16-04-2015, 05:04 PM
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:I'm skeptical about Oswald being PM mostly because it shows the plotters having a total lack of control over the patsy. At the very least, Oswald's handler would have told him a story about needing to hang around inside the building at 12:20-30, maybe in the first floor warehouse where there was a phone. Maybe he was told to wait for a call at 12:25 (the motorcade was running late), and by 12:30, he got tired of waiting and went upstairs to the second floor lunchroom. Or something like that. In any case, you can't have Oswald just wandering around outside where he could be photographed by a dozen people.
Or maybe you are assuming the plotters of the assassination had intended for Oswald to be the main patsy. If the original plan had been to foist the blame on Cuba and the USSR, and the "Oswald alone" cover up was hastily thrown together in the immediate aftermath, Oswald might have been a very small part of the original plot, and his actions might never have been noticed if the original plan had stayed together.
Oswald was a pretty important part of it. They went to a lot of trouble to set up Oswald as the gunman (the Mexico City incident, the fake crime scene in his workplace, the backyard photos, etc.)
Really? And how do you know there was not a large group of players present in Dealey Plaza that day that had been set up as well and, should circumstances have required it, any one of them or a whole group of them could have been thrown into the limelight as the villain(s)?
I suppose that's possible, but it's highly speculative. The only other worker who might have been conceivably linked to left-wing politics was Joe Molina. The others just don't have the background (former defector to USSR, FPCC involvement, etc.)