|
The KGB looked at him carefully while he lived in the Soviet Union. Even leaving him practice at a Rifle range when under their observation (The report was he was a poor to average shooter). When Oswald decided to go home, no one in the Soviet Union objected. While Oswald was trained as a Radar operator, his Russian seems to be self-taught (Which may explain the lack of record of his learning Russian as while as being "Secretly" taught Russian by the CIA). In Russia, Oswald had a job, but in a occupation of no military interest. If Oswald was an agent of the CIA he failed in that regard for the Russian never trusted him and he never had access to information we would want.
As to Oliver Stone, the critics of the movie (Not the Movie Critics, but the Critics of the underlying depute) indicate Stone went on evidence that is suspect at best. Could the evidence be true, maybe, but it is equally possible for it to be false (No necessary lies, just not what happened). The burden of proof is on the person making the claim NOT on the person against who the claim is being made. Stone in JFK, reversed that, saying people who disagree with him HAVE TO PROVE HIM WRONG. Some parts of Stone's idea on JFK assassination were shown to be wrong, but most of the "Facts" can NOT be proved or disproved. You can NOT make a case on speculation, but on hard facts. You can NOT jump in with unverified facts (as in the case of the CIA training of Oswald). Hard facts make cases, and the hard facts do not support anything. Thus the Warren Commission when it looked at the lack of hard facts, reached for an explanation that explains the hard facts (for example, four wounds but only three bullets fired). People dislike the "magic Bullet" theory but given the fact the bullets with aluminum tipped bullets (such as the Italian rifle used by Oswald) are known to tumble in unexpected ways while maintaining its basic shape (This dual nature of aluminum tip bullets came out of the need for increase effectiveness of light bullets, the British was the first to adopt Aluminum tipped bullets when British came under pressure to drop its previous use as soft-point bullets,i.e. Dum-Dum bullets, as inhuman around 1900, Aluminum Top bullets stay solid while tumbling sideways through a body, the Italians adopted Aluminum tipped bullets for the same reason, and these were the bullets used by Oswald).
Anyway, I bring up he "Magic bullet" for it is always being attacked and claim to be "proof" of a Second Shooter, but no proof of a second shooter has even been found (a lot of people reporting seeing people, but that is all). While the "Magic Bullet" theory has problems, it explains three shots causing four wounds and then the bullet being found almost intact (The parts of BOTh Bodies, hit by the bullet would NOT cause the bullet much damage and absorb a lot of the power of the bullet so it is possible the bullet was found almost intact down the street given the number of officers looking for evidence afterward). No one has ever truly disproved the Magic Bullet theory, it has been attacked, but not disproved. The Warren Commission even had concerns about it, but once no reliable evidence surfaced of any other shooter, the Magic Bullet explained he known facts.
Stone (and other)s tris to disprove the Magic Bullet theory, but fail. The Magic Bullet Theory is NOT liked and would NOT stand in the way of convicting anyone else if they was evidence of a Second Shooter, but all we have is speculation of a second Shooter (Including locations of the Second Shooter showing how they could have done it, but no real evidence of the Second Shooter).
My point is one has to look at the evidence with a harsh eye. Some fats ARE not disputed, that Oswald could only have fired Three Shots (This is the limit of shots his bolt action rifle was capable of, given the time the Car was in sight) and the four bullet entrance into Kennedy and Connelly. On the other hand reports of other shooters (including reports of shots from other Directions) are unreliable (For example a "combat Veteran" reported hearing shots from other directions, but when was he in combat with all the glass in an area still intact? Glass is know to reflect gunshots, but most combat causes glass to be destroyed early in battle, thus the experts dismissed such reports as sounds bouncing off the glass). You may put more value on these reports then I do, but I look at all of them with a skeptical eye, is they another explanation? Another example are the reports of "Bums" running form the area, if you know the homeless, they hear trouble they leave the area for they know they will be blamed even if Innocent, thus the shooting would have caused them to leave, not some plan to get away (Through one could assume the Police to know that also, thus assume the police would less likely look at bums leaving the area then better dressed people).
I have read many of the Conspiracy theories, most depend on facts that do not exist, facts that MAY have happened, reports without verification etc. The burden is on the people alleging a conspiracy to prove a Conspiracy, not on me to prove no conspiracy occurred. The hardest thing to do is to prove a negative, and the conspiracy advocates rely on that fact more than anything else. You need more than what I have read over the years to show a Conspiracy other than CYAings.
|