Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
IF he had a revolver in the theater there could be any explanation for this:
- Lots of texans in his age carried guns for no reason at all.
- He suspected that he was being railroaded as a patsy and brought the weapon for protection when trying to meet up with his handler/cut out at the pre arranged meeting place.
- When arriving at the theater he was observed sitting down right beside single individuals in the saloon, sit there for a while, rise and sitting down right beside another, and another, as if he was looking for somebody he did not know but expected to make contact with.
- He had a couple of odd items on him for no plausible reason, exept that such items was typical signs to show when meeting up with an unknown cut-out when communication with handlers.
The probable scenario is that he was a low level US Intel agent believing he had infiltrated a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that the conspirators was about to be arrested just before they could make their plans a reality.
When realizing that the conspiracy went along unhindered he went to see his contact/cut out to know what had happened, what went wrong. Slowly he realize that his handler/s was in on the assassination the whole time and after a while in DPD HQ he also begins to realize that he have been selected as a patsy by the same people he belived he worked as an undercover agent for.
And no, he certainly didn’t kill officer Tippit, and no, he certainly didn’t try to kill General Walker, and no, he certainly didn’t try to kill Tricky Dick Nixon.
He was in over his head, but innocent.
So, personally, I don't think there is anything more odd about the pocket litter, than the junk in my satchel, and nothing that indicates spy craft, but, hey, I'm willing to suppose for a moment...
What about *any* of the above, suggests "spy infiltrating the plot to kill JFK, yet somehow taking no part in the plot he just infiltrated", more than it would suggest "spy who was part of the assassination plot, who is pretty sure he is about to be burned?"
In short: If we are assuming suspicious spy-ish activity, why are supposing it is not part of the huge amount of suspicious spy-ish that the conspiracy theory intends to prove?
This is not an observation strictly about Manifesto's claims, but more a general observation, especially of Robert Prey's posts, in which any connection to the CIA or FBI was incriminating for pretty much any other source, as part of the conspiracy, and yet for Oswald it is an exonerating factor?