OT: True Crime

[Montana]

I’ll also add if you painstakingly read through everything we know about Oswald’s upbringing…it lays such a clear foundation for the kind of anti-social outcast dying to cling to something/anything to fell like he’s worth something.

it makes it so obvious why he joins the marines, why he tries to defect, why he’s so abusive to Marina, why he tried to kill Walker…..

…..and my pet theory is that it was the attempt to kill Walker, and specifically his daydreaming about how it would make him feel, that he’d made his mark on history, stopped someone he viewed as a Hitler-esque fascist…..so when that failed he’s devastated, but he’s had that rush of imagining what it would have been liked to finally become someone of note.

….which makes him act on shooting Kennedy when the opportunity presents itself and he knows the motorcade will be driving past his work…..this is also on the heels of him having failed to recruit anyone for his fair play for Cuba campaign….and his being rejected when he tried to defect to Cuba….and then on top of all that, in the day or two prior to him shooting Kennedy he asked Marina to move in with him, and he’d get a new apartment for the two of them etc…..but still angry at him for his most recent outburst she rejected him.

….so everything’s going against him…the cause he believes in, he’s failed at being a booster of….THEY have rejected him, the woman he loves has rejected him (just like his mother had rejected him and showed little affection towards him)…..but he does have that sense of power he flirted with when he tried to kill General Walker.


….and you have all the ingredients for what then transpired. (Imo)

 

[axlsalinger]

can’t leave out his diagnosis of ‘emotionally disturbed’ from the childhood psychiatrist they sent him to…and bounced around a dozen different schools as a kid, kicked out constantly for getting into trouble, truancy, etc….he also was known to strike his mother in fits of rage, and once pulled a knife on his older brothers wife.

not proof of anything

He was also nicknamed ‘Oswaldovich’ by his fellow marines, for often discussing pro-soviet talking points, and taking the time to teach himself Russia

or because he knew he was going to be spying there in the future

turned out living as a communist wasnt everything he’d dreamt it to be….also unbeknownst to him, virtually all the friends he made, we Soviet agents or informants, paid to spy on him and report back everything…..because they felt he could be a US spy, given how bizarre his attempted defection was.

come on man, everything about this story is bizarre

Why would they have him use a known CIA alias to purchase the gun?…..doesn’t that just make feasible to tie it back to them?

just that it was among a list of names operatives would occasionally use as an alias

this is why it sells so well…..the CIA is always the perfect foil for these writers, precisely for the reasons you state.

totally never up to any shenanigans

it is

or maybe just maybe, the truth has been in this very thread all along….one need only pay close attention to the breadcrumbs I’ve laid out.

the CIA should hire you to disseminate information

if the CIA was in any way tied to Oswald…and I don’t believe they were….but if they were, de Mohrenschildt is the only contact point I’ve heard that seems plausible.

we know for sure he was acquainted with David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

 

[Montana]

not proof of anything

What?….a psychiatric profile of an accused assassin isn’t relevant?

If we’ve learned anything from years of school shooters and would be assassins, it’s that this kind of extreme childhood mental illness is very often present in their medical history.

Id kill for any of these conspiracy theorists to have anything of this evidentiary relevance that actually tied Oswald to the CIA or any kind of conspiracy at all.

or because he knew he was going to be spying there in the future

why not say he was an alien, or a vampire, or a Kennedy son swapped at birth….if we’re just creating narratives out of thin air with zero evidence to help prove the theory, all we’re doing is reading peoples fictional narratives.

come on man, everything about this story is bizarre

never disputed there’s weird elements to it…..but we should expect that to be the case given the fuck pile of evidence collected by the various agencies, warren report, DIY sleuths.

what isn’t bizarre tho, is the real physical evidence pointing to Oswald as the shooter….that oddly gets ignored.

just that it was among a list of names operatives would occasionally use as an alias

but if they’re going to kill the president why would they give him an alias that is known to be used by other CIA operatives?

That’s almost a self refuting conspiracy theory.

totally never up to any shenanigans

absolutely they were….they gave the go ahead to assassinate Lumumba despite Kennedy explicitly stating he was to be kept alive.

