The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Jerry Freeman]

The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory.

J. Edgar Hoover said in a memo two days after John F. Kennedy's assassination that the public must be led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Hoover dictated: "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/jfk-files-j-edgar-hoover-said-public-must-believe-lee-n814881
 And that is no theory.

[Robert Reeves]

The reality. Smirking and winking whilst Mr's Kennedy's back is turned. A cuddle and commiserations from the snakes.

American exceptionalism brainwashing victims refuse to accept the truth. What they inflicted upon many other nations also visited them.

[Dan O'meara]

Up main street from the Triple Underpass I would think. Threads upon threads have been done on these guys. Firstly----"Cover thy behind"
Fear is the greatest motivator.

If theses are just innocent men going about their working day why do they need to cover their behind?
"Cover thy behind" about what? Surely, if they're not involved in any way, they just tell the DPD, FBI and SS what they did and saw.
In a day when these authorities were feared and respected, why would it occur to a normal working man to lie to them?

"Fear is the greatest motivator."

Fear of what?
What do these men have to fear if they've done or seen nothing wrong?

[Martin Weidmann]

Joe,

You seem to assume that everybody you think would have needed to be involved in a conspiracy was completely informed about everything and an active and willing participant. I think your assumption is wrong.

For a conspiracy to work, all that was required is that the actual conspirators had control of the evidence and the investigation. Prior to the assassination all they needed was a small group of people to set up Oswald (which really wasn't so difficult) and a small team to carry out the actual assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the people somehow involved in the case, were so on a need to know basis and/or acting on orders, without actually knowing what was really going on and what the big picture really was.

The massive number of anomalies in the physical evidence clearly suggests that the evidence was manipulated and adapted to the narrative we know today.

[Richard Smith]

In the Oswald-Did-It scenario all the other TSBD employees are just men and women going about their daily routines when a lone madman causes havoc.
If these are just innocent people going about their day, why do so many of them lie in the various statements they give to the various investigating authorities:

Bill Shelley
Billy Lovelady
Bonnie Ray Williams
Hank Norman
Junior Jarman
Charles Givens
Jack Dougherty

All of them lie in their various statements - not misunderstandings or "misrememberances" - out and out lies.

Why?

Once I started understanding why they were lying it became clear, to me at least, Oswald wasn't acting alone.
Once that became clear, I was in the wacky world of conspiracy.

Lots of people have gone about their business not realizing some murderous nut was in their presence.  How many times have you seen them interview the next door neighbor of some serial killer and have them say they had no clue?  No one at the TSBD had much cause to take any notice of Oswald.  He was a quiet guy.  Hadn't worked there very long.  I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a "lie" in the various statements of these witnesses.  If this case demonstrates anything, it is that witnesses have imperfect recollections, use subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times, and no one can estimate time with exact scientific precision.  What is considered a lie is just sometimes interpreting what a witness meant and then claiming it conflicts with a desired conclusion which may also be unproven.

[Jon Banks]

Joe,

You seem to assume that everybody you think would have needed to be involved in a conspiracy was completely informed about everything and an active and willing participant. I think your assumption is wrong.

For a conspiracy to work, all that was required is that the actual conspirators had control of the evidence and the investigation. Prior to the assassination all they needed was a small group of people to set up Oswald (which really wasn't so difficult) and a small team to carry out the actual assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the people somehow involved in the case, were so on a need to know basis and/or acting on orders, without actually knowing what was really going on and what the big picture really was.

The massive number of anomalies in the physical evidence clearly suggests that the evidence was manipulated and adapted to the narrative we know today.

My thoughts exactly. I would add that the motives for the conspiracy and cover-ups are often not the same.

The cover-ups happen to protect organizations from major scrutiny or consequences. What often happens is that investigators find evidence for other potential crimes and abuses which could get other people in trouble (ie Paul Manafort going to prison for fraud and corruption even though he wasn't prosecuted for helping Russia meddle in the 2016 election).

So there are lots of reasons why people who were not involved in the conspiracy would feel compelled to cover up evidence of conspiracy. 

As for the Dallas PD, I attribute most of the problems with their handling of the evidence to incompetence. However, the three people I find most suspicious in Dallas at that time are: William Westbrook, JC Day, and DA Henry Wade. All three were in the position to control or manipulate the evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Lots of people have gone about their business not realizing some murderous nut was in their presence.  How many times have you seen them interview the next door neighbor of some serial killer and have them say they had no clue?  No one at the TSBD had much cause to take any notice of Oswald.  He was a quiet guy.  Hadn't worked there very long.  I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a "lie" in the various statements of these witnesses.  If this case demonstrates anything, it is that witnesses have imperfect recollections, use subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times, and no one can estimate time with exact scientific precision.  What is considered a lie is just sometimes interpreting what a witness meant and then claiming it conflicts with a desired conclusion which may also be unproven.

The subject of the lying by the various TSBD employees needs it's own thread as it is too involved to get into in a single post. An example will have to suffice:
Hours after the assassination Bonnie Ray Williams is asked to give a statement concerning what he did and saw around the time of the assassination. In it he states:

"We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got to the 5th floor we saw the President coming round the corner on Houston from Main Street."

This is not an 'imperfect recollection'.
Nor is it the use of "subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times".
This is the creation of a new reality. A reality that did not occur. This is an out and out lie.

Do you disagree?

Imagine a black man being interviewed by the Dallas police in the early '60's about the most important crime ever to occur in that country and he decides to lie about what he did!!
I, personally, find that staggering and generalised statements about imperfect recollections does not cut it.
Bonnie Ray Williams lied on his same-day affidavit.
This may mean nothing to you but it does to me.