Lee Harvey Oswald’s MotivesHistorians/History
After nearly 40 years the question remains: Why? What kind of rage, pain or pathology could have provoked Lee Harvey Oswald to such a dark deed?
The explanation of Oswald's motive for killing President Kennedy was buried with him. As JFK assassination expert Dr. Martin Kelly has stated, “Oswald’s mental state does not have crisp, sharp-edged concepts, so it is problematic for (anyone) to write a causally structured account easily”. But I believe the mystery about Oswald’s motives can be partly explained by penetrating Oswald's personal life, his ideological beliefs and his increasingly disturbed behaviour in the months leading up to the assassination.
Most crime does not happen in a vacuum. They do not happen by mere chance - something causes them. Sometimes the reasons are social, sometimes psychological, most often both. The real answer as to why President Kennedy was killed centers around how Lee Harvey Oswald grew up as a misfit, having no real control or moral guidance with which to exist in, and poorly equipped to meet, the demands of society. Answers also lie in the way Oswald embraced a radical ideology in order to compensate for his lack of education and to enhance his self-image.
Oswald's State of Mind
I believe there are telling references which are relevant to an understanding of Oswald's frame of mind in an article published in The American Journal of Psychiatry (July 1960). The article was used as a reference point by Truman Capote in his book In Cold Blood as a way of understanding the psychological make-up of the mind of a murderer. Written by Dr. Joseph Satten, in collaboration with three colleagues, Karl Menninger, Irwin Rosen, and Martin Mayman, the article is chilling in it's delineation of a criminally intentioned mind:
“In attempting to assess the criminal responsibility of murderers, the law tries to divide them (as it does all offenders) into two groups, the 'sane' and the 'insane'. The sane murderer is thought of as acting upon rational motives that can be understood, though condemned, and the insane one as being driven by irrational senseless motives. When rational motives are conspicuous (for example, when a man kills for personal gain) or when the irrational motives are accompanied by delusions or hallucinations (for example, a paranoid patient who kills his fantazied persecutor), the situation presents little problem to the psychiatrist. But murderers who seem rational, coherent, and controlled and yet whose homicidal acts have a bizarre apparently senseless quality, pose a difficult problem, if courtroom disagreements and contradictory reports about the same offender are an index. It is our thesis that the psychopathology of such murderers forms at least one specific syndrome which we shall describe. In general, these individuals are pre-disposed to severe lapses in ego-control which makes possible the open expression of primitive violence born out of previous, and now unconscious, traumatic experiences.”
The authors had examined four men convicted of seemingly unmotivated murders. All had been found sane. The doctors’ description of how the murderers behaved provides a template for Lee Harvey Oswald’s personality (quotations from Satten, et al. in italics):
“The most uniform and perhaps the most significant, historical finding was a long standing, sometimes lifelong, history of erratic control over aggressive impulses....during moments of actual violence, they often felt separated or isolated from themselves, as if they were watching someone else.......”:
RUTH PAINE, FRIEND OF MARINA OSWALD: “(At the Dallas Jail)… he seemed utterly apart from the situation he was in.” “.....In all these cases, there was evidence of severe emotional deprivation in early life .......”
ROBERT OSWALD : “The idea even crossed (my) mind that (my) mother might want to put (me) and John up for adoption; anything to be rid of the burden.” “.......This deprivation may have involved prolonged or recurrent absence of one or both parents, a chaotic family life in which the parents were unknown, or an outright rejection of the child by one or both parents with the child being raised by others....”
ROBERT OSWALD: “ We learned very early that we were a burden...she wanted to be free of responsibility.” “.....Most typically the men displayed a tendency not to experience anger or rage in association with violent aggressive action. None reported feelings of rage in connection with the murders, nor did they experience anger in any strong or pronounced way, although each of them was capable of enormous and brutal aggression .........”
LEE OSWALD FOLLOWING HIS ATTEMPTED MURDER OF GENERAL WALKER : “Americans are so spoiled...They chased a car. And here I am sitting here.....What fools...”
DETECTIVE JAMES LEAVELLE: “He (Oswald) was a cool character.”
ANTI-CASTRO ACTIVIST CARLOS BRINGUIER : “He (Oswald) was really cold-blooded...he was not nervous...”
In 2002, conservative ED BUTLER recalled his on-air debate with Oswald: “He wore a very heavy wool suit in August, a very hot August day in New Orleans. He was parboiling, but he didn't have a bead of sweat on him, and he was very self-contained. I was shocked when I heard he had killed Kennedy. I would not have been shocked if he had tried to kill me. I was concerned about the guy from the minute I met him.” “....Their relationships with others were of a shallow, cold nature, lending a quality of loneliness and isolation to these men ...”
BOYHOOD FRIEND WILLIAM WULF : “We were 16...he seemed to me a boy that was looking for something to belong to. I don't think anybody was looking for him to belong to them.”
"....People were scarcely real to them, in the sense of being warmly or positively...or even angrily...felt about...."
OSWALD’S FRIEND MICHAEL PAINE : “People were like cardboard (to Lee)...” “...The three men under sentence of death had shallow emotions regarding their own fate and that of their victims.....”
LEE OSWALD FOLLOWING THE MURDER OF OFFICER TIPPIT : “Poor dumb cop.” “Guilt, depression, and remorse were strikingly absent...”
MARINA OSWALD : “Lee had no moral sense at all...only egotism, anger at others on account of his failures.” “...The murderous potential can become activated, especially if some disequilibrium is already present, when the victim-to-be is unconsciously perceived as a key figure in some past traumatic configuration. The behaviour, or even the mere presence of this figureadds a stress to the unstable balance of forces that results in a sudden extreme discharge of violence...”
Lee Oswald learned of a past boyfriend of Marina's - he bore a startling resemblance to JFK. Psychologically, Oswald had always been a loner and an outsider. He had always been attracted to things that would provide enhanced self-esteem, becoming a Marine, learning Russian, defecting to Russia, inventing a fictitious chapter of a radical political organisation.
But it was the attacks on his psyche in childhood - his father dying, his experiencing only sporadic and detached associations with his mother's boyfriends, his relationship with an angry, unstable and domineering mother - that helped turn Lee's psyche in adulthood into an embittered, angry misfit. Psychologists believe that a child who lives an isolated life, as Oswald did, and who is brought up by a mother who refused to subordinate herself to her children's welfare, often sees the world as an adversary.
A fatherless upbringing and lack of a meaningful male role-model had a crucial effect on the young Oswald moulding and forming a personality which hid some of his darkest impulses. The young Oswald, whose real father died when he was a baby, had only shallow relationships with his mother's many boyfriends whose personalities were often weaker than the domineering and unstable Marguerite’s. He was unable to connect with a father, to learn his emotionality and the unique way of how to compete and to channel aggression effectively. Oswald was denied a nurturing system which was male-driven, in which discipline, morality teaching and emotional sustenance were provided by males for males.
