as
psychotic by any psychiatrist. If so, he would not have been accepted
into the Marines.
>In light of the majority evidence,
What majority evidence? You have simply presented a very selective
collection of minutiae about Oswald's life and many of these items are
not corroborated by more than one person. Your summary also completely
neglects the other side of the coin completely thus negating your
effort to portray your selection as "en toto". It isn't.
> Oswald suffered from violent ideas quite
>regularly during his marriage with Marina.
So you are a mind reader, are you? Even when the person is dead? You
are simply speculating about what Oswald was thinking and the IDEAS in
his head at any given moment. You are using testimony from other folks
(hearsay) to conclude what you cannot conclude with certainty.
> Perhaps he also felt this way
>earlier in his life and was passively enacted during this recording.
Or perhaps he was not passively enacting anything during this
recording and merely fooling around with a friend.
>
>Perhaps not.
Correct.
>
>Only Lee knew the answer to that.
Correct.
>Chad
PF
Canuck
If Oswald's mind was so "twisted", why wasn't it discovered during his
three years in the U.S. Marines, or did he gradually become "twisted"?
After the assassination, articles on Oswald alleged that he was
psychotic, schizophrenic, etc., but clearly such a serious mental
illness would have precluded him from serving successfully in the
Marines, and would undoubtedly have at some point caused him to end up
in a mental hospital. - Peter R. Whitmey (Canuck)
Bruno Christensen
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've heard
> the
>> recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading
> things
>> into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
>>
>> Martin
>
> So we should be suspicious of stories that place
> Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
> guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
> of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
> street.
>
Is that the training US offers/offered to "anti-????", then I understand why
they are not called "soldiers", but some "anti-"insert your favourite
hategroup here"".
> Jerry Shinley
>
>>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and
> his
>>> pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
>>> Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine
> gun"
>>> and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
>>>
>>> Does anyone who defends this guy actually belive that this is
> "normal"
>>> for someone to think this way-and then not believe that someone
> with
>>> this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
>>>
>>>
--
Med Venlig Hilsen
Bruno Christensen
John McAdams
<michaela...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
>news:1107807285.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and his
>> pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
>> Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine gun"
>> and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
>>
>> Does anyone who defends this guy actually belive that this is "normal"
>> for someone to think this way-and then not believe that someone with
>> this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
>>
>>
>
> Steve
>
> First I must say that I have read the responses to your post
>by Peter and others, and that I tend to agree that you are trying to make
>too much of this "fantasy" in Russia.
>
> Secondly, you really must stop thinking that anyone who disagrees with
>your conclusions about Oswald's sole guilt is an "Oswald defender." Please
>admit the possibility, not just that you are wrong, but also that those who
>disagree with you (for the great part) are just as honest as you.
>
Of course people who think Oswald was innocent, and proclaim that, are
"Oswald defenders."
The issue we have long discussed here is whether Oswald was innocent
or guilty.
If innocent, he *deserves* to be defended.
If guilty, he doesn't, although people may honestly defend him if they
*think* he was innocent.
> On a related point of interest; a while back I conversed with Diane
>Holloway Ph.D (author of THE MIND OF OSWALD). I really only had one question
>for her (as she didn't seem especially well versed generally about the
>assassination): did her expert reading of Oswald's writings lead her to
>think that this was a man capable of cold-blooded murder? It is not
>generally understood just how difficult it is for a human being to take
>anothers' life. While her responses to my emails were very friendly, even
>always inserting some unsolicited personal remarks about herself, she kept
>avoiding answering that question, and eventually (even though I remained
>very polite and deferential) effectively, but still very nicely, terminated
>the conversation. I concluded that the unspoken answer to my question was
>"no." FWIW
>
Do you mean "no he wasn't capable of it?" I don't think she could
possibly have said that, since she believes he did it.
If you mean "no it can't be inferred from his writings that he was
capable of murder," that sounds to me to be true. It's equally the
case that it can't be proved he *wasn't* capable of it.
His writings show certain things. He was manipulative. He lied a
lot. He had grandiose notions of the profundity of his own thoughts.
All those things are *consistent* with the lone assassination view of
Oswald -- that of Davison, McMillan and Posner. But to convict
Oswald, the hard forensic evidence has to do the heavy lifting.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Hill
Allow me to ask a stupid question:
Was a raised clenched fist really a "communist salute"?
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:BziOd.42130$g16.981@trndny08...
Mike Bull
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:420aded8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 8 Feb 2005 17:43:06 -0500, "Mike Bull"
> <michaela...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
>>news:1107807285.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Did anyone in here ever listen to the tape recording of Oswald and his
>>> pal in Russia played on the FRONTLINE special "Who Was Lee Harvey
>>> Oswald?" when Oswald talked about "killing 8 people with a machine gun"
>>> and then how it "was in all the newspapers" and so forth?
>>>
>>> Does anyone who defends this guy actually belive that this is "normal"
>>> for someone to think this way-and then not believe that someone with
>>> this sick of a mind is capable of killing?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> First I must say that I have read the responses to your
>> post
>>by Peter and others, and that I tend to agree that you are trying to make
>>too much of this "fantasy" in Russia.
>>
>> Secondly, you really must stop thinking that anyone who disagrees with
>>your conclusions about Oswald's sole guilt is an "Oswald defender." Please
>>admit the possibility, not just that you are wrong, but also that those
>>who
>>disagree with you (for the great part) are just as honest as you.