I believe that’s why he fired Allen Dulles, if memory serves…..(and later said he wanted to disband it, and smash it into a thousand pieces,)

….but like, we have evidence of these things….not just “CIA Bad so they did this conspiracy theory” despite no real concrete proof of anything substantial.

the CIA should hire you to disseminate information

Hey, if I hear or see any significant evidence that refutes claims I make….I’m all ears. I want the most concrete supported evidence & proof we can find…..but I am disappointed that on a number of occasions when I’ve provided evidence/proof that debunks a claim thats been made…I’m not really seeing anyone say they were wrong, or that they learned something new…..it’s just a pivot to some other “mysterious” thing….

we know for sure he was acquainted with David Ferrie and Guy Banister.

Ferris yes…..is there anything tying him to Banister other than the debunked office thing? I’m drawing a blank….been a minute since I saw JFK.

 

[Preston]

 

[Montana]

I can almost taste that.

 

[Montana]

this should be a breezy 35 hour listen.

 

[axlsalinger]

What?….a psychiatric profile of an accused assassin isn’t relevant?

not saying it isn't relevant, just saying that you could say those sentences about hundreds of thousands of people who didn't shoot a president.

why not say he was an alien, or a vampire, or a Kennedy son swapped at birth….

just saying that IF Oswald eventually spied on Russia for the CIA, maybe they told him to start learning about it a couple of years before ... or maybe they recruited him because he was interested, and knew the language.

why would they give him an alias that is known to be used by other CIA operatives?

no idea, just read that somewhere.

I want the most concrete supported evidence & proof we can find

sure, but even something as simple as proving someone worked with the CIA is not easy. that's the whole point.

 

[Montana]

not saying it isn't relevant, just saying that you could say those sentences about hundreds of thousands of people who didn't shoot a president.

He isn’t just some random plucked from hundreds of thousands of people tho….he’s the one person the vast majority of the evidence concretely points to.

If you’re trying to build a case against a husband for killing his wife, and he has a long history of domestic violence, the probability increases you’re on the right track…..if you’re trying to figure out who a serial killer is and in your primary suspects childhood he was known to torture animals, that increases the odds you’re on the right track….if you’re trying to prevent the next school shooting, you’re going to start by targeting the anti-social, kids with the kind of upbringing & psychological evaluation that Oswald had.

It doesn’t prove the case…but it’s just yet another indicator you’re probably heading in the right direction…

just saying that IF Oswald eventually spied on Russia for the CIA, maybe they told him to start learning about it a couple of years before ... or maybe they recruited him because he was interested, and knew the language.

it’s wild how at every step along the way, the least likely answer is the one we’d have to accept every single time……with zero evidence.

no idea, just read that somewhere.

ask yourself the question, in an effort to decide how probable you think that is. That they’d give him a known used (and apparently reused?) alias, that would directly tie him back to the CIA….instead of giving him his own fresh alias.

this is the same CIA who has managed to not leave any other residue of proof that they’re connected to him…..but they make such an obvious blunder right out of the gate.


How likely is that in reality do you think?

sure, but even something as simple as proving someone worked with the CIA is not easy. that's the whole point.

I feel like we’ve been told every person who so much as delivered a newspaper to Oswald that had a connection to the CIA at this point, in an attempt to imply he was a CIA plant….yet nothing tying him.

It feels a lot like religious talk to me to an extent….we don’t have any proof of God, but that’s the point! You just have to believe

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

I don't know enough about Malcolm X to have a strong opinion, I saw the movie and read a couple of articles many years ago but I am not up to date on the latest "theories". And I think it seems fairly clear that James Earl Ray killed MLK.

definitely some weirdness with RFK's murder, though, and if there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, you have to question RFK, wonder if Ray truly acted alone, etc. etc.

RFK's assassin was a nutter willing to basically sacrifice himself to get the job done but it should be noted that he worked at a racetrack that was controlled by the Mob. RFK and the Mob didn't get along. In fact, they hated him more than his brother.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

View attachment 17617

this should be a breezy 35 hour listen.

Not worth the bandwidth. It's a whitewash from beginning to end.

