Superfreaks/ACRA: Superfreaks Season 3 #1

Tom Russell milos_parker at
Sat Oct 6 21:12:30 PDT 2007

On Oct 6, 11:30 pm, Martin <phippsmar... at> wrote:

> I just don't believe Oswald acted alone.  I believe that Oswald was
> disgruntled with his president

Oswald was insane.

Oswald told his wife, Marina, that one day he would be "Prime
Minister" of the United States, despite the fact that a US did not

Oswald tried to kill the right-wing General Walker because of Walker's
anti-Castro stance; it is probably this anti-Castro stance that
inspired his killing of Kennedy, as both he and Marina were huge fans
of the family.

Oswald never held a job for very long, being generally incompetent and
lazy.  He had an over-inflated opinion of himself.  He was, in short,
a failure, greatly frustrated with his life.

>  I don't understand how the police were able to find
> Oswald so quickly and identify him as their suspect: he wasn't
> arrested at the scene but mere hours later in a cinema.

The thing you're leaving out here is that Oswald shot and killed a
police officer, in the middle of the street, in broad daylight: there
were actual witnesses who actually saw him do it, who then saw him go
into the theater.  Oswald fit the description of the sniper, who WAS
spotted in the sixth floor window; Oswald worked at the Book
Depository and all the physical evidence pointed in his direction.

>  Presumably
> there was some anonymous tip that Oswald was the shooter and that he
> could be found at the cinema at a certain time.  Very suspicious.

See above.

> Some people might have been guilty of no more than negligence but that
> alone would have been motivation to manufacture evidence, say for
> example the accusation that Oswald was involved with the KGB.  Even if
> Oswald did act alone there would have been those who would have wanted
> to downplay any involvement Oswald may have had with the CIA, whose
> offices were located right at the corner where the assination took
> place.

And the fact that Oswald worked where the assassination took place has
no bearing on this? :-)

Oswald _had_ no involvement with the CIA.  All the files-- EVERY
SINGLE FILE THE CIA HAD-- was opened to the Warren Commission, which
found nothing linking the CIA to Oswald or the assassination.

The CIA-- and the KGB, and FBI, and the Mob, for that matter-- none of
them would have had anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald.  You do not
hire an incompetent nutjob with delusions of grandeur as a hitman for
even a small job, let alone one of the biggest jobs of all time.  And
because the physical evidence clearly identifies Oswald, and because
ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL implicates anyone else, and because
LOGICALLY not only would these groups not want to kill Kennedy*, but
they would certainly not do so with Oswald-- the only explanation--
FORM, is that Oswald acted alone.

[*-- While many were dissatified with him, none of them would have
killed him for it.  The accusations against the CIA and FBI are
ridiculous on their face-- not only would SOMEONE credible have come
forward after all this time, but those two bodies would not benefit
from killing their boss and causing upheaval and uncertainty.

While Russia and the U.S. were not exactly friends, both Kennedy and
Kruschev were respectful of one another and did not see the benefit to
killing the other, which would surely spawn a nuclear war.  Both men
were committed to peace, so much so that Kennedy was percieved as
being "soft" on communism.  While it wasn't exactly Kissinger's
detente, it was closer to that than 1950s cold war animosity.

With one unproven exception (from the 1870s), the American Mafia HAS
any time.  Nada.  While they were angry with Kennedy (and his brother
especially), I don't think they would break with this tradition by
targeting the President of the United States first.]

To suggest that there was a conspiracy without evidence is doing a
disservice to the truth, and to the men who were killed that day.  The
fact that most Americans and many in the world believe there was a
conspiracy with no evidence to support claims that are ludricuous on
the face is sickening.  It's like those people that say that
"Evolution is only a theory" or that Iraq was part of the 9/11
terrorist attacks.

Their positions are not only intellectually indefensible, but they are

Now, I'm not implying that you are among those, Martin-- just that
you're grossly misinformed.

What I suggest is that you order a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's
excellent book RECLAIMING HISTORY, and that you read it, cover-to-
cover.  If you still have any questions after that, or any evidence
against Oswald acting alone, then say as much at that time.  But I
think the book expertly answers all questions and erradicates the
notion of conspiracy once and for all.


More information about the racc mailing list