>>
>
> Of course people who think Oswald was innocent, and proclaim that, are
> "Oswald defenders."
>
Yes, but some here consider anyone who disagrees with, or even doubts,
the LN conclusion an "Oswald defender." That's silly.
> The issue we have long discussed here is whether Oswald was innocent
> or guilty.
>
> If innocent, he *deserves* to be defended.
>
> If guilty, he doesn't, although people may honestly defend him if they
> *think* he was innocent.
>
>
>> On a related point of interest; a while back I conversed with Diane
>>Holloway Ph.D (author of THE MIND OF OSWALD). I really only had one
>>question
>>for her (as she didn't seem especially well versed generally about the
>>assassination): did her expert reading of Oswald's writings lead her to
>>think that this was a man capable of cold-blooded murder? It is not
>>generally understood just how difficult it is for a human being to take
>>anothers' life. While her responses to my emails were very friendly, even
>>always inserting some unsolicited personal remarks about herself, she kept
>>avoiding answering that question, and eventually (even though I remained
>>very polite and deferential) effectively, but still very nicely,
>>terminated
>>the conversation. I concluded that the unspoken answer to my question was
>>"no." FWIW
>>
>
> Do you mean "no he wasn't capable of it?" I don't think she could
> possibly have said that, since she believes he did it.
>
> If you mean "no it can't be inferred from his writings that he was
> capable of murder," that sounds to me to be true.
Yes, that is all I read into her remarks. Going to the point of Steve's
original post: if Holloway can't infer that from her studies of all his
writings, than it is over-reaching to conclude he was capable of murder
based solely on the Russian killing fantasy.
Mike :-)
John Hill
news:1107957773.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've heard
> the
> > recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading
> things
> > into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
> >
> > Martin
>
> So we should be suspicious of stories that place
> Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
> guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
> of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
> street.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Tens of thousands of young men volunteer
for the military every year and are sent to training camps where one vital
thing they're taught is how to kill people. This in no way implies they're
"twisted."
That one was anti-Castro and training to try to defeat Castro and liberate
Cuba hardly implies an approval "of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in
the street."
Your mixing apples and oranges.
--
John Hill (joisa)
John Hill
That's true. The issue, I think, is that the term "Oswald defender" is used
as an insult. As if one would "defend" Oswald at all times despite anything.
Now, some might do that, but far from all.
There's also the frame of mind that says "defending" Oswald is but a
byproduct of trying to get at the truth. Some are simply trying to find as
much of the truth as can be found. ***IF*** that happens to indicate in any
way the possibility of Oswald's innocence (or partial innocence,
so-to-speak), so be it. That doesn't mean the purpose is to defend Oswald.
One can desire to get at the truth and still not give a damn about defending
Oswald.
> The issue we have long discussed here is whether Oswald was innocent
> or guilty.
In a manner of speaking. Again, one can desire to get at the truth and still
not give a damn about defending Oswald.
> If innocent, he *deserves* to be defended.
>
> If guilty, he doesn't,
Not necessarily so. Now, as this is not a court of law, this argument is
severly weakened, I admit. However, one could take the approach that in a
free society, everyone deserves to be defended when accused.
> although people may honestly defend him if they
> *think* he was innocent.
True.
Partly correct. The hard forensic evidence alone can, and does, clearly show
Oswald's M-C was the weapon used in the assassination.
That does not, however, indicate Oswald is the one who fired it, despite
anything and everything else.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Anthony Marsh
Part of that is the process of "getting back at" by people who have
gotten tired of being called WC defenders.
It's also a preemptive way to disqualify others from the debate.
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Allow me to ask a stupid question:
>
> Was a raised clenched fist really a "communist salute"?
No, of course not. But don't let facts like that get in the way of WC
propaganda for that bunch. The fist needs to be raised over the shoulder
with the elbow straight. A lowered clenched fist is not a Communist
salute, not is a raised open hand.
tomnln
Bracelet.
(Once a Marine, Always a Marine)
"John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:420b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Hill
news:420c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> NO...It was meant to show his Marine Corps Ring & Marine Corps I D
> Bracelet.
>
> (Once a Marine, Always a Marine)
Is it just possible he was showing that he was handcuffed?
--
John Hill (joisa)
Chad Zimmerman
> On 9 Feb 2005 18:29:34 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Steve,
>
> >Your point is well taken regarding the recording.
>
> What point? His point was that anyone who did not think this event
> indicated Oswald's mind was twisted was wrong. That point is
> incorrect.
Yes, if you base your entire conclusion regarding Lee's mind with just this
one
solitary occassion and ignore the plethora of other events that show him to
be
a very unstable person with a risk for violence.
It is just like showing a psychopath's interest in killing and dissecting
animals at a
young age. But, in this case he may have simply fantasized- as most deranged
people begin.
The fantasies start, then when they are no longer appealing, they resort to
acting out
the fantasies. So, this little 'play session' of Oswald's could very well
have been a link
to his subconscious. To simply dismiss it as play is to ignore the pattern
that emerged in the
last year of his life. While this might be true, it may also be false.
>
> > You have two schools of
> >thought in this newsgroup and its members bounce around between the two.
>
> Which has nothing to do with this specific event, as you yourself
> admit at the end of this post.