 

[Montana]

It’s honestly embarrassing to be so brainwashed by conspiracy theories to believe the Warren Report is worthless.

It deserves plenty of critique, all over the place….not denying that, but to be so ignorant as to ignore the treasure trove of evidence contained within it (much of which the conspiracy theorists draw so much of their knowledge from, ironically….but only when it suits their narrative.)

The most powerful thing about the cottage industry that is conspiracy theories of the Kennedy assassination, is that no matter how much all their theories are in competition with one another, contradict one another, etc…..they all have the vested interest in collectively trashing the Warren Report, because it contains the most concrete evidence that points directly at Oswald.

….and again, you’re kinda telling on yourself that you choose to only listen to one side of the courts argument, the defense….while plugging your ears to the case the prosecution brings forward.

And I’m not even arguing one has to believe everything they read in it, or that they have to agree with their conclusions, far from it….but it’s unquestionably the greatest collection of evidence regarding this case that there is, (along with the now released records)……it’s valuable even if you wanted to come to the complete opposite conclusion they did.

but as you’ve demonstrated in this thread every time I debunked something you’ve said, and you skip past it never commenting on how wrong you were or correcting the record….and simply move on to the next spooky “evidence” from the next theory…..you don’t seem particularly interested in discovering what the truth is, so much as believing anything that isn’t the conclusion they came to. regardless of the evidence supporting it.

 

[Montana]

It tracks so similarly with how anti-vaxxers and Magda’s react to mega-analysis & peer reviewed studies having to do with Covid & the vacine.

The similarities are remarkable.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

To me, the one scene in the Oliver Stone movie that packs the greatest punch is the one where Garrison (Costner) meets "X" (Donald Sutherland) the former black ops guy. The scene essentially boils down to what "X" asks him:

"Who killed Kennedy? Who benefitted? (and, perhaps most importantly) Who has the power to cover it up?"

The US back then assassinated lots of people they didn't like. Why is it so hard to accept that the military-industrial complex couldn't or wouldn't use the same method of regime change in the US that they had successfully used abroad, especially when they had a POTUS who seemed openly hostile to them? It worked in Iran, it worked in Guatemala, and it might have worked in Cuba had JFK not pulled the plug on it when the operation started going pear shaped. Kennedy fired some powerful people in the wake of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and his longer term plan was to break up and remake the US intelligence service. Were fired CIA heavyweights like Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and Charles Cabell (who's brother Earle was coincidentally and conveniently the Mayor of Dallas at the time of the Kennedy assassination) just going to endure that public humiliation and just sit back waiting and hoping that some lone wolf would get in a lucky shot and take care of Kennedy for them? Not bloody likely.

As JFK himself told Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post in the wake of the failed invasion "The first advice I'm going to give my successor is to watch the generals and to avoid feeling that because they were military men their opinions on military matters were worth a damn."

Back in 1963 coups d'etat were the CIA's stock in trade. This was a coup d'etat.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

It’s honestly embarrassing to be so brainwashed by conspiracy theories to believe the Warren Report is worthless.

It deserves plenty of critique, all over the place….not denying that, but to be so ignorant as to ignore the treasure trove of evidence contained within it (much of which the conspiracy theorists draw so much of their knowledge from, ironically….but only when it suits their narrative.)

The most powerful thing about the cottage industry that is conspiracy theories of the Kennedy assassination, is that no matter how much all their theories are in competition with one another, contradict one another, etc…..they all have the vested interest in collectively trashing the Warren Report, because it contains the most concrete evidence that points directly at Oswald.

….and again, you’re kinda telling on yourself that you choose to only listen to one side of the courts argument, the defense….while plugging your ears to the case the prosecution brings forward.

And I’m not even arguing one has to believe everything they read in it, or that they have to agree with their conclusions, far from it….but it’s unquestionably the greatest collection of evidence regarding this case that there is, (along with the now released records)……it’s valuable even if you wanted to come to the complete opposite conclusion they did.

but as you’ve demonstrated in this thread every time I debunked something you’ve said, and you skip past it never commenting on how wrong you were or correcting the record….and simply move on to the next spooky “evidence” from the next theory…..you don’t seem particularly interested in discovering what the truth is, so much as believing anything that isn’t the conclusion they came to. regardless of the evidence supporting it.