Without moral grounding and direct parental guidance the child is unable to recognise moral prerequisites for living in an adult world. Without the attention only a mother can give, the child is denied the necessary socialization. The angry and embittered Marguerite Oswald was unable to provide that background. This was recognised by Lee's brother Robert when he said that mother and son’s world view were alike in many ways. They both saw themselves as victims, isolated and surrounded by people and government agencies who failed to understand their special place in the scheme of things. As Norman Mailer wrote, “.......it seems certain at the least that every malformation, or just about, of Lee Harvey Oswald's character had it's roots in her.”
Oswald's Violent Tendencies
Within the literature of the JFK assassination there are telling pieces of evidence which point to Oswald's willingness to commit violent acts to further his own ends.
In the mid-1950's Oswald had spoken about shooting an American President. Palmer McBride testified to the Warren Commission that, in 1956, he befriended Oswald and they often discussed politics. McBride said that one central theme in their discussions was the “exploitation of the working class” and on one occasion, after they began discussing President Eisenhower, Oswald made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill the president because he was exploiting the working class. McBride said that the statement was not made in jest.
There is also clear evidence that Oswald, like O.J. Simpson, had a history of wife battering. Oswald's treatment of his wife is documented in the numerous statements made by the Russian emigre community in Dallas and by his wife Marina. According to Ruth Paine, Marina was worried about “Lee's mental state". Marina Oswald testified that her husband was given to fits of unreasonable rage.
Domestic violence did not have the high profile in the 1960's as it does today. In the 1995 criminal trial and the 1997 civil trial, evidence of O.J. Simpson's wife-battering was indeed relevant in supporting the prosecution's case for Simpson's guilt. Similarly, Oswald's treatment of his wife is pertinent to an understanding of his propensity for violence. At one stage Oswald tried to strangle his wife. There were incidents when Oswald hit Marina and she ended up with bruises on her body. At one time during the final year of their lives together some members of the emigre community rescued Marina but she returned to her husband after a two week separation.
Mahlon Tobias recalled a time when a neighbour of the Oswalds complained to him about the couple's violent arguments. The neighbour reported, “I think he's really hurt her this time....I think that man over there is going to kill that girl.” Michael Paine was shocked that Lee treated his wife like a vassel and he believed Marina was a person who acted as though she were in “bondage and servitude”.
These kinds of abusive behaviours are all about control of the victim. A variety of seemingly unconnected events are part of that strategy to maintain that control - methods like telling her who she can be friends with, how much she can spend, what kind of clothes she can wear, belittling her, demeaning her. All of these things accomplish the end objective - control. The ultimate act of control is violence - the classic pattern which reflected Oswald’s behaviour.
Oswald's Personal Motives
Lee Harvey Oswald lived most of his adult life hiding behind a mask of normality. His mask was convincing to many people he came in contact with except those who knew him well. What lay beneath the surface was Oswald's fatally crippled personality. He had a defensive and surly character that no-one could penetrate, not even his wife Marina.
Oswald was a bitter and angry young man. As a youth his mother had little or no control over him and, indeed, conspired with him in his rebellion. He was determined to get what he wanted. Prison files are full of case histories like his. He learned very early in life to hate the world, learned early that he had to sink or swim on his own resources. He also learned that he had to develop his life unsustained by a mother who could never give true maternal warmth.
Lee Oswald's lifelong isolation left him without the resources for the kind of role-modelling and parental guidance most of us take for granted. People who are close to others turn to them in moments of stress and doubt to interpret the meaning of an event or a social interaction. As an adult, Lee Oswald was unable to accomplish this with the only person who was truly close to him - his wife Marina. He was too domineering and insistent she follow his commands. He could not ask her if his thoughts and actions were consistent with the world around him, seeking out meaning, exchanging ideas. To Lee, Marina had to follow and admire.
To those who knew him well Oswald was secretive, aggressive and arrogant - to a degree almost paranoid. His brother Robert said Lee liked to create drama and mystery around himself. As a child Lee became fascinated with television programmes about espionage and subversive activities.
Lee Harvey Oswald believed he was an important man and his wife often ridiculed him for this unfounded belief. To a disturbed man like Oswald, his wife's scornful attitude likely acted as a catalyst, fueling Oswald’s anger and resentment. The evening prior to the assassination he tried to make-up to his wife after a series of bitter disagreements about their lives together. She rejected his advances. It must have been a terrible blow to his ego.
Oswald not only saw himself as an unappreciated revolutionary but a person who was superior to his contemporaries. This is borne out by the many people who crossed Oswald's path, especially in the years after his return from the Soviet Union. Even as a child Oswald expressed fantasies about omnipotence and power to a child psychologist.
Although psychologists have long believed that low self-esteem causes aggression and other pathologies the concept of unfounded high self-esteem has not really been considered until recent years. Narcissistic people have an inflated view of their own importance and don’t believe they have to play by the same rules as anyone else. It is brought about when children get too little or too much emotional support. As Dr Martin Kelly has pointed out, “(Oswald) was both ignored and doted on by his mother.”
Such a narcissistic person has not had enough praise to give him self-confidence or has had too much so he thinks he is something other than what he really is. This type of person has a narcissistic mode of functioning. All their relationships are tied up with images – Do I live up to the image of myself which I wish to keep up? Or do I need to cheat? Oswald’s inflated self-esteem indicates weak normal ego functioning, a weak state generated in due course by his psychologically impoverished upbringing.
High self-esteem that is unjustified and unstable, as in Oswald's case, has led in many instances to violence. Like Oswald, many narcissists are supersensitive to criticism or slights, because deep down they suspect their feelings of superiority are bogus. Because his grandiosity was challenged ( Marina laughed at his notion that he would eventually become a statesmanlike leader) he reacted violently. Oswald’s inflated self-esteem had a powerful effect on his aggression. When the real world failed to recognise his alleged superior gifts he exploded. “At least his imagination,” Marina said, “his fantasy, which was quite unfounded, as to the fact that he was an outstanding man. (I) always tried to point out to him that he was a man like any others who were around us. But he simply could not understand that....”.
In many ways Oswald’s actions in killing Kennedy was a rebellious act - undoubtedly the result of his feelings toward authority and a society that had relegated him to a menial position in life. His need to protest festered as he strove to gain recognition. So much of what he did was egocentric, ego-satisfying. The political and humanitarian ideals he espoused wasn’t done in order to help others but to draw attention to himself; to satisfy his narcissistic tendencies. Oswald desperately wanted to become famous and successful. His brothers and his wife have testified to the many occasions when they sensed a bitter disappointment in Oswald when he failed to draw attention to himself.
Oswald's Political Motives
Oswald’s upbringing bears directly on his actions as a young man. Poor parenting from a single unstable mother and a fatherless upbringing affected Oswald greatly, warping his sense of right and wrong and creating an individual who was continually frustrated in his relationships with others. In response to these frustrations Oswald transferred his emotional attachments to his inadequate and poorly thought out political philosophy.