It might or might not. You prefer to believe that it doesn't. In fact, you
apparently
prefer to think that Oswald never did anything bad or made any threats,
hence
your calling much of it assumption. You prefer to water down the bad things
by
labeling them all hearsay, as if they never really existed.
>
> >The School of En Toto:
> >
> >Students here consider the total evidence and then make a conclusion.
> >
> >The School of Minutiae:
> >
> >Students here pick apart the tiniest defect to try and expose a large
hole.
> >
> >CT's and LN's have to be students of both.
> >
> >Whereas you are right in thinking that Oswald may have had some psychotic
> >violent fantasies,others look at this isolated incident apart from the
> >whole.
>
> "May have" or may not have....but Steve says it can only be one way.
I understand that. Basically, you've just typed several bytes of information
that agrees with me.
> He suggests you must conclude Oswald's mind was twisted because of
> this one EVENT.
Steve is taking in context with other known events in his life, whether he
typed
it or not. I know Steve well enough to know that. In fact, I've talked to
him on the
phone about it.
That was the point of his original post. He used one
> piece of Minutiae in his original post and drew a conclusion.
As you well know, Steve has also considered all the other aspects of his
life, but
brought up this one. You have to look beyond the bytes with posters
sometimes.
>
> One must also consider the positive aspects in Oswald's emotional
> behaviour. To solely list or consider just one side of the human
> spectrum of emotions is certainly not an example of examining Oswald
> "en toto".
Understood. However, you also need to know that all bad people have good
qualities. Simple representation of those qualities doesn't let the guy off
of the hook.
Serial killers carry on meaningful relationships with people all the time
without killing
them- like the Green River Killer.
>
> Oswald loved his children, and also exhibited concern for Ruth's
> child. Oswald fell in love and was married as well. These actions show
> another element in his emotional spectrum. It is a spectrum we all
> share....moving from feelings of love and hate. It is a universal
> trait of human beings. Oswald wrote home frequently while in Russia.
> Perhaps this reflects affection for his brother, or mere homesickness.
> Oswald befriended folks in Russia. The example Steve provides us with
> is an insight into Oswald's friendliness with another person.
Yes, and Oswald also detested his mother, berated his wife, hit his wife
once, tried
to assassinate Walker, threatened to kill Nixon, wanted to hijack a plane,
join Cuba's
fight against the infidels, had a hard time being friendly with coworkers in
NO and Dallas,
etc, etc. How many of those good Russian buddies did Oswald stay in touch
with?
Oswald had a compassionate side and a dark side. Go figure. Many people do.
However, his
dark side included homocidal behavior.
>
>
> >You have a guy that tried to kill Walker,
>
> Assumed
Bullshit. He left the note. Marina testified to it. The bullet was
consistent
with WCC ammunition. The only thing you don't have is a signed confession
or a videotape of it happening. You must think that Marina was lying when
she
said that Lee came home and was pissed when there wasn't anything on the
radio
about it, then became elated the next morning when he found out that his aim
wasn't
bad and Walker moved, causing him to miss the shot.
For crying out loud, Peter, his own damned wife admitted to it after the
letter was
found. This is a no contest. She tried to hide it, then broke down when the
letter
was found. Then, she babbled at length about it to the Warren Commission and
has
always maintained that it happened.
This is all just "assumed" information to you?
I'm trying to figure out just what it is that is required to convince you of
anything.
>
>
> > who threatened to kill
> >Nixon,
>
> Assumed
And testified to by his wife- the only other living witness to the threat.
Take it with a grain of salt if you wish to. Just what constitutes good
information
to you?
>
>
> > who tried to kill himself,
>
> Was it a real suicide attempt?
He slashed his wrist, Peter. What do you think? He knew that he'd be found
semi-conscious
and saved? You have to be kidding me. Of course, you could just read the
suicide note he left.
Me thinks he was fairly serious about it.
>
> > had wanted to join Castro and fight the
> >infidels,
>
> But he didn't. Instead he was in New Orleans where a CIA agent was
> funneling funds to anti-Castro Cubans. He became involved in both
> sides of this political feud.
Um, he went to Mexico City in order to gain entrance to Cuba to join Fidel.
He used to do exercises in the living room to get in shape for this idiotic
fantasy.
Again, Marina knew this and testified to it.
>
>
> > who wanted to hijack an airplane,
>
> Wanted or simply said for effect?
Yeah, Lee was just overly dramatic and misunderstood. So overdramatic that
he
practiced idiotic field maneuvers in the living room to get in shape to do
these things.
Come on.
>
>
> > who practiced on his balcony
> >with his rifle,
>
> Rifles are very popular in the US. The NRA is a very popular
> organization. His rifle was not loaded. He was not actually shooting
> at anything. I'm sure on any given night in the US, there are
> thousands of folks who own rifles who are holding them, polishing
> them, looking at the mechanics. Chad himself has purchased a MC and
> used it to conduct experiments. Chad sent me a bullet. I do not
> believe Chad is psychotic.
I've never spent hours with that rifle practicing with it on my balcony.
Never.
Please don't lump me in with Oswald. I detest that vehemently.
Context, Peter. The guy was obsessed with revolutionary causes and wanted
to join the fight. He had slightly obtuse interests at the least.
>
>
> > who verbally and physically threatened his wife...etc.
>
> Many men verbally and physically threaten their wives on a DAILY
> basis.
