(PART 358)


>>> "David: By the nature of your known position that Oswald acted alone, I'm amazed at your questions." <<<


Yeah, I know. Common sense often stumps a lot of you CTers. Happens

>>> "It seems you don't know your own Oswald..." <<<

Very few really did "know" Lee Oswald.

As Ruth Paine put it in 1986:

"I think Marina is the only one who really knew him well."

I do know this, though -- LHO took his own rifle to work with him on
11/22/63, with the thought in his mind of shooting the President with it.

And would he have REALLY needed to do that (i.e., use his OWN GUN) if
he really and truly had co-plotters behind him (whether they be
connected to some kind of "Cuban" plot, or otherwise)?

As I said in previous Internet exchanges, the very fact that Rifle
#C2766 was used to kill JFK at all is extremely strong evidence that
Lee Harvey Oswald was performing a solo act in Dallas, sans ANY "help"
or behind-the-scenes assistance of ANY kind.

To believe otherwise is to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was one
REALLY stupid person. (IMO.)

>>> "...nor do you understand the Marxist Revolution as it relates to Cuba and your Oswald." <<<

Please, let's lose the "your Oswald" stuff. You make me feel like his daddy. ;)

>>> "Basically your position supports the presented Oswald Marxist Revolutionary Wanabe, (correct me if I'm wrong) yet ignores the known Marxist activities of real revolutionaries." <<<

Suffice it to say -- Lee Oswald was one goofy dude.

Who the hell knows just exactly WHAT that kook wanted out of his
miserable life? It's hard to tell.

It's fairly obvious to me, though, that he enjoyed shooting at
political leaders with guns (by himself) during the calendar year of
nineteen sixty-three. So maybe that's a clue to Lee's ambitions.

>>> "If you did a detailed comparison, chances are it would answer just about all your questions." <<<

Except maybe these pesky three questions I posed to Mr. Dale K. Myers
on October 28th, 2008.

But, like I said in that very post -- "Maybe I'm just naive as all get
-- but if I am, I guess I'm in good company....because my
favorite author and attorney, Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, seems to be
quite naive along these same lines as well. (Go figure that.)

>>> "IF Oswald acted completely alone, without any "direction", he would still be considered part of the "International Communist Conspiracy" of that cold war period BASED ON the way his life was presented by the Warren Commission." <<<


Nice try at MERGING the known and irrefutable facts surrounding Lee
Oswald's obviously solo acts of murder on 11/22/63 with the/an
"International Communist Conspiracy".

Can I try that tactic too? Okay, I think I will. --- John Hinckley
acted alone when he shot President Reagan in March of 1981, but he
once had lunch with a former member of the Ku Klux Klan (let's just
say this is true, for the purpose of this discussion)....therefore, I get
to MERGE these two events and pretend that the Klan was in cahoots
with Hinckley on 3/30/81.

Maybe not the perfect analogy....but since yours is silly and
ridiculous on its face, I think it's a reasonable make-believe tie-in

>>> "To understand Oswald, you study in detail the ICC as it relates to Oswald's known presented activities..." <<<

No. To understand Oswald, you need a shrink. A good one. And we can't
study the mind or the inner thoughts of a dead man. Sorry.

>>> "You can't present Oswald as a Wanabe member of a ICC and then say it's only for pretend, you just generate another "Conspiracy" that Oswald could have been part of." <<<

Who wants to present Oswald as an "ICC member"? Not even very many
hardline CTers want to do that, it would seem. Those CTers want to
present Oswald as a brain-dead dupe, who fell into the hands of the
"real plotters" who wanted JFK graveyard dead in '63.

Oswald is nothing more than a game-board chess piece for most
conspiracy theorists, i.e., a person who can be manipulated and molded
as easily as a hunk of clay. But, IMO, the CTers underestimate the
gray matter inside that hunk of clay.

Yes, Lee Oswald was as kooky as kooky can get. That couldn't be more
obvious. But he wasn't the total brain-dead moron that some
conspiracists seem to think he was (Oliver Stone comes to mind as one
such conspiracist).

David Von Pein
October 29, 2008