T Nation

Pic of LH Oswald Standing in Doorway While Kennedy Shot


#1

Absolute proof that Oswald was at ground level, watching the motorcade, when Kennedy was shot.

"Do you realize what this means? It means that the Doorway Man was Oswald- unless they can come up with another Texas Schoolbook Depository employee who happened to look like him. And it means that Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor firing at Kennedy.

This means that itâ??s over. Game; Set; Match. There is tons of other evidence, but if there were no other evidence, this alone exonerates Oswald. He could not have killed Kennedy."

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque8.1.1.html


#2

Very interesting. Now what?


#3

I don't know if this is as definitive as he thinks it is, but it does look like Oswald.


#4

Actually the guy in the doorway looks more like the Duke of Windsor. He had a collar/lapel like that too. Definitely him. Well, looks like it's finally solved thanks to Lew Rockwell and Ralph Cinque(chiropractor, nutritionist, and health spa operator.) The Duke of Windsor or his collar/lapel killed Kennedy. \end thread


#5

What a bunch of bullshit. Oswald himself claimed he was drinking a Coke on the second story when the shots were fired. He never mentioned being on the first floor at all. I believe that there was a conspiracy behind JFK's assassination, but bullshit like this is what gives conspiracy theorists a bad name. I suggest you read "A Farewell to Justice" by Joan Mellen if you want a comprehensive, legitimate book about every detail of the assassination. Also, read "4 Days in November" by Vincent Bugliosi (he's the DA who prosecuted Charles Manson) if you want an even more definitive book that claims Oswald acted alone. After all, your viewpoint carries no merit whatsoever if you haven't familiarized yourself with credible arguments from the other side of the aisle, of which this picture/doorway shit is not.


#6

Four words: Cuban Embassy Mexico City


#7

The biggest indictment of the lone gunman theory to me isn't even based on any real evidence. When Oswald was arrested and forced to answer some questions for the press, he claimed on more than one occasion that he was a patsy and repeatedly denied any sort of involvement with the conspiracy.

Now, everything we know about the type of person who would commit such an act contradicts this statement of Oswald's. Killing the President of the United States is the most high-profile crime one could commit. By far. Also, Oswald allegedly was a hardcore Commie and he was politically, NOT pathologically, motivated to kill JFK. Why would someone commit a high profile crime like that, driven by ideology no less, and then deny it. If Oswald really WAS a fanatic, a lone gunman and motivated by Communist sympathy to the point where he would murder the President, why would he deny it?

Everything about him that we've learned, whether it be from conspiracy theorists or lone gunman proponents, indicates that he was a loner and an introvert who failed at everything and had little to no self-esteem. A psychoanalysis of him (which is admittedly hard to carry out now that he's dead) would definitely point to the extreme likelihood that IF he committed such a crime, he would not have denied it once he was arrested and charged for it. In his warped mind he would have seen this act as the ultimate accomplishment in his life, a zenith and NOT something to deny and try to distance himself from. He would have embraced his guilt and let everyone know that it was HE who had rid the world of this "fierce opponent of Communism". (not a direct quote from LHO).


#8

The thing that still makes me doubt the validity of conspiracy theories from time to time, especially concerning the CIA, is the simple fact that the CIA bungled virtually everything they did back then. I read a very interesting book about James Jesus Angleton (first head of counter-intelligence in the CIA and the most powerful man in it, other than the Director). To make a long story short, he and everyone working underneath him made every fucking mistake possible, even when the mistakes were beyond egregious and totally avoidable, when hunting down Soviet agents and potential moles within the CIA.

Kim Philby and the rest of the Cambridge Five essentially existed right under the nose of the man whose sole job was to find double agents. Philby himself was one of Angleton's best friends and many say he never recovered from the shock he suffered when he found out his drinking buddy was really a Soviet agent who had probably garnered more information from their drinking sessions together than he had anywhere else.

The Bay of Pigs, Operation: Mongoose (a total abortion), Operation MKUltra and several other major things going on throughout that era were complete fuckups of a monstrous magnitude. In my darker moments I find it extremely hard to believe that the CIA, who couldn't tie their own fucking shoes between 1950 and 1975, carried out a conspiracy as large and far-reaching as the assassination of the President. Fuck, when the Sino-Soviet split occurred they were caught completely off-guard due to a total failure in intelligence/counter-intelligence on their part.


#9

I agree with your assessment of the CIA. And I'm not going to argue for a Cuban/Soviet handler of Oswald but if there is ANY line of enquiry worth pursuing that would be it - in my opinion anyway. I haven't looked into it in detail. I have read a bit about Philby, Cambridge Five and Stasi/KGB though.


