Why Include Oswald at all?

And yet, another JFK thread.

Although I do tend to lead towards a conspiracy, Oswald not being alone in this venture.... I do have some questions/concerns that have always bothered me.

Not that this has more merit than any of the other topics, but I have some inquiries based on the assumption of more than one shooter or the patsy theory:

a) Why was Lee Harvey Oswald included in the assassination of the President?

If it was a well orchestrated assassination of the President, why include such a lose end as Oswald, only to have more risk of getting caught again by having him killed/silenced?

and....

b) If there was more than one shooter, why was his body not riddled with bullets. With all the careful planning involved, as we are to speculate, why take the chance of the fatal head shot not being fatal?


These questions may have been addressed already in one of the many threads on JFK and I just missed them. If the case, my apologies in advance.

I welcome any foresight on the questions I have presented.



edit: To fix color
Preview looks good, but....

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Grailkeeper]

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Grailkeeper]

mod ed, remove ' '

[edit on 7-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

funny... the questions I have highlighted in 'yellow' appear fine in the 'preview post but seems to not coincide with the actual post.

hmmmm.

I can only make an obvious suggestion, but they had to blame to murder on somebody, and it had to be tidied up quick, so that people wouldn't be speculating too much and looking for other suspects, political suspects.

An obvious suggestion yes, but an obvious retort would be ' why complicate matters more by including a loose end such as Oswald'.

After very little investigation, it would seem, Oswald didn't add up. To use Oswald as a the soul shooter only presented more questions being asked.

Thus, causing more attention being brought forth.

the planning of these things is never really as clever as you might expect. Oswald was to Russia and could easy be labeled a freedom hating commie. If you take a close look at 9/11 you will see the official story is so full of holes that it should be totally obvious to everyone that it was an inside job. However with the power of the media that they control they can almost get away with anything. They even got away with the WMDs lies in Iraq, even though everyone knows that was a lie. So even when they are caught lying nothing really happens, nothing changes, mostly becuase of the power of the media. They have gotten away with the Oswald story until now. Even if many people don't believe it they did still pull it off successfully, they got what they wanted.
And it is easier to blame the job on some loser loner nut like Oswald.

I am not sure why Oswald would have complicated things.

People look for simple answers. "Oswald was a nut, OThey have a picture of Oswald holding a rifle, he is a communist loving loner. So its easy for me to believe he killed JFK. It makes me sleep better." At least that how I believe how most Americans see it. I still know people that think Saddam had WMD and had something to do with 9/11.

b) From what a have read there were possibly three sets of shooters each triangulated on the car. Remember the route was changed and once the shooting started the car slowed down to an almost stop. So multiple shooters ensure that one shot would be fatal. There was a hole in the windshield and it was reported that he had an entrance wound in the front at the press conference.

I just now got around to watching Oliver Stone's JFK this weekend. I thought it was an interesting movie

The most interesting theory (to me, at least) is that Oswald was exactly what he said he was - a patsy.

He was an FBI informant, and possibly MORE. There is testimony that he was used by the FBI to track down and close CIA training camps, which JFK ordered shut down. People who worked at those camps claim to have seen Oswald in person there, right before they were raided.

Now, if the CIA actually killed Kennedy, it would certainly send a strong message to J.E. Hoover to not only kill JFK, but have Oswald (one of Hoover's lackeys) take the fall for it.

I dont necessarily subscribe to the theory, but its at least interesting.

Was a good movie, although its premise was bias from the start.


If a plan was hatched to include almost everything that happened that day as well as all subsequent matters that unfolded, i.e. eyewitness reports, medical cover-up, the many people that would of had to of been involved.

As for the multiple shooters... if so, they all got away without any actual proof they were even there.

Sooo, again... why include Oswald the Nutter, which IMO complicates things.

They would never have needed Oswald to begin with.

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
why include Oswald the Nutter, which IMO complicates things.
They would never have needed Oswald to begin with.

If not Oswald then who would they blame it no? They had to collar somebody and they had to end the investigation fast, so nobody starts asking awkward questions.
And if you are going to blame a lonenutcase, then Oswald was a fine choice. A commie nutjob, or so he was presented.
If you were to organise it and set up a fall guy, what sort of guy would you have in mind? Oswald fit the job.
The whole thing was complicated. I disagree that Oswald complicated it further, on the contrary I think it simplified it very much for them. "Here you go America, we caught him, a commie loser nutjob, case closed, now we will get on with running YOUR country for you!!!"

Not sure if you have read the book, a killing at Dealey plaza, but it contains a lot of information that wasn't available till years later. It talks about the different witnesses to men carrying rifles that day, as well as shell casings that were found later on building rooftops.

In my view Oswald does the opposite and un-complicates things for the American public. Just my perspective though.

Just curious, what made the movie bias from the start?

I should have phrased it 'possibility of complicating things'.

Why use a fall guy who quite possibly tell them everything he knows about the operation. There was certainly time to get a story from before he was gunned down.

You may say he was kept in the dark and really didn't know anything.... then why silence him with a bullet.

Which leads me to another possibility, could Ruby have just been what he was, someone avenging the Presidents death? With no direct tie to any conspiracy.

Originally posted by Grailkeeper

b) If there was more than one shooter, why was his body not riddled with bullets. With all the careful planning involved, as we are to speculate, why take the chance of the fatal head shot not being fatal?

No comments on the above question yet, anyone have any thoughts or speculations?

Here is a book you will probably be interested in reading, can give some answers to the questions your asking

www.authorhouse.com...

There has been a lot of speculation that Oswald was supposed to have been shot, while attempting to resist or escape, by Officer J.D. Tippet after he pulled over Oswald, but something went wrong. Tippet was one of only two on-duty Dallas police officers that day not initially ordered to Dealey Plaza after the assassination. Allegedly while Oswald was being arrested in the Texas theatre he repeatedly yelled out "I am not resisting arrest!" which means he probably knew what the score was.


"b) If there was more than one shooter, why was his body not riddled with bullets. With all the careful planning involved, as we are to speculate, why take the chance of the fatal head shot not being fatal?"

What are you recommending? A round to the head while he is sleeping or sitting at a staff meeting? It was important that the patsy be seen as an outsider, a lone nut who got lucky. Anything else would have reeked too much of an inside job, and that perception would have caused serious problems for the plotters. So it had to have been done by a sniper, a member of the public who would never have gotton closer to Kennedy than at a parade.

Anyway, three rounds impacted JFK, that's pretty 'riddled' to me.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by starviego]

Originally posted by starviego

What are you recommending? A round to the head while he is sleeping or sitting at a staff meeting?

Ah, no... I wasn't recommending anything.
Merely suggesting if someone wanted him dead, they would make sure he was dead. No?
A head shot while sleeping may not even be adequate in some cases

It was important that the patsy be seen as an outsider, a lone nut who got lucky. Anything else would have reeked too much of an inside job, and that perception would have caused serious problems for the plotters.

emphasis mine

Having Oswald as a lone gunman didn't, and doesn't, reek of an inside job?

So it had to have been done by a sniper, a member of the public who would never have gotton closer to Kennedy than at a parade.

"A" sniper? Isn't there more than enough speculation as well as some peoples perceived proof that Oswald was not the lone shooter?

Anyway, three rounds impacted JFK, that's pretty 'riddled' to me.

Obviously, your definition of 'riddled' and mine differ quite substantially.
Of the 'three' wounds Kennedy received, if not for the headshot or if the headshot had been a miss, might he still be alive today? or were they all kill shots?