No shit. Thanks. You'd make a fine defense attorney. Since person A does
the same stuff, but doesn't kill people, you ASSume that Oswald is the same
as person A. However, most everyone knows that Lee tried to shoot Walker,
which changes the perspective a bit.
Many of them are psychotic. Oswald was never diagnosed as
> psychotic by any psychiatrist.
Which doesn't mean jack. He tried to shoot Walker, Peter. Do sane
people try to assassinate others? No. The only way Lee could've been
totally sane with the Walker incident is if someone ordered him to do it.
However,
no such proof exists that anyone put Lee up to anything.
If Lee had ever told a psychiatrist that he tried to kill Walker, you might
get a
diagnosis of psychosis. However, when was the last recorded psychiatric
evaluation?
If so, he would not have been accepted
> into the Marines.
LOL! Right. And I suppose the disheveled military man that stole the tank
and
rampaged through a city was normal because he passed the intensive screening
of the US military. Because Lee wasn't diagnosed as such
doesn't mean that he couldn't be such. Psychos appear to be normal all the
time.
Many fit well into society and are valued members: Gacy, Bundy, etc.
How many deranged murderers in this country were labeled psychotic prior
to killing anyone? Less than 1%? If so, wouldn't that mean that the other
99% are
not psychotic- using your rationale, of course.
>
> >In light of the majority evidence,
>
> What majority evidence? You have simply presented a very selective
> collection of minutiae about Oswald's life and many of these items are
> not corroborated by more than one person. Y
Yeah, trying to kill someone, threatening to do so, etc. are all just minute
and insignificant things. Go fish.
Are you assuming that one has to engage in such things more than 50% of
the time in order to make that consideration? Come on.
Then, you make the implication that: In order to be considered true, more
than
one person has to be a witness to it, eh?
our summary also completely
> neglects the other side of the coin completely thus negating your
> effort to portray your selection as "en toto". It isn't.
All bad people have good sides. All of them, Peter. When you are talking
about bad
behavior, it is sometimes (just sometimes) pertinent to evaluate other
examples of bad
behavior- don't you think? Or, should we ignore all of these minute details
and focus
on Oswald's angelic behavior?
>
> > Oswald suffered from violent ideas quite
> >regularly during his marriage with Marina.
>
> So you are a mind reader, are you? Even when the person is dead?
Read her damned testimony. It is sandwiched in right around the parts that
you are citing
where he is a nice guy that loved his wife and kids.
You
> are simply speculating about what Oswald was thinking and the IDEAS in
> his head at any given moment. You are using testimony from other folks
> (hearsay) to conclude what you cannot conclude with certainty.
Well, the guy is dead, Peter. That information is all that we have. That
information
came from the same people you are citing as proof that he was a good guy.
You
can't chastize me for that, then do the same thing. You really don't like it
when
someone thinks Oswald may have thought and done these things. You call it
all
hearsay or *assumed*.
Nothing is a fact to you except what you think is pertinent testimony. Then,
you discard
the damning testimony as hearsay. I don't get your *logic*. Congrats on the
'A'.
>
> > Perhaps he also felt this way
> >earlier in his life and was passively enacted during this recording.
>
> Or perhaps he was not passively enacting anything during this
> recording and merely fooling around with a friend.
Yep, I already noted that, Peter.
Chad
jpsh...@my-deja.com
John Hill wrote:
> <jpsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1107957773.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > > Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've
heard
> > the
> > > recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading
> > things
> > > into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
> > >
> > > Martin
> >
> > So we should be suspicious of stories that place
> > Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
> > guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
> > of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
> > street.
>
> I'm not sure I follow your logic.
I just wonder why people who believe that Oswald
was a right-wing, intelligence type with mob ties, no less,
seem to resist the notion that he might, you know, be capable
of killing someone.
> Tens of thousands of young men volunteer
> for the military every year and are sent to training camps where one
vital
> thing they're taught is how to kill people. This in no way implies
they're
> "twisted."
I don't see the word "twisted" in what I posted. Nor any
reference to general military training.
> That one was anti-Castro and training to try to defeat Castro and
liberate
> Cuba hardly implies an approval "of tactics like gunning down unarmed
men in
> the street."
Okay, I apologize to any guerillas who foreswear such tactics
as assassinating local officials and executing informants and who
never carry out any attack unless they are 100% certain no
unarmed individuals will be killed or injured.
Peter Fokes
>
>John Hill wrote:
>> <jpsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107957773.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> > > Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've
>heard
>> > the
>> > > recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading
>> > things
>> > > into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
>> > > Martin
>> > So we should be suspicious of stories that place
>> > Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
>> > guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
>> > of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
>> > street.
A visit to a friend's house to help him learn English is not the same
as a stint in an anti-Castro training camp. Steve's comment referred
specifically to the former event.
>> I'm not sure I follow your logic.
>
Well, that's probably because it had nothing to do with Steve's point.
> I just wonder why people who believe that Oswald
>was a right-wing, intelligence type with mob ties, no less,
>seem to resist the notion that he might, you know, be capable
>of killing someone.
Who are these people? I do not resist any notion that Oswald might be
capable of killing someone but I would not draw that conclusion from
Oswald's visit to a friend's house.
>
>> Tens of thousands of young men volunteer
>> for the military every year and are sent to training camps where one
>vital
>> thing they're taught is how to kill people. This in no way implies
>they're
>> "twisted."