Oswald turned to radical politics for the purpose of ego- building. According to Dr Martin Kelly, “The political philosophy to which he gravitated became the ongoing material of Oswald’s ego function, serving as a substitute for normal feelings and judgments, and maintained by persistant fantasies.”
Marina believed that learning Russian gave Oswald a reputation for being intelligent, making up for the fact that he had a reading disability which gave him feelings of inadequacy. He got from his politics something he couldn't get from individuals. It shows the poverty of Oswald's emotional relationship with people which is a psychopathic trait.
Oswald's belief in the socialist ideal has been confirmed by numerous sources who knew him. As an 18 year old Oswald espoused his political principles to Palmer McBride and William Wulf Jr. McBride told the FBI, “During the period I knew Oswald he resided with his mother in the Senator Hotel or a rooming house next door...I went with him to his room on one occasion, and he showed me copies of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. Oswald stated he had received these books from the public library, and he seemed quite proud to have them.”
Aline Mosby, a reporter, interviewed Oswald in Moscow after his defection and this interview gives a clue to the way Oswald acted out his political dramas. Oswald told her he became interested in communist ideology when “an old lady handed me a pamphlet about saving the Rosenburgs...”.
The pamphlet led Oswald to change the direction of his life for it was from this period he became enamoured with left-wing politics. The memory of the Rosenburg case, I believe, lasted until his incarceration in the Dallas police jail. Oswald had made repeated requests the weekend of the assassination for John Abt to defend him. Abt was a left-wing New York lawyer who had defended communists and a newspaper story about Abt had appeared on the same page as the President's visit to Dallas. In attempting to contact Abt Oswald was revealing something about himself - he was already preparing for his appearance on the political stage, emulating the Rosenburgs by becoming a cause celebre.
Oswald had a desperate desire to act in a political way to further the cause of his commitment to communism and to the Cuban Revolution and in so doing elevate himself as an important revolutionary. He needed a cause to belong to; to inflate his self-image and sustain it. Oswald said that nothing kept him in the United States and he would lose nothing by returning to the Soviet Union. His real destination, of course, was Cuba. Cuba was a country which embodied the political principles to which he had been committed since he was an adolescent.
To Oswald Cuba was the last gambit - his last chance to fulfill his political fantasies. As Marina testified to the Warren Commission, "I only know that his basic desire was to get to Cuba by any means and all the rest of it was window dressing for that purpose." He hatched a plan to hi-jack a plane to Cuba and wanted Marina to help. When she refused he abandoned his plans.
Marina has testified to Oswald’s view of Castro as a hero and said Lee had wanted to call their second child Fidel if it had been a boy. Michael Paine told BBC Timewatch researchers that Lee, “…wanted to be an active guerrilla in the effort to bring about the new world order.” Nelson Delgado, Oswald’s friend in the Marine Corps said that Oswald’s hero was William Morgan, a former sergeant in the U.S. Army who became a major in Castro’s army. In August 1959 Morgan received considerable press coverage when he lured some anti-Castro rebels into a trap by pretending to be a counter-revolutionary. This may explain Oswald’s counter-revolutionary activities in New Orleans when he visited anti-Castroite Carlos Bringuier. Oswald wanted to emulate Morgan.
An incident from Oswald's time in the Marine Corps testifies to Oswald's revolutionary fanaticism. Fellow Marine, Kerry Thornley, testified to the Warren Commission about an incident, “which grew out of a combination of Oswald's known Marxist sympathies and George Orwell's book 1984”. After Thornley finished reading the book they took part in a parade.As Oswald and Thornley were waiting for the parade to begin they talked briefly about Orwell’s book even though Oswald “seemed to be lost in his own thoughts.” Oswald remarked on the stupidity of the parade and on how angry it made him, to which Thornley replied, “Well, come the revolution you will change all that.” Thornley said, “At which time he looked at me like a betrayed Caesar and screamed, screamed definitely, 'Not you, too, Thornley.' And I remember his voice cracked as he said this. He was definitely disturbed at what I had said and I didn't really think I had said that much....I never said anything to him again and he never said anything to me again.”
Oswald's political ideals remained with him up to the moment of his death and there is convincing evidence to support this. It was inevitable that someone as politically motivated as Oswald would eventually reveal his political self that tragic weekend. A man like Oswald needed a stage to show the world he was a true revolutionary. But he did not do this by confessing. Instead he showed his commitment to his ideals by a clenched fist salute, a symbol of left-wing radicalism, as he was paraded around the Dallas police station. There are at least two published photos of Oswald giving this gesture. The most famous photograph showing Oswald’s clenched-fist salute was first identified by Jean Davison in her excellent book about Oswald’s motives, Oswald's Game (1983). The photo was taken by an AP photographer.
The second photo has been overlooked by most researchers and appeared in the UPI/American Heritage book Four Days (1964). The caption for the UPI photo reads, “...Oswald shakes his fist at reporters inside police headquarters...”, an unlikely description of Oswald's actions. Most JFK conspiracy advocates have assumed that Oswald was merely showing the photographers his manacled hands. But there is a definite clenched-fist salute portrayed on both occasions. He repeated this gesture as he lay dying in the ambulance. According to Dallas policeman Billy Combest, he made a “definite clenched fist”. Some conspiracists have dismissed this vital piece of evidence claiming that a clenched-fist salute did not come into vogue until the late 1960’s. However, communists and left-wing militant groups have used the salute since the 1930’s - in the political elections in Germany in 1930 and in Spain during that period.
Oswald was influenced in his beliefs and his desire to act them out by a number of politically motivated people and political literature during the last year of his life.
The periodicals that Oswald subscribed to may have influenced his actions. As the Warren Report pointed out, “The October 7th., 1963, issue of the Militant reported Castro as saying Cuba could not accept a situation where at the same time the United States was trying to ease world tensions it also was increasing its efforts to tighten the noose around Cuba.” Castro’s opposition to President Kennedy’s attempt to deal with Cuba was also reported in the October 1, 1963, issue of the Worker, to which Oswald also subscribed. Oswald spoke to Michael Paine about the left-wing paper saying, “You could tell what they wanted you to do ..... by reading between the lines, reading the thing and doing a little reading between the lines.”
In the month before the assassination Oswald may have entered into his revolutionary fantasies whilst watching television. A Secret Service interview with Marina was first recognised by Jean Davison as a telling indication of Oswald's state of mind. Marina told agents that on Friday, October 18th. Oswald had watched two movies on television and he had been “greatly excited”. The first movie was Suddenly, in which Frank Sinatra played an ex-soldier who planned to shoot an American president. Sinatra’s character was to shoot the president with a high-powered rifle from the window of a house overlooking a railway station. The second movie, We Were Strangers, was based on the overthrow of Cuba’s Machado regime in 1933.John Garfield had played an American who had gone to Cuba to help a group of rebels assassinate the Cuba leader. Oswald’s reactions to these movies made a strong impression on his wife, according to the Secret Service report.