#10

Anyone ever seen RFK Must Die? It was pretty interesting although I can't comment on the validity of it.
If you're interested it can be streamed here, keep in mind though, it's like and hour and half.
http://documentaryheaven.com/rfk-must-die-assassination-of-bobby-kennedy/

The film tried to present information to tie together some interesting items regarding certain CIA agents or whoever they were, being present at the assassination when they allegedly weren't, even some photos of some guy(CIA I think it was) that was there, that technically wasn't supposed to be there or at least be seen there.

I don't know though, but felt it might contribute to this thread and anyone more interested in the Kennedy assassinations.

I also have a book, On the Trail of the Assassins, but haven't gotten around to reading it.
http://www.amazon.ca/Trail-Assassins-Jim-Garrison/dp/0446362778
I think DB might have mentioned it before, but I might be mistaken on that one.


#11

Agreed, in terms of the Soviet connection. A HUGE red flag is the fact that he was let back into the U.S. after defecting to the USSR without any hassle at all. He even brought a Russian wife with him and the govt actually gave him something like $1500 to get his new life back in the U.S. started.

In 1961 in the middle of the Cold War this just sounds too unbelievable. At the time, anyone who had defected to Russia and then come back would have been seriously interrogated by the FBI and/or the CIA. Him oming bak would have raised all sorts of red flags within the counter-intelligence wing of the CIA and he would have automatically become a prime suspect as a possible double agent, what the CIA terms a "provocation".

Now, I know I just said that Angleton, who would have been in charge of interrogating Oswald, was a total fuckup, but he was also a complete paranoiac to an extreme degree. What ground literally one half of the CIA to a complete standstill for more than 10 years was the fact that Angleton was convinced EVERYONE was a Soviet provocation, not that no one was. If Oswald was a legit defector who had a change of heart he would have been the focus of intense scrutiny from Angleton to the point where he probably would have been imprisoned indefinitely without due process (see: Yuri Nosenko). The fact that none of this happened to Oswald is a clear indicator of something being amiss.


#12

As you said we're talking Bay of Pigs era CIA - and from what I remember there are either FBI/CIA(can't remember) files on Oswald from that period - I remember one about his "Hands off Cuba" pamphleteering in Miami. So he was being watched - obviously not closely enough.

He wasn't a Soviet defector in the sense that he remained a Communist - he just didn't like actually living in the Soviet Union. Apparently attempted to get residency in Cuba a few months before the assassination.


#13

Having a file on him isn't the same as active, scrutinous surveillance and harassment.

Remember, Oswald was a former member of the Armed Forces with experience/knowledge of U.S. radar technology, something he openly acknowledged the Soviets would be interested in upon his defection. He openly renounced his U.S. citizenship and renounced democracy in general when he defected. Now, he never officially renounced his citizenship, but he made clear all of these intentions when he reported to the U.S. embassy in Moscow that he planned to defect. Keep in mind that while Oswald was in Russia Gary Powers was shot down in his U-2 spy plane.

I just have a hard time believing that, IF Oswald was a legitimate defector and given that the U.S. embassy in Moscow was at least aware of his INTENTION to formally renounce his U.S. citizenship, the U.S. intelligence community would have let him back into the country with relatively little scrutiny.

The reason he was under surveillance regarding the whole Fair Play for Cuba thing is mostly because of where he was making noise about it: in the middle of the New Orleans intelligence community, as pointed by Oliver Stone in that fucking fantasy movie JFK. That part was one of the few accurate parts of the whole movie. He also attracted attention simply due to his brazenness in promoting FPC.

Beyond that, the attempt to gain a visa to Cuba through the Russian AND Cuban consulates in Mexico City should have been MAJOR red flags. Yes, this activity did garner some attention by the CIA. However, IF he was under heavy surveillance at the time (which he SHOULD have been given his activities over the last several years), the CIA and the FBI definitely would have been aware of where he was at all times and he would have been a person of major interest when Kennedy came to Dallas. In fact, he would have been under heavy surveillance on the 22nd. He probably would have had an FBI agent assigned specifically to him, ESPECIALLY if they knew he worked in a building along the motorcade route.

Of course, this could all just as likely be a case of the CIA fucking up, as they were wont to do back then. But this, along with many other factors (including his known association with David Ferrie, Sergio Arcacha-Smith, Clay Shaw and also Shaw's known connections with the CIA) make me think that this was not a simple case of the intelligence community dropping the ball.


#14

I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant Oswald "defecting" from the Soviet Union back to the US.

Okay, now I see what you mean and I don't buy it. The idea that Oswald was a CIA asset sent to the Soviet Union doesn't fit with anything about his personality or background. He was a deranged loner; a political ideologue - good background cover? No. KGB wouldn't want to deal with a nutcase. No, Oswald was clearly a deranged loner, a hardcore Commie and there is a possibility that he had a Cuban/Soviet handler in connection with the assassination. It just doesn't fit any other way.