> I don't see the word "twisted" in what I posted. Nor any
>reference to general military training.
>> That one was anti-Castro and training to try to defeat Castro and
>liberate
>> Cuba hardly implies an approval "of tactics like gunning down unarmed
>men in
>> the street."
> Okay, I apologize to any guerillas who foreswear such tactics
>as assassinating local officials and executing informants and who
>never carry out any attack unless they are 100% certain no
>unarmed individuals will be killed or injured.
>
>> Your mixing apples and oranges.
That's for sure. Maybe Lemons and Potatoes!
>> --
>> John Hill (joisa)
PF
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2005 10:47:52 -0500, jpsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Hill wrote:
> >> <jpsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1107957773.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >> > > Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've
> >heard
> >> > the
> >> > > recording, I have the program. You're making the error of
reading
> >> > things
> >> > > into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
>
> >> > > Martin
>
> >> > So we should be suspicious of stories that place
> >> > Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
> >> > guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
> >> > of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
> >> > street.
>
> A visit to a friend's house to help him learn English is not the same
> as a stint in an anti-Castro training camp.
No kidding?
> Steve's comment referred
> specifically to the former event.
>
> >> I'm not sure I follow your logic.
> >
>
> Well, that's probably because it had nothing to do with Steve's
point.
Did you notice that my post was made in response
to someone other than Steve?
>
> > I just wonder why people who believe that Oswald
> >was a right-wing, intelligence type with mob ties, no less,
> >seem to resist the notion that he might, you know, be capable
> >of killing someone.
>
> Who are these people?
Did you happen to notice to whom I addressed my
original post?
> I do not resist any notion that Oswald might be
> capable of killing someone
Okay.
> but I would not draw that conclusion from
> Oswald's visit to a friend's house.
Well, if you put it that way.
>
> >
> >> Tens of thousands of young men volunteer
> >> for the military every year and are sent to training camps where
one
> >vital
> >> thing they're taught is how to kill people. This in no way implies
> >they're
> >> "twisted."
>
> > I don't see the word "twisted" in what I posted. Nor any
> >reference to general military training.
>
>
> >> That one was anti-Castro and training to try to defeat Castro and
> >liberate
> >> Cuba hardly implies an approval "of tactics like gunning down
unarmed
> >men in
> >> the street."
>
> > Okay, I apologize to any guerillas who foreswear such tactics
> >as assassinating local officials and executing informants and who
> >never carry out any attack unless they are 100% certain no
> >unarmed individuals will be killed or injured.
> >
> >> Your mixing apples and oranges.
>
> That's for sure. Maybe Lemons and Potatoes!
Mmmmm, lemons and potatoes!
Jerry Shinley
jpsh...@my-deja.com
Bruno Christensen wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2005 11:02:22 -0500, jpsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >> Don't be ridiculous. People play-act things all the time. I've
heard
> > the
> >> recording, I have the program. You're making the error of reading
> > things
> >> into it based on what you THINK you know about him later.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >
> > So we should be suspicious of stories that place
> > Oswald at, say, an anti-Castro training camp where
> > guerillas were trained. Because he wouldn't approve
> > of tactics like gunning down unarmed men in the
> > street.
> >
>
> Is that the training US offers/offered to "anti-????", then I
understand why
> they are not called "soldiers", but some "anti-"insert your favourite
> hategroup here"".
I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that
I am especially prejudiced against anti-Castro or
U.S. supported guerillas. It's my understanding
that guerillas of any stripe, right, left, whatever,
would kill a suspected informer or collaborator.
Jerry Shinley
Jean Davison
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:420c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
Interesting comments, Chad. And don't forget, there's other
evidence that Oswald had violent fantasies. For instance, a New York
social worker who interviewed him when he was a 13-year-old school truant
wrote at that time:
"He agreed to answer questions if he wanted to, rejecting those
which upset him and acknowledged fantasies about being powerful, and
sometimes hurting and killing people, but refused to elaborate on this.
None of the fantasies involved his mother, incidentally. He also
acknowledged dreaming but refused to talk about the dreams other than to
admit that they sometimes contained violence, but he insisted that they
were pleasant."
(Evelyn Strickland's report is in WCH, XXI)
Jean
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:o77l01h0bv8gml11p...@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Feb 2005 18:29:34 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve,
>>
>> >Your point is well taken regarding the recording.
>>
>> What point? His point was that anyone who did not think this event
>> indicated Oswald's mind was twisted was wrong. That point is
>> incorrect.
>
>Yes, if you base your entire conclusion regarding Lee's mind with just this
>one solitary occassion.....<snip>
And that is exactly what I said. My response was met with Steve's
false accusation that I was a "pal" of Oswald and had "told on
myself".
I'm glad you agree.
PF
Bruno Christensen
> Is it just possible he was showing that he was handcuffed?
> --
Honest question:
When you are arrested in US, then you are handcuffed,?
I do think that some minor crimilalities don't need handcuffing, but LHO
was arrested, suspected of killing a policeman (balls and chains could
have been used If they have had the time)
Peter Fokes
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>news:420c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:o77l01h0bv8gml11p...@4ax.com...
>>> On 9 Feb 2005 18:29:34 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Steve,
>>>
>>> >Your point is well taken regarding the recording.