Given Oswald’s orientation to violence as evidenced by his willingness to take right-wing activist General Walker’s life in April 1963, his treatment of his wife and his belief in revolutionary violence, the movies are vital to an understanding of Oswald’s frame of mind. As the movie plots suggested, Oswald could see a way in which he could strike out against a government he detested and support a government he admired.
It is also feasible that Oswald may have had direct knowledge about CIA plots to assassinate Castro. On September 9th. 1963 the New Orleans Times Picayune published a story about Castro's warning that assassination plots against Cuban leaders would be met with retaliation. It is possible that Oswald’s revolutionary heroic actions in killing Kennedy were a response to these plots against Castro. Although the American people as a whole did not learn of CIA plots to murder Castro until the 1970's it would have been easy for newspaper readers in New Orleans to read between the lines because it was common knowledge that anti-Castro exiles were engaged in efforts to topple the Castro regime.
Oswald’s first reply to a police officer when he was arrested inside the Texas Theatre was, “I haven't anything to be ashamed of.” He did not say, “I didn't shoot anyone”. He was likely giving himself time to think of an answer to the inevitable questions he would be asked when interrogated. His answer, “I haven't anything to be ashamed of ” is a natural response for a true believer in revolutionary action. He may have committed murder – but within the fantasies of his own mind Oswald’s crime was an act of war which put him outside the norms of lawful behaviour and moral culpability.
In his revolutionary state of mind, Oswald needed only a catalyst to spur him on. And it came in the form of an aristocratic member of the Dallas emigre community, George de Mohrenschildt. DeMohrenschildt had an important influence on Oswald in the year before the assassination. He befriended the Oswalds and the older man became Lee's mentor. Unlike the other members of the Russian community De Mohrenschildt had a soft spot for Oswald and sympathised with his left-wing views. In reality, DeMohrenschildt thought Oswald was a pathetic individual who pretentiously believed himself to be an intellectual and a revolutionary.
It is possible that De Mohrenschildt's statements had influenced Oswald in his decision to assassinate Walker. Oswald’s mentor referred to General Walker as the “Hitler of tomorrow” and Oswald, according to Marina, often repeated unoriginal things which she believed may have come from DeMohrenschildt. One of Oswald’s oft-repeated sayings was that if Hitler had been assassinated it would have benefitted the world. It is therefore possible that the anti-fascist DeMohrenschildt unintentionally provoked Oswald to kill General Walker. Oswald may have wanted to impress his surrogate father.
According to Samuel Ballen who was De Mohrenschildt's close friend, “(In De Mohrenschildt's conversations with Lee) his unconventional, shocking, humourous and irreverant ideas would have been coming out of George all the time.” Ballen stated that he thought De Mohrenschildt could have influenced Oswald to kill General Walker.
The contempt Lee Harvey Oswald showed for authority and to those who disagreed with his vision of the world, the simple ideological answers he embraced in the face of complex issues he spoke of, generally are expressions of self-aggrandisement and a narcissistic tendency. When he began to see himself as "the commander", the learned revolutionary who was given only menial jobs, the gifted politician who headed an imaginary chapter of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, the “the hunter of the right wing fascists” - the grandiose side was revealing itself. If Lee Oswald had not assassinated President Kennedy he would inevitably have committed a different kind of violent political act.
Oswald’s struggle was to get what he wanted - to be recognised as an important political figure. He achieved a modicum of recognition when he appeared on television and radio in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, when his Fair Play for Cuba activities were noticed. However, his esteem was damaged when television presenter Bill Stuckey ambushed Oswald with statements about his defection to Russia which took away Oswald's status as an objective spokesman for Castro's communist regime.
Oswald hated the American way of life. Years earlier he had come to detest his beloved Russia. And now his entry to his brave new world, Cuba, was barred. Failure seemed to follow him everywhere. He had nowhere to turn except inwards to his embittered and disillusioned self.
Now and then, in the final year of his life, Oswald would show his normal side, seeking work and interacting with others. But he knew he would always return to his life of despair, psychological isolation and unfulfilled political fantasies.
Lee Harvey Oswald’s failure as a man, a husband, a worker, a Marine and a son, began shortly after his birth. And Oswald's embrace of communism, his strong belief in Castro and the Cuban revolution and a desire to be recognised as an important person provoked him to kill President Kennedy.
comments powered by Disqus
Rodolfo Lazo de la Vega - 12/17/2010
Lee Harvey Oswald was a pro-Castro Trotskyist. He was of the left since he was a teenager. He self-identified as a socialist all his life and acquaintances from all stages of his life confirm this. The idea that Oswald was a provocateur of some type must rely on the absurd assumption that the government recruits kids as spooks! Also, the Oswalds lived in poverty. A government agent would be payed well. If it's any comfort to you his understanding of left-wing politics was always shallow. He wanted any ideology that provided answers. If he hadn't been handed that pamphlet on the Rosenburgs it would have been a different ideology he gravitated to. But, yes, he was pro-Castro.
Martin Drummond - 2/26/2010
First off we have to conclude from the obvious and clear evidence of the Zapruder film that the shot came from the dal tex police station because you can plainly see him jerk forward about an inch before he starts to slump backwards and then into Jackys lap... you see the bullet blow a huge spray out the front temple... when his skullcap (the top of his scull blows off it stays attached on the right side of his head and flips over the right side of his head hanging over his ear the simple reason being and you can see the wound plainly that the bullet hit him in the left back of the head and instantly exploded
This bullet in no way could possibly be the pristine bullet and has been identified by its fragments as not being chemically consistent with the pristine bullet.
Martin Drummond - 2/26/2010
I have a copy of the letter written by the head of the cia John McCone and it flys in the face of all this ludicrous stuff your writer has put out...
What is this site just a cia front for bush propaganda??
Bob Nooij - 1/16/2007
Geachte heer Dankbaar,
Het is vrijwel onmogelijk uw telefoonnummer te vinden maar omdat ik uw naam vrij vaak ben tegengekomen (o.a. bij Dhr. de Vries) tracht ik nu via deze weg met u in contact met u te komen.
Dat is omdat ik een boek aan het schrijven ben waarin de moord op Kennedy een rol speelt.
U begrijpt dat ik de geschiedenis niet kan veranderen dus ik heb veel feiten uit die tijd gehanteerd.
Ook ik kwam er al snel achter dat de vele theorien niet kunnen kloppen.
Mijn eigen theorie komt erg overeen met de uwe.
Ene James Files kwam ik in 2003 al snel tegen op het internet en tot mijn genoegen zag ik dat terug tijdens de documateire van Peter de Vries.
Graag zou ik een keer met u een kort onderhoud willen hebben opdat ik uw theorie kan gebruiken in mijn boek.
Uiteraard vermeld ik u dan in de bronvermelding. Of wellicht wilt u een vergoeding hebben voor dat onderhoud.