#15

It fits every which way. A loner type is exactly the type of person the CIA would and does use as low-level agents, especially ones that have little to no family. Oswald had a mother and brother, neither of whom were close to him, and that's pretty much it. No children or wife, no love interest of any kind, no extended family, nothing to use against him. This made him (and others like him) perfect assets to use as pawns. He's what's referred to as a "short tail spy". Someone like him would have been perfect because he was a) totally expendable and b) with little to no family connections, there would be very little to use as a threat against him during interrogation if he were outed by the Soviets as a spy. The CIA doesn't use "family men" in this sort of matter.

Also, we don't know anything about his political ideology aside from his public persona between 1959 and 1963, so it's inaccurate to call him a political ideologue. What ideology we can assign to him may be legitimate, but it also may be part of a cover. Aside from that, if he WAS a legit ideologue and committed Communist I doubt he would have left Russia due to boredom, especially with almost nothing tying him to the United States. When he DID gain a visa to Cuba, he never went. He could have sought political asylum there.

Also, the KGB dealt with nutcases all the time. Look into Anatoly Golitsyn, for starters. beyond all of this, if he WAS such a nutcase ideologue, from a purely psychoanalytical standpoint, it would be very, very hard to argue that someone THAT committed to an ideology would then repeatedly deny any involvement with the assassination of someone who he felt was perhaps the world's biggest threat to that ideology. To a deranged loner driven by a pathological or fanatical devotion to an idea, the opportunity to claim credit and bask in the glory of his "accomplishment" would be to good to pass up and directly flies in the face of everything we have learned about criminal and political psychological profiling.


#16

I have read that book and I regularly include it in the repeated Book Recommendation threads that pop up every other month. However, it comes from a biased viewpoint in that it was written by Jim Garrison himself. As we see virtually everywhere, people distort facts and evidence (sometimes consciously, sometimes not consciously) to fit into whatever argument it is we make or to support whatever conclusion we are hoping to find. That being said, it is a great place to start for anyone wanting to delve into the JFK assassination. I would just advise that that particular book be read with a bit of skepticism, as all books on both sides of the arguments in this particular case should be.


#17

Just because...


#18

One other point, although this may be a bit of a stretch:

Under Gitlow vs. New York and Dennis vs. U.S., advocating Communism in such a way that it also advocated overthrowing the U.S. federal govt (which is what Oswald was advocating as part of his support for Fair Play for Cuba) was an arrestable offense. Oswald would have represented what the Supreme Court called a "clear and present danger", thereby meeting one of two exceptions to free speech rights in the U.S. at the time. So Oswald could have legitimately been arrested for handing out pamphlets supporting Communism. And he was arrested, but for disturbing the peace after he got into a fight with anti-Castro Cubans, NOT for the language of his pamphlets.

Schenck vs. U.S. and Whitney vs. California further solidified this restriction and it wasn't until 1969 in Brandenburg vs. Ohio that the "clear and present danger" test was rejected by the Supreme Court. The fact that Oswald was not arrested for his advocacy of Communism may be further evidence, however dubious, of something else going on. After all, case precedent at the time confirmed that an arrest of this sort would have been legitimate and justifiable at the time. Under Gitlow and Dennis this would have been "advocacy of criminal anarchy" and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Oswald wouldn't even have had to commit a criminal act; just the advocacy of criminal action on the part of others was enough to get arrested.

Personally, I think this particular line of reasoning is a bit of a stretch, but it's just one more thing to consider in all of this.


#19

This means nothing. Things under pressure when shot (which would include the human head) tend to react unpredictably, including what parts of the object under pressure blow apart.

For instance, take a can of soda, shake it up a little bit and then shoot it with a gun. I did this over Thanksgiving weekend with my Sig Sauer 9mm. I shot several cans of Coke and I noticed that every time I hit it, the largest opening in the can wasn't the exit point but rather where the bullet entered it. What happens is that the immediate loss of pressure forces most of the contents of the can out of the place where pressure is lost which, even given the speed of the bullet, is still the entrance point. The aluminum was literally blown out back toward me, not bent inward in a way that would follow the path of the bullet. At first I thought I made a mistake in identifying the exit point so I put a sticker on the can to mark the side that I was shooting at.

Every time I hit a can, the point at which the bullet entered it resulted in a gaping hole, while the exit point was a clean hole the same size as a 9m bullet. In fact, one time I shot the can and it fell FORWARD off the stump I had placed it on. Not once did a can fall off away from me. On several occasions there were also gashes in the can where pressure had escaped to the side of the entrance point, in much the same way that part of Kennedy's right side of his head blew apart from the fatal shot.


#20

The wildest part of all this is the fact that Woody Harrelson's dad is alleged to have been one of the infamous hobos detained prior to the assassination. Apparently his father performed contract killings back then, although it's unclear whether or not he was actually anywhere near Dallas at the time.