>>>
>>> What point? His point was that anyone who did not think this event
>>> indicated Oswald's mind was twisted was wrong. That point is
>>> incorrect.
>>
>> Yes, if you base your entire conclusion regarding Lee's mind with just
>> this
>> one
>> solitary occassion
Yup, which was my point.
>>and ignore the plethora of other events that show him
>> to be a very unstable person with a risk for violence.
Of course, when one puts Oswald on a graph with other people who
exhibit[ed] a risk for violence, he would not be anywhere near the top
of the scale.
>> It is just like showing a psychopath's interest in killing and dissecting
>> animals at a young age. But, in this case he may have simply fantasized- as most
>> deranged people begin.
There is no indication that Oswald was a psychopath.
Of course, most normal people fantasize too and never become deranged.
One does not need to be deranged to fantasize. Indeed, many people
fantasize and never become deranged and yet some commit a violent
crime on impulse.
>> The fantasies start, then when they are no longer appealing, they resort
>> to acting out the fantasies. So, this little 'play session' of Oswald's could very well
>> have been a link to his subconscious.
Of course, it could just as easily have been friendly banter with a
friend in Minsk. And neither you nor I have any idea of what was in
his subconscious at that time, and cannot fathom the state of his
subconscious at that time by looking backwards from his alleged
involvement in an assassination.
>>To simply dismiss it as play is to ignore the pattern
>> that emerged in the last year of his life.
I did not dismiss it as play. I did say that it is a legitimate and
reasonable explanation to say it was an example of a playful encounter
between two friends. You yourself say this pattern emerged in the last
year of his life. Maybe the woman who popped Adlai Stevenson over the
head with a sign a month before JFK was shot was known to discuss
attacking bleeding heart politicians. The other women in her sewing
circle may have agreed but that does not make them all psychopaths.
>> While this might be true, it may also be false.
Precisely.
>
> Interesting comments, Chad. And don't forget, there's other
>evidence that Oswald had violent fantasies. For instance, a New York
>social worker who interviewed him when he was a 13-year-old school truant
>wrote at that time:
> "He agreed to answer questions if he wanted to, rejecting those
>which upset him and acknowledged fantasies about being powerful, and
>sometimes hurting and killing people, but refused to elaborate on this.
Oswald also exhibited signs of love and affection. I would say a great
number of children fantasize about being more powerful, and often wish
they were older. Oswald looked forward to being the legal age to enter
the Marines. There was a popular movie released last year entitled "13
Going On 30" about a young teenager who wished she was 30 and
magically became 30. Highly rated by 13 year olds. There are quite a
number of books now available on the subject of bullying... quite the
hot topic. These bullies often threaten other kids. Of course, there
is also unspoken peer pressure and exclusion of certain kids. The fact
that OSwald did not elaborate on the latter point of the social
worker's observations leaves us to speculate about the reason why such
a thought occurred. It certainly is a stretch to connect this report
by a sw to an friendly social setting in Minsk many years later.
>None of the fantasies involved his mother, incidentally.
That is interesting. I wonder why. She was a major influence of his
life. Repressed feelings here? Btw, film director Frankenheimer
explored the mother-son relationship in a number of powerful films in
the early 60s including The Manchurian Candidate and All Fall Down.
> He also
>acknowledged dreaming but refused to talk about the dreams other than to
>admit that they sometimes contained violence, but he insisted that they
>were pleasant."
Dreams are ephemeral in nature and notoriously difficult to remember.
They are just as often evoked by fears as by desires. Was the violence
directed AT Oswald in these dreams? We do not know.
>
> (Evelyn Strickland's report is in WCH, XXI)
> Jean
PF
Bruno Christensen
There are a few words that i can't, immidately translale to danish. But I
read this like: We (you and I) do not like killing of innocent people
John Hill
Jean,
Long time, no hear.
Please don't be a stranger. Though we usually disagree, I always like
hearing from you. :-)
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:420d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Hill
news:byvczzu66ber$.1985stdjj39p$.dlg@40tude.net...
Yes, Oswald was handcuffed at the time that photo was taken. Some think he
was merely raising his hands to show that he was cuffed.
People often clench their fists involuntarily when under stress.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Bruno Christensen
> Some think he
> was merely raising his hands to show that he was cuffed.
This is my point. Everybody wolud expect that he was cuffed!! T&here is no
point in showing something "known to all". Had he not been cuffed and tried
to show that, that would have been a sensation.
On the other hand :-) A communist-salute is "left arm streched with a fist
at about 120 degrees, where 0 degree is "arm by hip".
>People often clench their fists involuntarily when under stress.
That's right, I tend to scratch my neck under stress (good thing I've never
been handcuffed)
John Hill
> On 12 Feb 2005 09:01:01 -0500, John Hill wrote:
>
> > Some think he
> > was merely raising his hands to show that he was cuffed.
>
> This is my point. Everybody wolud expect that he was cuffed!! T&here is no
> point in showing something "known to all".
Whether there was any "point" in it or not doesn't necessarily mean he
couldn't have done it for that reason anyway.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Glenn Sarlitto
> There is no indication that Oswald was a psychopath.
>
> Of course, most normal people fantasize too and never become deranged.
> One does not need to be deranged to fantasize. Indeed, many people
> fantasize and never become deranged and yet some commit a violent
> crime on impulse.
I tend to lean towards Earl's description of Oswald being "a disoriented
youth".