Wilt u zo vriendelijk zijn om mij eens te contacten? Mijn nummer is:
072-5669 402 of 06-489 311 31.
Ik geef het boek zelf uit maar ik begrijp dat u vele goede contacten moet hebben in de USA. Wellicht wilt u daarin participeren of ondersteunen, want u begrijpt dat mijn verhaal in de USA meer zal aanslaan dan hier.
Ik hoop dat u eens wilt bellen of emailen.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Bob JC Nooij
06-489 311 31
Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/24/2006
Good Call Steve...
Steve Broce - 4/27/2006
Ahh, yes, Dutch TV, also known as the font of all knowledge.
I do not speak Dutch (only German) and consequently your link is meaningless to me.
However, Wim, if the link is representative of the sources by which you have become informed about the JFK assassination, I doubt that I would be impressed.
Until next time, my nut bag friend.
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/27/2006
Sorry, I can't stop calling you a liar, so you may keep calling me a nut.
Pity you can't recieve Dutch TV, or you could learn some truth, next tuesday:
(Watch the trailer)
Steve Broce - 4/22/2006
Wim, you exhibit the same mindset that every other conspiracy buff exhibits.
“Forget the evidence; let’s take a poll to find the truth”.
Well, my ill-informed friend, that’s not how the truth is found. You don’t take a vote to determine what the facts are.
What of the postcard? I have no idea where it came from or who created it. It is clearly wrong. Since I don’t know where it came from, I give it no significance.
As for your reliance on the autopsy that the back wound was a shallow wound, I ask: HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE AUTOPSY REPORT? When you do, you will find the following passages:
“The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in
the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis
of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through
the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound
presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region. When observed by Dr.Perry the wound measured "a few millimeters in diameter", however it was extended as a tracheotomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy.”
So what does this mean? The back wound’s path through JFK’s body could not be traced but the wound in the throat was “presumably” the exit wound.
That’s the autopsy Doc’s, Wim. They say the wound in back exited the throat.
What else do they say? In the summary, with respect to the back wound:
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
There it is, Wim. The “missile” (read bullet) entered the upper back and exited the neck.
Plain as the nose on your face, Wim. The autopsy concluded:
"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased."
Kennedy died as a result of “two perforating gunshot wounds”.
YOUR homework assignment, Wim, is to READ the autopsy report before you misrepresent its contents.
Your defense of LHO and reference to Mel as a “slanderer of Lee Harvey Oswald, who cannot defend himself anymore, and who never was proven guilty in a court of law and fiercely denied all charges.” is bizarre.
There’s a real rarity: Some one who is arrested for murder claims he’s innocent. Boy that hardly ever happens.
But you’re correct; LHO was never convicted in a court of law. So what? Does that mean everyone has to ignore the mountains of evidence that implicates him? That is a pathetic argument.
By the way, even your “postcard” depicts the shots coming from the Book Depository, where LHO is known to have been.
My references to you as a “loon”, “crackpot”,” nut case” and “not sensible” is a counter balance to you reference to everyone who refutes your crackpot theory as “liars” .
Tell you what, Wim, You stop calling me a liar and I’ll stop referring to you as a “nut’
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/22/2006
Hey Steve, you should do a poll:
Who is the nutcase?
Wim or Steve?
By the way you didn't address the postcard.
If the doctors did not try to trace the backwound and the throat wound, as you deceivingly want to have us believe, then how could the Warren Commision conclude that the bullet penetrated Kennedy's neck?
The postcard shows they concluded that LATER , 6 months later to be exact. Before that, the "theory" was simply 3 shots 3 hits. But they could no longer ignore and surpress James Tague's testimony any longer, so they were stuck with one miss and suddenly needed to explain all the wounds with two bullets. In a desperate attempt to cling to their lone gunmen lie, they invented the fairy tale of the single bullet theory, along with the HOAX that the magic bullet had penetrated JFK's neck. A conclusion with no scientific basis whatsoever, only wishfull thinking.
I am sure that Mel Ayton knows this too. Or he doesn't. That last option makes him ignorant. Option 1 makes him a wilfull liar, as well as a slanderer of Lee Harvey Oswald , who cannot defend himself anymore, and who never was proven guilty in a court of law and fiercely denied all charges. It is remarkable how "lone nutters" violate the bacic principle "innocent untill proven guilty".
But with all defense lost, it is convenient to call your opponent a "loon", "crackpot", "nutcase", or "not sensible".
So there are two
Steve Broce - 4/21/2006
Wim, you’re wrong again.
The doctors did not trace the back wound. You are mistaking “probing” the wound and “tracing” the wound. A forensic autopsy would have involved tracing the wound channel, which the doctors did not do.
As for “appointed” by the Kennedy family, this is another one of your canards. I never said the autopsy physicians were “appointed” by the Kennedy family. I said that they were being rushed by the Kennedy family, who were anxious to take possession of JFK’s body as intact as possible. Jackie Kennedy was concerned that an autopsy be as non invasive as possible, because she wanted the body to lie in state in an open casket.
As I stated, (and you conveniently ignored) the photos and the x-rays show the wound and it was a through and through wound. Denying the well documented truth makes you look even more like a nut case, Wim.
As for Sibert’s report, as I said, Sibert was not a Doctor and only reported what he was told by the autopsy doctors. He never probed the wound himself.
If this is all you got to build your conspiracy, Wim, then I’m under whelmed.
Always remember, Wim, crackpot theories, no matter how much you may believe them, are not evidence.
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/21/2006
You didn't do your homework. Or you did, but just want to deceive.
The wounds WERE traced by the autopsy doctors, indeed unexperienced in autopsies, but not appointed by the Kennedy family, as you want to have us believe.
Anyway, in probing the backwound, it was determined that the wound was shallow, undeep, and didn't go anywhere. Which is exactly what FBI agent Sibert's report said. Hence no bullet penetrated Kennedy's neck.
This alone makes the SBT the Single Bullshit Theory, and blows the lone gunman out of the water.
For your information, Sibert was ASSIGNED to monitor the autopsy and make notes of it. He didn't see what the Warren Commission wanted him to see, thus he and O' Neill were not called to testify.
Can you grasp the significance of this postcard?
Steve Broce - 4/19/2006
Wim, I knew this is what it would come down to. I saw this pattern in your “back and forth” with Gary Mack. When someone exposes your ignorance on the facts of the JFK assassination, you immediately claim they are lying.
