The other theory

OK, perhaps it's rather hard to believe that Oswald was gunning for the other gunman, as I suggested in an earlier post.

It's actually not that hard to believe, even as a communist (and not a Communist?) Oswald seems to have been the sort of idealist for whom even though Kennedy was better that almost anyone else available could be, he still wasn't good enough.  He did, after all, order the Bay of Pigs.  Perhaps it wasn't known as well then how Kennedy failed to follow the whole Eisenhower script--and bring in the Air Force.

It seems reasonable still to doubt the fatal bullet came from Oswald.  But he could have been...with some imagination..the kind of person to try to kill Kennedy.

What kind of information was he getting from his friends?  In fact GdM, his CIA handler, said he was responsible, then allegedly committed suicide before he could testify to Congress.  He was responsible not for gunning Kennedy, but for programming Oswald to do it (or he could have been, allegedly).  A master conspirator.

And there could have been others...but we'll never hear the testimony.

Who was GdM working for at the time?

Maximum Possible Sea Level Rise: 263.5 feet or 80.32 meters

What would the maximum sea level rise be if all the glaciers melted?  I think the answer to this question is fairly simple, as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey, it would be 80.32 meters or 263.5 feet.

But some people, including many scientists and even Global Warming activists, don't want to give this number.  They think it too implausible, alarmist, or whatever.  So for example, we find reported in the New York Times (I have been told...but haven't checked out the links yet) that it would be 25 feet.

How do they arrive at this?  Clearly not by simply adding up all the water, as the USGS does.  Instead, to come up with another number, either based on what they believe is likely to happen, or based on some limited interval, such as 500 years.

But any such limited timespan is just an artificial cutoff, and any such idea of what is likely to happen is based on some kind of model of how things happen in the climate, and how they happen in the ocean, etc.  Even though the question, as stated, is not asking what is likely to happen, or even plausible, just what could possibly happen.

One problem with trying to gauge what is likely to happen is that it is very complex.  There are interactions between the main effects, interactions among the interactions, etc.  Scientists typically make conservative projections, the kind that are not likely to be wrong.  So then if you feed one conservative projection into another conservative model, you get an an even more conservative projection, and so on.  This is why scientists do not (apparently) like to report the 80.32 meters that geologists plainly see.

The Long-Term Problem of Full Employment

John Maynard Keynes quoted by brilliant blogger Sandwichman in a comment to this post at EconomistsView.

"4. After the war there are likely to ensure [sic] three phases-

"(i) when the inducement to invest is likely to lead, if unchecked, to a volume of investment greater than the indicated level of savings in the absence of rationing and other controls;

"(ii) when the urgently necessary investment is no longer greater than the indicated level of savings in conditions of freedom, but it still capable of being adjusted to the indicated level by deliberately encouraging or expediting less urgent, but nevertheless useful, investment;

"(iii) when investment demand is so far saturated that it cannot be brought up to the indicated level of savings without embarking upon wasteful and unnecessary enterprises."

[Keynes's ultimate cure for the third phase?]

"It becomes necessary to encourage wise consumption and discourage saving,-and to absorb some part of the unwanted surplus by increased leisure, more holidays (which are a wonderfully good way of getting rid of money) and shorter hours."

http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/long-term-problem-of-full-employment.html

Thinking about a non-Oswald hypothesis

OK, I heard a great JFK assassination lecture at the 2013 Mensa AG.  I spent 4 1/2 hours at the JFK 6th Floor Museum in Dallas and inspecting Dealy Plaza and the Grassy Noll.

On the other hand, many years ago (1988?) I heard the PBS version, which basically left me feeling that the lone gunman theory needed no alternative, it was perfectly fine, people should just get over it.

But afterwards, I kept hearing about other things that didn't fit, such as

!!!!!  The Pristine Bullet   !!!!

The official theory has it that the Pristine Bullet shattered JFK's brain and did multiple injuries to Connally.  BUNK !!!!  Any theory which includes this should be immediately discarded, or modified not to include it.

There are other things that may be less conclusive, but I'm trying to explain anyway, such as:

1) Oswald was apprehended shortly after the assassination.  His cheek was tested for shotgun use.  The results were negative.  (In the official story line, shown at the Museum, the test was "inconclusive.  That means they didn't get the expected results.)

If you take this negative test as accurate, Oswald did not fire the rifle at all!  Sure, he may have set it up (at least there was the gun perch he supposedly created from boxes with his fingerprints).

2) When Oswald's rifle was tested, the FBI had to use many shims just to get it to work.  After the use of such shims, any claim about the bullets matching the wear pattern from this rifle should be abandoned.  The pattern may have been caused by the shims.  The rifle itself was old and rickety.  (I saw the full sized picture at the Museum).