No doubt, many a youth were disoriented back in '63 (Nothing has changed
today in that regard.)
But not every disoriented youth had criminal fantasies. Not every
disoriented youth talked about criminal fantasies. Not every disoriented
youth attempted a criminal act. Problem is, some did. And this one had a
gun and a rifle. That was a dangerous combination back in Dallas in 63'.
Still is, quite frankly. A ticking timebomb, as you will and anything
could trigger it off.
Interesting history. Texas in the 60's. Less than three years later
another ex-marine and disoriented youth took a rifle in hand...
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html?sect=8
On a sidenote, like Oswald, Charles Whitman was court-martialed during his
military tour.
""He resented the Marine Corps and it showed in his behavior. In November
1963, he was court-martialed for gambling, usury and unauthorized
possession of a non-military pistol. He had threatened a fellow soldier
who had failed to repay a $30 loan with 50 percent interest. He was found
guilty and sentenced to 30 days confinement and 90 days hard labor.""
Glenn
tomnln
I Posted that Oswald was showing his Marine Corps Ring along with his Marine
Corps I D Bracelet.
(I thought he Hated the U S A)
"Bruno Christensen" <ne...@lphund.dk> wrote in message
news:1viv6yzrn0dzm$.jdrv14qdbrnp$.dlg@40tude.net...
tumbleweed
Canuck wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > I don't understand your logic, Peter.
> >
United
> > States, and a Dallas police officer and came close to killing a
second
> > police officer.
> > He shot at one man through the window of his home and nearly hit
him. He
> > slit his own wrists in a suicide attempt.
> >
>
Just
> because the Warren Commission came to that conclusion, doesn't make
it a
> fact, especially since they ignored much of the evidence that didn't
match
> their conclusions, and couldn't even agree on the "single bullet
theory",
> although under pressure they all pretended they did.
> I believe it is just as likely that Oswald was set up, which I
discuss
> in my forthcoming article "Creating a Patsy", which will likely be
> available on the net this fall (delayed intentionally, even though
the
> article is finished). As for Tippit's murder, one witness who
decided not
> to come forward but was tracked down by the HSCA (whom I learned has
> died), Jack Tatum, described the killer firing a fourth shot from
above
> Tippit at point-blank range, into his head, even though Tippit was
likely
> already dead. The HSCA (and Gary Cornwell in his book REAL ANSWERS)
have
> pointed out that this is a classic example of a "coup degrace"
associated
> with organized crime. I frankly find it hard to believe Oswald would
have
> taken the extra time to carry out such a ceremonial final shot.
Whoever
> actually killed Tippit (and I have somone in mind) was clearly a
> professional killer (a hitman), not a panic-stricken southern boy. -
Peter
> R. Whitmey (Canuck)
I look forward to reading your article. I have long suspected KGB as
LHO's handlers, not US intelligence or FBI as so many people suspect.
Anything they wanted to know about LHO (alias, rifle order, walker
shooting, employment, unemployment, residence, etc)could be obtained
via his wife and/or network of Dallas Russian friends. How LHO's weapon
made its way into the TSBD will be interesting reading. Perhaps you can
answer why LHO left the area, missing his opportunity to be interviewed
by tv news reporters and strenghten his alibi? ("yeah, I work in that
building and just as the shots happened a cop came in and stuck a gun
in my waist on the 2nd floor as I was drinking my coke"...you know,
something like that....)I seriously doubt DPD knew anything of LHO,
certainly his employers were in the dark too. Would you hire a guy who
defected to Sadam Hussein and offered to turn over military secrets?
Perhaps your article can help me understand some of this stuff.....?
Anthony Marsh
> WHY do people change the Subject????
>
> I Posted that Oswald was showing his Marine Corps Ring along with his Marine
> Corps I D Bracelet.
>
> (I thought he Hated the U S A)
>
>
You do bring up an interesting question which no one has ever been able
to answer. Why would Oswald, after receiving a dishonorable discharge,
continue to wear his Marine Corps ring? Could it be some kind of macho
thing to impress people? Was it a part of a false legend to make him
appear to be a loyal and patriotic American instead of a defector?
But you do have to learn to separate in your mind the difference between
a dissident hating the system and hating his country.
For example, Cuban Exiles supposedly hate Castro and Communist which
they think betrayed their people, but supposedly they do not hate Cuba.
As the saying goes, "Cuba si, Castro no."
tomnln
Intelligence.
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:GZQPd.32099$W16.12110@trndny07...
James K. Olmstead
incident that basically started this thread. One that in the effort to understand
the mind of Oswald, one does have to consider in the process of what influenced
his writings and positions. The quote deals with Walt Rostow and is about his
White House "nickname"......"Chet Bowles with Machine Guns"
Rostow was within the Eisenhower administration during this period of Oswald's
life as well as in the Kennedy administration during another, so in my opinion
for what it's worth, one has to evaluate the "machine gunning" discussion between
Oswald and another, in related terms. Was the discussion only idle thoughts
about killing, or political discussion on stances being shown, by people of
influence.
Both have to be considered.
The quote btw comes from "Kennedy's Wars" by Lawrence Freedman, page 29.
jko
John Blubaugh
> On 12 Feb 2005 09:01:01 -0500, John Hill wrote:
>
>> Some think he
>> was merely raising his hands to show that he was cuffed.