James Tague was most likely hit by a chip of concrete flying off the curb when it was struck by a fragment from Oswald’s first shot, which I believe was the one that missed the limousine completely. I point out that the chipped curb was in a line from the Texas Book Depository
With respect to the bullet fragments in Connally’s wrist:
First off, obviously there is no way of knowing precisely what CE399 (what you call the “magic bullet”) weighed before it hit Kennedy and Connally, because it was never weighed. The FBI, however, weighed a number of 6.5mm Carcano bullets and found an average weight of 161.2 grains. CE399 weighs 158.6 grains, leaving a missing mass of 2.6 grains
Dr. Gregory, who performed surgery on Connally’s wrist, said the fragments he removed varied from .5 to 2 millimeter in diameter and were no more than .5 millimeters thick. Gregory described these as “flakes” of metal. These flakes were so small that he didn’t plan to remove them, but chanced upon them during surgery
A reconstruction of the weights, based upon what Gregory removed from Connally’s wrist and his description of what was left in after surgery was no more than 1.5 grains. This plus the weight of CE399 is still over a grain less than the weight of an average Carcano bullet.
What Agents Sibert and O’Neill recorded notwithstanding, the autopsy X-rays and photographs are the best evidence of the condition of Kennedy’s body. These all show a through and through wound from Kennedy’s back to the throat.
I point out that neither Sibert nor O’Neill were physicians and therefore they could only record what they heard or were told. The autopsy physicians were not experts in forensics and were rushed by the Kennedy family. Consequently, they spent several hours doing what should have taken several days. They did not trace the bullet track or dissect the neck organs, two procedures that would have been done during a forensic autopsy.
You claim that I said “the back wound was high in the neck”. This is typical, Wim. My actual statement was “Kennedy suffered a through and through gunshot wound that entered high on his BACK and exited his throat.”
I capitalized the word “back” to highlight the change that you made to my original quote to make it appear that I was in error. When the truth is inconvenient, apparently you’re not above changing the quote to try and make a point, eh, Wim. This is typical of many conspiracy buffs, including you, apparently, Wim
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/19/2006
I already knew that sooner or later you had to resort to lying.
Show me where the fragments retrieved from Connally, some of them still residing in his wristbone are missing from that base of the bullet.
Did you actually know they invented the SBT after 6 months when James Tague's testimony for a bullet that missed, could no longer be ignored? Before that, they had 3 hits: JFK back ,Conally, JFK head.
Your statement of a through and through gunshot wound through Kennedy is what it is: A lie that can be disproven easily:
The report of FBI Agents Sibert and O'neal reads in part:
"Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile had entered at a downward position for 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit." (Thus it is no surprise that Specter lied to the Commission that agent Sibert had not made a report, and that neither of these two federal officers were called to testify.)
Your statement that the backwound was high in the neck is also a lie:
Steve Broce - 4/18/2006
Wim, here’s the problem with your theory. Every assertion you made in your April 18th post is either wrong or unsubstantiated.
1. The bullet fragments recovered from Connally’s wrist weighed LESS than the amount of estimated loss from CE399 (what you call the “magic” bullet).
2 Kennedy suffered a through and through gunshot wound that entered high on his back and exited his throat.
3. Multiple wounds to multiple victims are actually quite common in the case of center-fire, full metal jacket rifle rounds. I myself have personal knowledge of two of my colleges being wounded by a single .40 caliber pistol round, which possessed far less energy than Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano rifles rounds. The round caused 4 wounds and would have caused five if any one else had been in a direct line of the bullet’s path.
I challenge you to prove your statement that “no bullet in recorded history has ever caused 7 wounds, penetrating and shattering bones in the process, and emerged in the un-deformed condition of the magic bullet.”
Actually Failure Analysis Associates performed a re-enactment of the “Single Bullet” shot and the bullet emerged from the test in BETTER condition than CE399.
4. Your assertions are belied by the Failure analysis Associates test that I refer to above.
As for one the “magic bullet” being “pristine”, I can only assume that your description is based upon ignorance. CE399 was not “pristine”
Here’s a link to photo that shows CE399 with considerable distortion and bulging:
As for the difference between the condition of CE399 and the bullet that struck Kennedy’s skull, this difference is accounted for by the difference in velocity that each bullet possessed at the time that it first solidly struck bone tissue. CE399 had passed through Kennedy without striking bone, then made a tumbling entrance into Connally’s back glanced off his rib, exited through Connally’s chest then struck Connally’s wrist. By the time CE399 hit Connally’s wrist solidly, it had slowed to less than 900 fps. This was too slow to cause much bullet deformation.
The bullet that struck Kennedy’s skull was traveling at over 2000 fps. This was fast enough to cause the bullet to shatter.
Ultimately, Wim, your statements demonstrate your deep ignorance of the facts of the Kennedy assassination in particular and of firearms and ballistics in general.
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/18/2006
If you believe the single bullet theory, I wonder if you have done any serious study on the case.
You asked why the SBT is a lie:
1) The bullet fragments retrieved from Connolly's wrist weighed much more than what the "magic bullet" had lost from its original weight.
2) No bullet penetrated Kennedy's neck (JFK's backwound was probed and found to be a shallow wound that didn't go anywhere. Not surprisingly this evidence was ignored/surpressed in the Warren Report. Ford even tampered with the evidence by relocating the backwound location to an upwards)
3) No bullet in recorded history has ever caused 7 wounds, penetrating and shattering bones in the process, and emerged in the un-deformed condition of the magic bullet.
4) It is simply impossible that one bullet causing such damage, emerges in almost pristine condition, while the other one, the one in Kennedy's head, purportedly from the same rifle, explodes in a thousand fragments.
Let me further note that Mr. Ayton has not yet taken my invitation to debate.
Steve Broce - 4/15/2006
Wim, you seem to have some trouble understanding that I don't know Mel. I don't speak for Mel. I don't know what Mel thinks about the SBT.
I do believe the SBT. If you have some evidence that tends to refute it, why don't you post it.
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/15/2006
Ah Mel, Please specify where "The Dutchman's" posts were not civil or sensible?
Could you do that? Or should I assume that Bruce speaks for you when he says you will not address "loons"?
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/15/2006
I won't call you a loon like you do me.
But lemme get this straight:
You and Mel believe the single bullet theory is solid, correct?
If so, dou you dare to enter into that debate on the facts, without the drivel and name calling?
Steve Broce - 4/13/2006
Wim, I read your “back and forth” with Gary Mack and I have to tell you he sounds a lot more sensible than you do.
Calling everyone who disagrees with your moronic conspiracy theory “full of crap” just makes you look pathetic.
As for the evidence of a “shot from the front”, if you have any such evidence, post it.
By way of explanation, I believe that the acoustic evidence accepted by some of the HSCA members (it was disowned by some of the Committee members at the time) has been totally refuted and that there is no persuasive evidence of four shots.
As for Mel, he speaks for himself. But apparently not to loons like you.
Steve Broce - 4/13/2006
People who mock the “single bullet theory” often describe the bullet recovered from Connally’s gurney as “pristine” or “unblemished”. It was neither. A “butt end” view of the bullet shows considerable bulging and distortion
Here’s a link to a “butt end” view of the bullet:
Not very pristine.
Here’s the punch line, John: Failure Analysis Associates recreated the shot and the bullet recovered from the recreation was in BETTER shape than the original bullet recovered from Connally’s gurney.