You look at the Warren Report and conflate quantity with quality. Many of the exhibits and so-called "evidence" is just filler put there to give it the appearance of being thorough. It wasn't a search for truth it was an exercise in reverse engineering so as to arrive at a predetermined conclusion which wouldn't cause people to lose all faith in the institutions which relied on that trust to get away with all manner of bad deeds. One might argue that the Warren Report was the first instance people could point to and finally realize that their government will lie to them whenever it sees fit to do so, in order to protect itself from oversight or criticism. Even then it was only years later, when Vietnam got real and made people ask questions, that the Warren Report came under greater scrutiny. At the time of its release most people were happy to believe its conclusions without ever reading a single word of it.

 

[Montana]

To me, the one scene in the Oliver Stone movie that packs the greatest punch is the one where Garrison (Costner) meets "X" (Donald Sutherland) the former black ops guy. The scene essentially boils down to what "X" asks him:

I’ll be nice and not comment on you choosing a piece of fiction as what convinces you so much…

"Who killed Kennedy? Who benefitted? (and, perhaps most importantly) Who has the power to cover it up?"

1) Oswald.

2) Authors of conspiracy theory books, Oliver Stone, whatever studio made JFK, Kevin Costner.

3) no one…we know who did it, and have a gigantic amount of evidence that he did.

The US back then assassinated lots of people they didn't like. Why is it so hard to accept that the military-industrial complex couldn't or wouldn't use the same method of regime change in the US that they had successfully used abroad,

It isn’t hard to believe….it’s just been impossible for anyone to prove in a meaningfully convincing way. It’s a riveting narrative with ultimately no convincing substance to it.

All those other assassinations….we have seen the evidence for in the end…really convincing evidence.

in the case of JFK….we have the complete opposite, really really really convincing evidence Oswald did it.

especially when they had a POTUS who seemed openly hostile to them? It worked in Iran, it worked in Guatemala, and it might have worked in Cuba had JFK not pulled the plug on it when the operation started going pear shaped. Kennedy fired some powerful people in the wake of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and his longer term plan was to break up and remake the US intelligence service. Were fired CIA heavyweights like Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and Charles Cabell (who's brother Earle was coincidentally and conveniently the Mayor of Dallas at the time of the Kennedy assassination) just going to endure that public humiliation and just sit back waiting and hoping that some lone wolf would get in a lucky shot and take care of Kennedy for them? Not bloody likely.

Yes they all got fired…..so you leap to the conclusion they must have conspired to kill kennedy.

thats fucking re[dacted].


re: bolded section……don’t go down the lazy conspiracy theorist route of providing a coincidental connection, and then just imply it has significance regarding the assassination. In what way did Earle Cabell help the CIA murder Kennedy….

….we’re to believe the most well known, and investigated murder in possibly all of human history….was done over the pettiness of having been fired, and the entire gargantuan apparatus required to not only pull it off, but hide any trance of this conspiracies existence and keep the thousands of people required to accomplish it, silent forever.

or the guy who all the evidence points to, that we have an avalanche of evidence going back to his childhood is the exact kind of profile you would expect to find in a lone gunman situation like this…..is in fact who did it.

As JFK himself told Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post in the wake of the failed invasion "The first advice I'm going to give my successor is to watch the generals and to avoid feeling that because they were military men their opinions on military matters were worth a damn."

and he’s right….the military men are always going to be hawks, and try to get their way….that’s not a secret.

it also does nothing to imply he was murdered (by the military now?)

Back in 1963 coups d'etat were the CIA's stock in trade. This was a coup d'etat.

you should have put it this way from the start……how could anyone argue with such a sophisticated compelling argument as this.

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

You keep talking about Occam's Razor well I'm giving you a simple argument that fits. The CIA was big into forcing regime change back in the 50's and 60's. Kennedy's Presidency was a regime they wished to change so they changed it. Simple and obvious.

