4 ms·

Of course they knew about him visiting the Russians. There are intercepts from the embassies in Mexico City where the Russians were talking about Oswald. He wen

by jayess 9y ago

Of course they knew about him visiting the Russians. There are intercepts from the embassies in Mexico City where the Russians were talking about Oswald. He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out. It's a long story, but basically Oswald "defected" to the Soviet union, realized that they were going to take no interest in him (they put him to work in a radio factory and surveilled him thoroughly), and he got out. He was disillusioned with Soviet communism and later saw Cuba as a "truer" form of communist revolution, so he tried to go there instead. They didn't want him either. I suspect one reason many files were withheld is that the Mexican government assisted the CIA in tapping the communications of foreign embassies in Mexico City.

mhneu 9y ago
Your guess is also reasonable - the US would have an incentive to keep such 'sources and methods' stuff quiet. But my point was not about Oswald having ties to Russia - he lived there for three years. But imagine the CIA had a letter that said "Oswald talked about killing the president" or "the KGB told Oswald he should get a gun and shoot people in America". The CIA probably would have thought that Oswald was crazy and harmless, and that's why they didn't do anything about him. But disclosure of such a letter now would be embarrassing for them.
- jayess 9y ago
  I believe it was much more spontaneous than that. Oswald failed at just about everything he did. He couldn't keep a job, the Soviets didn't want him, no one was interested in his story when he came back to the US, he was disillusioned with Soviet Communism, he wanted to go to Cuba but was denied, and he suddenly had an opportunity to do something big, which he always dreamed he was going to do. Heck, his diary was even self-titled "historical diary." He was a loser with visions of grandeur for himself that always failed to pan out. Sorry I keep replying on this thread, but more and more of the book is coming back to me. One only needs to read the transcripts of his interviews with the Dallas Police Department after he was arrested. He wasn't acting or talking like an innocent man. He was cocky, self-assured, and calm. He even put up a communist fist when he was being walked out in front of the press.
  - hnnoob2003 9y ago
    Thanks for recommending the book above. It seems helpful in separating fact from fiction. From skimming Oswald's Wikipedia's page, a few questions emerge suggesting both guilt and innocence. * Why did he walk home, change clothes, and arm himself? * Why did he shoot Officer Tippit? * If grandeur was his motive, why deny the crime instead of claiming credit for one of history's most notorious assassinations? Aiming for Connally, not JFK, seems more plausible, but he evidently idolized JFK. Why risk hurting his idol? If neither of these, what was his motive? Being plain crazy is valid, but this motive is not highly documented. * He seemed protective of his wife, which suggests he loved his family. What was his emotional state before the shooting? Was he excited about the birth of his second daughter or still resentful toward society? It would be great if someone analyzed his psychological state in the weeks before the assassination. * He seemed to be doing well at the Texas School Book Depository according to Wikipedia. Was he in jeopardy of losing his job? (If yes, this supports the theory he was angry at society and lashed out.) * Why did he ask for the ACLU attorney? This seems like a strange request for someone who murdered the nation's president. * Why did he claim the photograph of him holding the rifle was fake? Was it even possible back then to forge something so accurately? A lot seems to hinge on this photograph. If you can prove the photograph was authentic, and that the markings match the rifle at the scene, it presents overwhelming proof Oswald was the shooter, especially since he denies buying the rifle, let alone posing with it.
    - jayess 9y ago
      I'll try to address a few of these, from memory: 1 - He didn't deny it to the police. He only denied it to the press. Just days before the assassination Kennedy was on the radio making a particularly anti-Cuba speech, which upset Oswald. 2 - The day he assassinated the president, he left all of his cash and his wedding ring in the home his wife was staying, after unexpectedly stopping by the night before to pick up his "curtain rods." When the police arrived at her home, she led them to the garage to show them that his rifle was kept in the garage and lo and behold, it was gone. She herself testified that at that moment she knew he had done it. 3 - I don't think he was in jeopardy of losing his job, but he suddenly had an opportunity to do something "great." 4 - He asked for the ACLU attorney because he knew that attorney also represented the communist party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt
jMyles 9y ago
The incident in Mexico City is, in my opinion, probably the clearest evidence of a conspiracy. If someone doesn't know much about the background of the case and wants to quickly ascertain the plausibility of a conspiracy, I think that this page does a great job of breaking this part down: http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-city http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-cit... > He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out. What is the evidence for this narrative? What do you say to Silvia Odio, who says she was visited by several Cubans and Oswald ("Leon") during the time he was supposedly in Mexico City? Her doctor confirmed that she had confided in him about this visit before the assassination, naming and describing this "Leon" and the strange statements the Cubans made about him. I think Odio's testimony is the one of the most daunting pieces of evidence for the "lone nut" theory to overcome. Also, what do you think of the photographs of the man outside the embassy? I hope we can agree that, whatever mix-up happened, that's clearly not Oswald?