The myth of the “Oswald impersonator” is another invention of the conspiracy buffs. No, John, it’s not a “known fact” that an Oswald impersonator was running around Dallas. Fact is, there is little persuasive evidence that an “Oswald impersonator” existed.
There were literally hundreds of Oswald sightings that surfaced after the assassination. Many of them were in places and at times that Oswald could have not been. There would have been no reason for an “imposter” to be at these places either. The explanation for these sightings is simple: people make mistakes. Eye-witness testimony is not necessarily reliable. Some people lie to inject themselves into high-profile cases for fame.
Take the Sports Drome gun range sighting. First there was no “Oswald” on the sign in sheet for the day of the sighting. An imposter would certainly have signed in to advance the frame-up. Second, the witnesses did not agree about the weapon that “Oswald” was shooting that day. Some described the weapon as “new and brightly polished” with a Tasco scope. Oswald, of course actually had a dull, weather-beaten Carcano. There was no agreement as to what kind of car “Oswald” was driving when he left the range.
One witness, a worker at the range, actually said he saw “Oswald” at the range AFTER the assassination and after Ruby had killed Oswald. Ask yourself, John, if this “Oswald” was an imposter, what possible motive would it serve to have him appear in public AFTER the real Oswald was dead?
Mel Ayton - 4/13/2006
I have posted this link for those readers who wish to know more about the "Single Bullet Fact" (SBF)http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
Mel Ayton - 4/13/2006
I will answer any queries from civil and sensible posters.I'm afraid the Dutchman is not one of them.
Mel Ayton - 4/13/2006
Grassy Knoll witness Malcolm
Summers stated: "As soon as the motorcade passed I waited for
about a minute then I came on across to the knoll.When I got there I was stopped by a person in a suit with a coat over his arm.I also believe he had a gun under his arm.It looked like a little machine gun to me."
Summers was one of a number of witnesses, including 3
Dallas policemen, who ran into a number of men claiming to be
Federal Officials.Chief Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Robert Blakey, said that the movements and whereabouts of every member of the Secret Service and F.B.I.were all accounted for and none were in the
Grassy Knoll area.This was one of the most credible, yet puzzling, aspects of the assassination. Attempts to
account for this bizarre event were difficult given the credence
of the Dallas police officers involved, Officer Joe Smith, Deputy
Constable Seymour Weitzman and Sergeant D.V. Harkness.
In the 1990's assassination researcher Chris Mills provided an interesting solution to the mystery of the Grassy Knoll agents.According to Mills it appeared that the denials by the head of the Secret Service that no agent was ever in the
vicinity of the 'Grassy Knoll' was wrong. Mills reported that David Weigman Jnr., an NBC cameraman, told author Richard B. Trask he had ran to the knoll and saw a police officer run up the incline. Weigman told Trask: "I figured he knows somethings up there, so I ran up there. I found myself there with (Secret Service Agent) Lem (Johns) close by, a few feet away.Then I saw people lying on the side, and I saw nothing up there. Lem, sort of, looking around. Couldn't see anything. I knew now I'd better get something. I've got to get some footage. I saw these people
lying on the ground and I took them. I saw a body being pulled to
Weigman then realises he must go after the presidential limousine and returns to the 'camera car'.Other cameramen have stated that Lem Johns rode in this car to the Trade Mart and rejoined his Secret Service unit.
In his testimony to the Warren
Commission Johns stated: "....before I reached the Vice-
President's car (after he left the Secret Service follow up car
responding to the shots) a third shot had sounded and the entire motorcade then picked up speed and I was left on the street at this point. I obtained a ride with White House movie men and joined the Vice-President and .....Youngblood at the Parkland hospital."
Chris Mills maintains that Lem Johns did not testify to his presence in the area of the picket fence because he knew his actions, although creditable under the circumstances, (he was, after all trying to find 'shooters') was against Secret Service procedures thus leaving himself open to any disciplinary
action.In his report, 7 days after the assassination, he fails to
mention these events and he was not to know that, 8 months later, Smith would testify to an agent on the knoll.
Author Gerald Posner attempted to explain these bizarre events and speculated as to what occurred.Posner implied that Policemen Smith, Weitzman and Harkness mistook the credentials of other government workers. There were people from various government agencies in the Dealey Plaza area and it is possible the police officers mistook these government workers for Secret Service agents. Posner speculates that the I.D. was misunderstood. Knowledge of Secret Service, F.B.I. or other government agency identification cards was not as widespread as it is today through the medium of
television and Hollywood movies. The HSCA recognised that Army Intelligence personel were in the area of Dealey Plaza at
the time of the assassination. It was normal practice for military units to be present in an American city when the president visited, and this may account for the intriguing
Gerald Posner came closer than anyone in solving an occurrence which lent credence to the claims by Conspiracy
Theorists that the government had a hand in the assassination.The
mystery, however, finally solved by Gus Russo who interviewed Secret Service Agent Mike Howard who had been in charge of security for the Fort Worth leg of the president's
Texas trip.Howard had been told by Forrest Sorrells that Sorrels had
placed security people in all the areas in Dealey Plaza that were
clear security risks, including the area of the Grassy Knoll.Like
Howard, Sorrells would have deputised every government agent he could find including agents from the ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms), customs, border patrol, reserve police, deputy sheriffs etc.The motorcade route in Dallas was 'crawling' with these people according to Howard.Howard told Russo that technically these people would not have appeared on any 'official' listing of posted officers and that many of them held the standard ATF identification card which were virtually identical to the Secret Service cards, both issued by the
Treasury Department.Russo also spoke to Robert Gemberling, one of
the FBI agents who investigated Oswald after his arrest.Gemberling said he remembered being told that two customs agents had spent their lunch breaks helping with security in the Grassy Knoll area.The two agents were identified.
The 'Oswald' sightings have been examined by numerous researchers.There are too many to list here but I recommend you read John McAdams website for further info.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/13/2006
I doubt you will get an answer on this, John.
But here is my question to Mr. Ayton and friends: If the single bullet theory is proven to be impossible, do you still uphold that Oswald was the lone assassin?
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/13/2006
Fine Bruce, but can you bring anything to the table to disprove my assertions? I mean without hollow rethoric, but with tangible evidence or reasonable arguments?
Or do you want to assert that LHO killed JFK? Then let's talk about that first , if you dare.
Here's a little homework:
Oh, and where is Mel now? Or are you his personal valet?
John P Korienek, Jr - 4/12/2006
Befores asking my two questions, I would like to comment on the Single Bullet Theory, the SBT. This bullet smashed into one of Connally's ribs and smashed his wristbone, but was found in near pristine condition, a scientific impossibility. Of course, the two Parkland Hospital employees who handled the bullet were incapable of making a positive ID before the Warren Commission, and of course there was no chain of evidence. Some bullet fragments were removed in the operation to save Connally's life, and of course, those remaining were not removed after his death. And yet this magic bullet was only a few grains short of average weight, and not deformed!