>
> This is my point. Everybody wolud expect that he was cuffed!! T&here is no
> point in showing something "known to all". Had he not been cuffed and
> tried
> to show that, that would have been a sensation.
>
Hmmm, Mike Tyson raised his hands to show off the cuffs when he was
arrested for rape. How does your logic apply to that?
JB
Chad Zimmerman
> On 11 Feb 2005 22:20:15 -0500, "Jean Davison"
> <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> >news:420c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >> "Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >> news:o77l01h0bv8gml11p...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 9 Feb 2005 18:29:34 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Steve,
> >>>
> >>> >Your point is well taken regarding the recording.
> >>>
> >>> What point? His point was that anyone who did not think this event
> >>> indicated Oswald's mind was twisted was wrong. That point is
> >>> incorrect.
> >>
> >> Yes, if you base your entire conclusion regarding Lee's mind with just
> >> this
> >> one
> >> solitary occassion
>
> Yup, which was my point.
>
> >>and ignore the plethora of other events that show him
> >> to be a very unstable person with a risk for violence.
>
> Of course, when one puts Oswald on a graph with other people who
> exhibit[ed] a risk for violence, he would not be anywhere near the top
> of the scale.
Well, you have to define what type of violence, Peter. As you know, there
are many
varieties.
>
> >> It is just like showing a psychopath's interest in killing and
dissecting
> >> animals at a young age. But, in this case he may have simply
fantasized- as most
> >> deranged people begin.
>
> There is no indication that Oswald was a psychopath.
Shooting at Walker doesn't indicate just a teensy bit of an unstable nature,
does it?
According to your ideas thus far, you might have him pegged as a normal guy
with
normal violent fantasies and taking normal shots with a rifle at other
people. Boy, I'm
glad I'm not in Canada if that's normal!
>
> Of course, most normal people fantasize too and never become deranged.
Most people don't shoot at retired generals either.
> One does not need to be deranged to fantasize.
Nobody indicated that was a requirement.
Indeed, many people
> fantasize and never become deranged and yet some commit a violent
> crime on impulse.
The Walker shooting was an impulse?
Let's see: Oz had a notebook full of notes about the Walker thing. He took
pictures
of the house. He cased the home and his escape route. He planned it from
beginning
to end, with the last piece being the note left to Marina. He even took
enough time to
pay bills in advance and leave Marina some money.
Premeditated.
>
>
> >> The fantasies start, then when they are no longer appealing, they
resort
> >> to acting out the fantasies. So, this little 'play session' of Oswald's
could very well
> >> have been a link to his subconscious.
>
> Of course, it could just as easily have been friendly banter with a
> friend in Minsk.
Yes, as I have indicated as well.
And neither you nor I have any idea of what was in
> his subconscious at that time, and cannot fathom the state of his
> subconscious at that time by looking backwards from his alleged
> involvement in an assassination.
Yep, I already know that.
>
>
> >>To simply dismiss it as play is to ignore the pattern
> >> that emerged in the last year of his life.
>
> I did not dismiss it as play. I did say that it is a legitimate and
> reasonable explanation to say it was an example of a playful encounter
> between two friends. You yourself say this pattern emerged in the last
> year of his life.
Yes, I said that the "pattern" emerged in the last part of his life. You
know, the
things that you are calling assumptions and hearsay.
>Maybe the woman who popped Adlai Stevenson over the
> head with a sign a month before JFK was shot was known to discuss
> attacking bleeding heart politicians. The other women in her sewing
> circle may have agreed but that does not make them all psychopaths.
She never tried to shoot anyone. Her case IS a case of an impulsive beating
with a placard sign. Not quite the same thing.
>
> >> While this might be true, it may also be false.
>
> Precisely.
>
> >
> > Interesting comments, Chad. And don't forget, there's other
> >evidence that Oswald had violent fantasies. For instance, a New York
> >social worker who interviewed him when he was a 13-year-old school truant
> >wrote at that time:
>
> > "He agreed to answer questions if he wanted to, rejecting those
> >which upset him and acknowledged fantasies about being powerful, and
> >sometimes hurting and killing people, but refused to elaborate on this.
>
> Oswald also exhibited signs of love and affection.
Blah, blah. So did Gacy, Bundy, the Green River Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer,
the DC snipers, etc, etc.
I would say a great
> number of children fantasize about being more powerful, and often wish
> they were older. Oswald looked forward to being the legal age to enter
> the Marines. There was a popular movie released last year entitled "13
> Going On 30" about a young teenager who wished she was 30 and
> magically became 30. Highly rated by 13 year olds. There are quite a
> number of books now available on the subject of bullying... quite the
> hot topic. These bullies often threaten other kids. Of course, there
> is also unspoken peer pressure and exclusion of certain kids. The fact
> that OSwald did not elaborate on the latter point of the social
> worker's observations leaves us to speculate about the reason why such
> a thought occurred. It certainly is a stretch to connect this report
> by a sw to an friendly social setting in Minsk many years later.
You've just santized Oswald's violent fantasies with a movie and books
on bullying. Interesting indeed. You've just played just about every card
in the book to make Oswald a normal guy that only allegedly shot at
a general.
Chad
Bruno Christensen
Mike Tyson and logic in allmost same sentense, I'm not buying in here :-)
(perhaps they were both "making it the showtime of their lives", but realy I
don't belive that)