3) The shot that actually killed Kennedy is half way down Elm Street.  This looks like a very difficult shot to me, especially with and old and nearly broken rifle.

4) Oswald himself!  Oswald always denied shooting Kennedy.  And what would have been his motives for doing so?  And someone so careful to get a job at the Book Depository (before the path was planned btw), be a Marine sharp shooter, and go to Russia and marry a Russian wife--this guy is no imbecile.  He has skills, he is smart, he can plan.  His lack of material success is a result of his idealism.  He should know that the assassination of Kennedy would put Johnson in power (or maybe someone even worse--if he could kill Johnson as well).  And if he wanted to show off his prowess--what was his escape concept?  Further showing that Oswald was no dummy, he refused a public defender and asked for representation from the ACLU.

5) Ruby.  Ruby shot Oswald two days after the assassination.  His story that he did this because he loved Kennedy makes no sense.  Ruby had mob connections and the mob hated Kennedy, as did most Texas conservatives.  This was clearly intended to shut Oswald up, and likely intended to hide whatever knowledge Oswald had.  Ruby died before standing trial.  This is just all to convenient to be dismissed.

OK, here's what I think.  Oswald--and his handler--were deep into this.  He knew the players.  He had deep connections in the exile conservative Russian community in Dallas (these people HATE the soviet union, just like the Cuban exiles in Miami).  He could have known:

1) There was a plot to kill Kennedy.

2) This plot was tied to the FBI itself (so no use calling them).  Did I mention that J Edgar Hoover not only hated John Kennedy, he feared Robert Kennedy, who was investigating the mob.  Hoover had long protected the mob and enjoyed their company.  Meanwhile, the mob had the dirt on Hoover so he was actually on their leash.  And possibly the CIA.  Oswald was being personally "handled" by the CIA, his best friend was a CIA contact.

3) Oswald could know that the outcome of a Kennedy assassination could be much worse.  Kennedy had done many things that could have been much worse, refusing to send the Air Force to bomb Cuba, making a deal with the Russians to end the Cuban Missle Crisis, setting up the hotline, negotiating the Test Ban Treaty, and most concurrently planning to withdraw from Vietnam.

So Oswald would be motivated to stop this plot--all by himself.  As an idealist, the difficulty of the task would not make him turn away.  What he was hoping to do was shoot the actual Kennedy shooter who was setting up the Grassy Noll.  He got his rifle set up, but before he could do anything, Kennedy was shot.  But Oswald must have immediately realized that intended heroism was not going to be taken that way.  He was going to become the patsy (as he always claimed) to take the fall for the assassination itself.  Oops!  Better get out of there fast, which was what he did.  And no use taking the gun, it certainly wouldn't look good for him to be carrying a rifle just after the assassination.

Now how would Oswald know so much to know the shooter would be on the Grassy Noll?  His Russian connections, of course.  Very smart people, including his Russian exile handler.

This sort of intended heroism was probably why Oswald attempted to shoot Walker as well.  He possibly feared Walker to be part of a coup to overthrow the Kennedy administration.  And possibly Walker was in the coup (or maybe just some of his friends).

From the Book Depository, BTW, Oswald had a clear view of the Grassy Noll, just as clear if not better than the motorcade shot, and easier because it was not moving. But he would have had trouble shooting the shooter there if that shooter were hidden behind the fence.  And thus his plan to stop the assassination was foiled.

The perps?  The FBI, the CIA, the mob, anti-Castro exiles, oil oil like HL Hunt.  I find the suggestion that HL Hunt provided the money which was used to hire two assassins.  It certainly wouldn't look good for the job to be done by actual FBI or CIA people, or paid for with payments traceable to the government.

Oswald's Handler

The story of George de Mohrenshildt.

Was he the kingpin of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, as he himself claimed?  Only if Oswald fired the operative shots, which many, including me, now doubt.  Oswald himself always said he was a patsy.

So George was just the patsy's handler.  He may well have believed all along he was the only story.  Then where was the real kingpin?

I would think one of George's friends or associates.  Somehow I have been thinking of Edwin Walker.  In Walker we have the most rabid of Kennedy haters.  Harry Dean claimed to have been an FBI undercover agent, to have infiltrated the John Birch Society, and reported the Walker and John Rousselot had hired two gunmen to kill Kennedy, Loran Hall and Eladio del Valle.

The thing that makes me wonder about Walker is that it does seem as if Oswald tried to kill him.  Oswald knew these people.  Oswald had no reason to hate Kennedy.  Marina said that Oswald told her that Walker was mad and that he had tried to stop him.

Behind all of this you have H L Hunt, his money, and everyone he knew, virtually the entire american plutocracy.