My two questions:
1)If Oswald was a lone assassin, what were those bogus Secret Service Agents doing on the Grassy Knoll? It cannot be denied that there were men impersonating SS agents. They flashed bogus identification. One Dallas cop testifies to this. If Oswald acted alone, how does the lone-nutter account for their presence?
2) It is a known fact that cannot be denied that there was an Oswald impersonator weeks prior to the assassination. He was seen at a firing range with a MC rifle, and a host of other sightings, supposedly while Oswald was working at the TSBD.
A new wrinkle is the possibility that the real Oswald went to the automobile showroom and actually drove the car on the Stemmons freeway, but what about all the other sightings, supposing just this one were true? Did Oswald pay his impersonator to do this? How does this fact effect the lone-nutter theory?
Any satisfactory, intelligent response would be most welcome.
Louis Nelson Proyect - 4/12/2006
I have never read a biography of Lee Harvey Oswald or plan to. People like him did not become socialists at the age of 13 in 1952. Practically nobody became a socialist, for that matter. In any case, his adult life is characterized by the behavior of a typical agent provocateur. People who joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the late 1950s tended to be college students and intellectuals. Oswald was the sole member in New Orleans and got into a brawl on the street with a Cuban exile. Furthermore, no socialist in that period went around having his picture taken with the Militant newspaper in one hand and a rifle in the other. This has troublemaker written all over it. I imagine that Mr. Ayton is much more familiar with the life of Lee Harvey Oswald than he is with the left. To each his own, I guess.
Steve Broce - 4/11/2006
Thank you, Patrick
Don Williams - 4/11/2006
See social worker Evelyn Siegel's description of Oswald's life at age
13 at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/siegel1.htm
Steve Broce - 4/11/2006
"..no proof of their having conspired with him - no photographs, no tape recordings, no official documents.Nothing."
Mel, you just don't get it.
To the buffs, the lack of evidence IS the evidence.
You see, only a powerful conspiracy could possibly have cleaned up after itself so effectively.
Mel Ayton - 4/11/2006
"....they drew the conclusion" or were they simply embarrassed they had this socialist in their ranks?
The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald embraced socialism from a very young age.It is rather ridiculous to infer he had been enlisted as an 'agent provocatuer' since the age of 13 or 14.
There is nothing but pure speculation in this post.My article, on the other hand, is based on information provided by people who knew Oswald well, unlike conspiracy advocates who take the word of people who provide no proof of their having conspired with him - no photographs, no tape recordings, no official documents.Nothing.
Louis Nelson Proyect - 4/11/2006
I joined the SWP in 1967. This was the group that published the Militant newspaper. In a notorious photo, Oswald is shown holding the paper in one hand and a rifle in another. I had occasion to speak to party old-timers about Oswald, who had contacted the party about membership. This was at the time he was working with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, or--more accurately--using the committee to create the impression that he was pro-Cuba. They said that they drew the conclusion almost immediately that he was some kind of agent provocateur and rejected him out of hand. To put it bluntly, the idea that someone who would combine a career in military intelligence and an avocation for socialism is ridiculous.
Steve Broce - 4/11/2006
As soon as I read the first paragraph of the link
I knew that Mr.Dankbaar was either massively uninformed or trying to sell a book
Then I clicked on the second link and realized he was both.
Wim J Dankbaar - 4/11/2006
You are right about one thing: that you will never finding LHO's , since he had no motives for he didn't fire a single shot a JFK.
Can you "dispel" this "myth"? :
BTW, who did you vote last elections?
Mel Ayton - 4/11/2006
To an Englishman, quoting De Gaulle is in itself madness.This is the man who, when the US and the UK freed his country, treat both nations with disdain. This is the man who provoked terrorist acts in Canada with his irresponsible 'Vive Le Quebec Libre' speech.This is the man who belived in endless conspiracies as he was the target of many.
thomas L. lowry - 4/11/2006
Another excellent piece by Mel Ayton , his usual form . In discussing the motives of one Lee Harvey Oswald , too few writers take the time to delve so deeply into the phyche of their subject as Mr. Ayton . We are usually presented with a shallow conspiratorial cardboard version of a man who was deeply disturbed , mentally . Thru Mel's fine scholarship he puts his subject into sharper focus , than has perhaps other authors , who's lack of insight and wisdom ( let alone believability ) have in the past , left me wanting . Mel has turned into one of the great authors/writers of our time for many reasons that are self evident after reading his concise books , articles , essays and posts on the net . He has a uncanny knack of painting , in words , a portrature of his subject that is like a Rembrandt , but uniquely his own , every sentence seemingly a bulls eye . The only problem being when I start my reading , its awfully hard to stop until the very end , similar to a good work of Mitchners ( 'Poland' comes to mind ) . Getting to the subject matter : Adding anything of interest or substance to his writings is extremely hard , as hard as trying to figure out what subject he writes best at : psychology , ballistic's , forensic's or physic's , take you pick , he seems equally apt at producing thought provoking packages of various sizes and styles that I'm getting very envious of his abilities , which in depth and breadth are truely amazing . With that in mind , I would like to add a few meager lines to amplify what has been stated about the CT's 'Red Romeo' LHO . Mel states " Oswald desperately wanted to become famous and successful. His brothers and his wife have testified to the many occasions when they sensed a bitter disappointment in Oswald when he failed to draw attention to himself. " This takes me back in time to when I first saw the Frontline special on ' Who was LHO ' and his Brother stated as Lee got off the boat he turned to him and said " What , no reporters ? " and Robert replied " Yes , I've managed to keep it quite " . This moment in time I think shows a facet of LHO that few conspiracy writers will tell you about . A man who's ego clouded his mind until the demon , that rests in all of us , destroyed him . If anyone now wants to say LHO had no reason to kill JFK , its best they review this article , before they take their reader down a path that leads to nowhere . Sincerely Tom Lowry
Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 4/10/2006
When first told of the Kennedy murder, Gen. Charles DeGaulle remarked, "Isn't it funny. Political assassinations have been known in every country in the world from the beginning of time, but in the United States of America it is always the work of a madman."
- Artist Corrects Inaccuracies At The George W. Bush Library With Augmented Reality
- “Unprecedented” discovery of mysterious structures created by Neanderthals
- This Man Spent 25 Years Documenting Every Day of Hitler's Life
- Anti-Gay, Pro-Creationism Birther Won’t Be Deciding What Textbooks Your Kids Read
- What About Us, Nagasaki Asks, as Obama’s Hiroshima Trip Nears
- David Lowenthal, author of "The Past Is a Foreign Country,” says it’s folly to scratch the names of slaveholders off buildings
- Jean Edward Smith, biographer of FDR and Ike, has a new biography coming out … of George W. Bush
- Flora Fraser, biographer of George and Martha Washington, wins $50,000 George Washington Prize
- Michael Cohen explains why he calls his book on 1968 “American Malestrom"
- Fredrik Logevall on Obama's Legacy