by jayess 9y ago

mhneu 9y ago

Your guess is also reasonable - the US would have an incentive to keep such 'sources and methods' stuff quiet. But my point was not about Oswald having ties to Russia - he lived there for three years. But imagine the CIA had a letter that said "Oswald talked about killing the president" or "the KGB told Oswald he should get a gun and shoot people in America". The CIA probably would have thought that Oswald was crazy and harmless, and that's why they didn't do anything about him. But disclosure of such a letter now would be embarrassing for them.

jayess 9y ago
I believe it was much more spontaneous than that. Oswald failed at just about everything he did. He couldn't keep a job, the Soviets didn't want him, no one was interested in his story when he came back to the US, he was disillusioned with Soviet Communism, he wanted to go to Cuba but was denied, and he suddenly had an opportunity to do something big, which he always dreamed he was going to do. Heck, his diary was even self-titled "historical diary." He was a loser with visions of grandeur for himself that always failed to pan out. Sorry I keep replying on this thread, but more and more of the book is coming back to me. One only needs to read the transcripts of his interviews with the Dallas Police Department after he was arrested. He wasn't acting or talking like an innocent man. He was cocky, self-assured, and calm. He even put up a communist fist when he was being walked out in front of the press.
- hnnoob2003 9y ago
  Thanks for recommending the book above. It seems helpful in separating fact from fiction. From skimming Oswald's Wikipedia's page, a few questions emerge suggesting both guilt and innocence. * Why did he walk home, change clothes, and arm himself? * Why did he shoot Officer Tippit? * If grandeur was his motive, why deny the crime instead of claiming credit for one of history's most notorious assassinations? Aiming for Connally, not JFK, seems more plausible, but he evidently idolized JFK. Why risk hurting his idol? If neither of these, what was his motive? Being plain crazy is valid, but this motive is not highly documented. * He seemed protective of his wife, which suggests he loved his family. What was his emotional state before the shooting? Was he excited about the birth of his second daughter or still resentful toward society? It would be great if someone analyzed his psychological state in the weeks before the assassination. * He seemed to be doing well at the Texas School Book Depository according to Wikipedia. Was he in jeopardy of losing his job? (If yes, this supports the theory he was angry at society and lashed out.) * Why did he ask for the ACLU attorney? This seems like a strange request for someone who murdered the nation's president. * Why did he claim the photograph of him holding the rifle was fake? Was it even possible back then to forge something so accurately? A lot seems to hinge on this photograph. If you can prove the photograph was authentic, and that the markings match the rifle at the scene, it presents overwhelming proof Oswald was the shooter, especially since he denies buying the rifle, let alone posing with it.
  - jayess 9y ago
    I'll try to address a few of these, from memory: 1 - He didn't deny it to the police. He only denied it to the press. Just days before the assassination Kennedy was on the radio making a particularly anti-Cuba speech, which upset Oswald. 2 - The day he assassinated the president, he left all of his cash and his wedding ring in the home his wife was staying, after unexpectedly stopping by the night before to pick up his "curtain rods." When the police arrived at her home, she led them to the garage to show them that his rifle was kept in the garage and lo and behold, it was gone. She herself testified that at that moment she knew he had done it. 3 - I don't think he was in jeopardy of losing his job, but he suddenly had an opportunity to do something "great." 4 - He asked for the ACLU attorney because he knew that attorney also represented the communist party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt

jMyles 9y ago

The incident in Mexico City is, in my opinion, probably the clearest evidence of a conspiracy. If someone doesn't know much about the background of the case and wants to quickly ascertain the plausibility of a conspiracy, I think that this page does a great job of breaking this part down: http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-city http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-cit... > He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out. What is the evidence for this narrative? What do you say to Silvia Odio, who says she was visited by several Cubans and Oswald ("Leon") during the time he was supposedly in Mexico City? Her doctor confirmed that she had confided in him about this visit before the assassination, naming and describing this "Leon" and the strange statements the Cubans made about him. I think Odio's testimony is the one of the most daunting pieces of evidence for the "lone nut" theory to overcome. Also, what do you think of the photographs of the man outside the embassy? I hope we can agree that, whatever mix-up happened, that's clearly not Oswald?