 

[Montana]

You look at the Warren Report and conflate quantity with quality. Many of the exhibits and so-called "evidence" is just filler put there to give it the appearance of being thorough. It wasn't a search for truth it was an exercise in reverse engineering so as to arrive at a predetermined conclusion which wouldn't cause people to lose all faith in the institutions which relied on that trust to get away with all manner of bad deeds. One might argue that the Warren Report was the first instance people could point to and finally realize that their government will lie to them whenever it sees fit to do so, in order to protect itself from oversight or criticism. Even then it was only years later, when Vietnam got real and made people ask questions, that the Warren Report came under greater scrutiny. At the time of its release most people were happy to believe its conclusions without ever reading a single word of it.

It’s so funny…when I read your replies I can almost see exactly which movie, doc or line in a book that convinced you of each claim…..and so so many of them are an instance of showing a loose connection, zero evidence it’s a meaningful connection to the case, but left open ended by the director/author for its implication.

…..I say this respectfully and not to throw shade, but you’re very susceptible to the narrative an author or director is peddling…versus isolating what evidence they’re actually putting forth that proves something rather than implies nefarious actions…

I’ll never claim the Warren Report is flawless, didn’t overlook crucial information, conducted sus interviews, handled some things very poorly……but it’s bonkers to think it’s all complete garbage. Like it kinda implies you don’t know what’s is actually in it….and only know what the conspiracy guys say to trash it. (Which they’re all financially motivated to do, btw)

One might argue that the Warren Report was the first instance people could point to and finally realize that their government will lie to them

Conspiracy Theorists sowing doubt into the legitimacy of Oswald as the lone shooter, then Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, and finally Watergate are absolutely what laid the foundation for the MAGA, Anti-Vax, Alex Jones, Sandy Hook False Flag believing, “Fake News” World we live in today…..100% agree on that.

….unfortunately the wrong lessons were learned, the wrong attempts at solutions were applied, and we’ve ended up in a shittier world as a result.

 

[Montana]

You keep talking about Occam's Razor well I'm giving you a simple argument that fits. The CIA was big into forcing regime change back in the 50's and 60's. Kennedy's Presidency was a regime they wished to change so they changed it. Simple and obvious.

This thread has been littered with conjunction fallacies, proportionality bias, agency detection bias….in nearly every theory that’s been broached.

If you think the CIA killing Kennedy over Allen Dulles grievance over being fired….and successfully covered it up all these years…..is Occam‘s Razor…..and not Oswald who all the concrete evidence points to. I don’t know what to tell you….I can only hope some of what I’m said planted a seed, and you’ll read up on some of the cognitive biases I’ve mentioned, and be less susceptible to similar conspiracy theory narratives in the future.

fingers crossed.

 

[Montana]

@WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou I skipped past your Thomas Arthur Valllee post cause I was replying to something else and forgot to get back to it.

I only know he’s brought up in docs because he was arrested with a bunch of weapons and was believed to have been planning an assassination attempt on Kennedy….he was also a member of some extreme right wing group?….what was the actual plot they discovered that tied him to the CIA etc? Like to read more on it, as the docs kinda gloss over it and skip past without delving into it any further.

 

[Montana]

Correction: I mistakenly claimed that they proved the bullet shot at General Walker was from Oswald’s gun….it wasn’t. It was too damaged to run any ballistics tests on, but they did neutron activation analysis tests that later determined that it was "extremely likely" that the bullet was manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company and was the same type of ammunition as was used in the Kennedy assassination.

which is far from conclusive proof Oswald did it.

that said Oswald bought the gun 7 days after Walker made a very inflammatory anti-communist speech, and Oswald was known to detest Walker, and viewed him as a Hitler-esque facist in the making….

We also know he left a letter for Marina the night of the assassination attempt, with detailed plans for what she should do if he didn’t return…..she also testified she witnessed him burning plans he had made regarding the assassination, but hid the letter in a cookbook in case Oswald attempted to shoot him again. (She also testified he told her he had shot at Walker).

They also discovered photos Oswald had taken of Walkers home, one month prior to the assassination attempt.

….and while Walker often bashed the Warren Commision and their findings….he did agree that Oswald was who attempted to kill him.