Saturday, February 25, 2017

The John McAdams JFK forum is a bizarre world. It is dominated by lonenutters, as you would expect, but, the ones opposing them are some very strange ducks. For instance, there is an Anthony Marsh who believes that Oswald did NOT shoot Kennedy, but he did shoot and kill Tippit. Now, why would Oswald do that, according to Marsh? It's because Oswald assumed that Tippit had stopped him because of the Walker pot shot incident.

But, nobody even got hurt, let alone killed, in that incident. There is absolutely no physical evidence linking Oswald to it. The entire case is built on Marina Oswald claiming Oswald did it. But wait. It was two months after the assassination before she started "remembering" that Oswald shot at Walker. So, on November 22, 1963, Oswald had nothing to worry about concerning her. Besides, in the state of Texas, a wife can't be compelled to testify against her husband. It's called spousal privilege. Besides, the President of the United States had just been shot and killed with the killer or killers on the loose. So, why would the Walker potshot incident from the previous April be on anyone's mind at that point in time? And, even if Oswald was just paranoic about it, why would he escalate a harmless pot shot into the cold-blooded murder of a police officer in broad daylight? Of course, Oswald didn't take that pot shot, but I'm just thinking out-loud within Marsh's deranged mental world. Oswald would have had to be insane to shoot Tippit on that basis, and it makes me wonder about Marsh's mental state. And, he has the nerve to refer to other people as "kooks." It's his favorite word. Kooks, kooks, kooks. But, there is nobody kookier than he is. He is king of the kooks. 

Then, there is a Robert Harris who believes that Oswald was a shooter, but that he may have deliberately missed Kennedy. He believes the Mafia assigned Oswald to do it, among other shooters. First, shouldn't there be a paper trail for the MONEY that Oswald was paid by the Mafia for doing it? Assassins kill people for pay. I mean: if they don't have their own motive for wanting the person dead, if they are doing it on behalf of someone else, then it means they're being paid. There are no volunteer assassins who kill on request for nothing. Why would Oswald kill Kennedy, a man whom he admired, on behalf of the Mafia if he wasn't paid? So, that's bizarre. But, what is even more bizarre is: Why would the Mafia choose Oswald to do it? Does Robert Harris not realize that Oswald had no experience as an assassin, as a sniper, as a killer, etc.? Is he unaware that Oswald's last shooting test in the Marines was poor, that he practically flunked?  And the ONLY shooting he did post-Marines was to go rabbit-hunting in Russia with his friends, using shotguns? And that Oswald stank at that? David Lifton talked to a Russian man who told him that Oswald was such a bad shot that someone else would usually shoot a rabbit for him, just so that he would have one. You hate to see a grown man cry. So, why would the Mafia think that Oswald was qualified to kill Kennedy? And why would they take the risk of him killing someone else instead, such as Jackie? Things go wrong sometimes in shootings. You know? Shooters have been known to miss. They have also been known to hit targets they weren't aiming for. It is insane to think that in the big, wide, vast world of assassins at their disposal that the Mafia would have chosen Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Based on what? He was out of the country for 3 years. So, he didn't exist to the Mafia all that time. Then he gets back and starts working a string of low-paying jobs, grunt labor, which he has trouble holding. Then he goes to New Orleans and gets a job as a machine greaser, and he loses that job too. Then, he gets a job as an "order-filler" at the TSBD for $1.11/ hour. And somehow, that resume impressed the Mafia that he was qualified to pick off the President of the United States?  "We need to get Oswald. Just look at his record." 

And, if the Mafia killed Kennedy, why would the U.S. government want to hide it?  Why would there be a cover-up? Why would the whole US media fall into lock-step to support the official story that a lone-nut did it for essentially no reason at all?  Did the Mafia have an iron grip on U.S. newspapers? I think Robert Harris has watched The Godfather one too many times.

So, why would the U.S. government point the finger at the Mafia, as per the HSCA?  It's because the U.S. government killed Kennedy, and they wanted to offer people an alternative. 

"You don't like our first story that a lone-nut did it for no reason? That even though he was elated with his new daughter and hopeful about getting his family back, that Oswald decided to kill Kennedy on the spur of the moment because: he saw the motorcade route in the newspaper? That doesn't work for you? OK, then try this on for size: Mafia hit-man: Lee "Carvy Harvey" Oswald.   

Then, there is a guy there, who uses an alias; his first name may be Chris, who actually believes that Oswald was innocent but that he did bring a rifle to work- to show somebody, in the hope of selling it- but he lied to police about it.  

Now, think about it yourself. You go to work. The President gets shot. And they haul you in and accuse you of doing it. The Police actually think that YOU shot the President. Are you going to start lying to them? Aren't you going to say, "Yes, I brought my rifle to work to show it to somebody, but I didn't kill the President with it. I couldn't do that. Why the hell would I do that? I have nothing against him. And I'm not a killer. I don't go around killing people. If it looks like my rifle was involved, then somebody is framing me."

Isn't that what you would say? You're in a bad situation, a nightmare situation, but wouldn't it only make it worse if you start lying to police about the rifle? If it's yours, it's yours. If you own it, you own it. Other people's weapons have been used to commit murders, and with the aim of framing the owner. So, if that was the case here, then why wouldn't you say so? If you're innocent, then the truth can't hurt you. Why would you make like a criminal and start lying to the police?

Then, there is a guy, whose name escapes me, who believes that Oswald was sitting eating in the lunch room at 12:30 and close to 12:30, and that as he was sitting there eating, he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman out the window walking by, and he cited them to the police. And somehow that got turned into Oswald saying that he "was eating lunch with other employees" at the time of the shots, which is what Will Fritz told the Warren Commission was Oswald's alibi.  

Oswald got off work at 11:45, just like everyone else. They actually broke early just so that people could eat unrushed before the motorcade. So, why would he still be eating at 12:30? And what did he do for 45 minutes if he wasn't eating then? He knew the Presidential motorcade was coming. He learned it from James Jarman that morning. He hadn't eaten a thing that day. So, why would he put off eating lunch until the time the President arrived? What did he have to do for 45 minutes instead of eating that prevented him from getting his lunch out of the way? And who uses someone outside as an alibi when you are inside? Here is the domino room:

Did it even have a transparent window?

So, between the crazy lone-nutters (and, you really have to be crazy or severely incompetent to believe the official story) and these other wacky people, McAdams' forum is like an insane asylum. This is 2017. How can people be this stupid about the JFK assassination in 2017? 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.