On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 4:22:55 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
- show quoted text -
despicable human being like Oswald are for naught. History will properly
ID him as the assassin of JFK. There is no evidence of anyone else's
involvement. Even the majority of CTs accept the fact he was guilty even
if they believe he had accomplices. Oswald will be as much of a villain to
historians as John Wilkes Booth and that is how it should be. It's just a
damn shame that little bastard wasn't flattened by a bus on 11/21/63. The
one piece of solace I draw from this tragic event is the picture of Oswald
grimacing in pain a second after Ruby's bullet ripped his guts apart.
Unfortunately he seems to have lost consciousness fairly quickly and
didn't suffer nearly enough.
Ralph Cinque: Wow, that is really sadistic, but I only want to harp on one thing you said: the idea that the majority of CTs accept that Oswald was guilty and had accomplices.
First, that is untrue; the majority of CTs espouse Oswald's innocence and by a wide margin. The number who think that Oswald did it within a conspiracy is very small and, it's negligible.
In fact, the idea that Oswald did it within a conspiracy is a government idea. It's the government that came up with it. It was the HSCA who said it. Basically, it was the government saying that if you don't like our first idea that Oswald did it alone, here's an alternative: that unknown people put Oswald up to doing it. See if you can live with that.
Well, the very idea that ANYBODY (whether the Mafia, the CIA, the Cubans, or anyone else) would assign Oswald to be the assassin is preposterous. It is absurd. Oswald was NOT an assassin, and he had no experience as a sniper. Remember, he wasn't a combat soldier. He never killed anybody, and he never shot at anybody. (The claim that he shot at Walker is completely unsubstantiated.) And he wasn't even a good marksman when it came to shooting at targets. On his last marksman test in the Marines, he scored 91, and one point less he would have failed. So, he barely scraped by with the lowest passing score. Then after that, the only shooting he did, that we know of, was that in Russia, he went hunting a few times with a shotgun- which is a totally different experience.
So, why would the Mafia or the CIA choose Oswald to be the assassin when he had no experience at killing, no proven temperament for it, no sniping experience whatsoever, and poor marksmanship skills overall?
But furthermore, if Oswald did it on behalf of someone else, where is the money trail? You hire an assassin, don't you?
Assassins don't work for free, do they? There is a very extensive money trail for Oswald's financial dealings. For goodness sake, they came up with money orders for his supposed gun purchases; money orders for his loan repayments to the State Department; his W2 forms; how much money he had when he went to Russia; how much money he had when he went to Mexico; how much he spent on rent everywhere he lived; they had all this financial data on him, yet, there is no evidence he received so much as a copper cent for killing Kennedy. Isn't that adequate reason to reject the idea that he did it on behalf of anyone else? HE'D HAVE BEEN PAID. And, he wasn't paid.
Assassins don't work for free, do they? There is a very extensive money trail for Oswald's financial dealings. For goodness sake, they came up with money orders for his supposed gun purchases; money orders for his loan repayments to the State Department; his W2 forms; how much money he had when he went to Russia; how much money he had when he went to Mexico; how much he spent on rent everywhere he lived; they had all this financial data on him, yet, there is no evidence he received so much as a copper cent for killing Kennedy. Isn't that adequate reason to reject the idea that he did it on behalf of anyone else? HE'D HAVE BEEN PAID. And, he wasn't paid.
The vast and overwhelming majority of books advocating conspiracy, including all the best-selling ones, have done so on the basis of Oswald innocence.
So, where does this idea come from that most CTs believe that Oswald did it within a conspiracy? IT IS SIMPLY A LIE. It's just another dirty, filthy, bloodied, despicable lie being told about the JFK assassination.
The truth is that most of the CTs who espouse Oswald guilt are fakes. They are complete phonies. They're just a bunch of Ops who want to seem independent and apart from JFK officialdom, and that's why they take that position. And when you come across them, you should just consider them LNs because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them and LNs.
Lee Harvey Oswald was just the patsy. He wasn't the killer and the patsy; he was just the patsy. Anytime you hear someone try to claim that Oswald did it within a conspiracy, run don't walk from that person. They are the enemy as much so as lonenutters.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.