The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Dan O'meara]

Hang on, I never said Euins wasn't credible. I just wonder what he really saw, given the fact that he changed his story over time.

My bad. When you wrote:

"Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired."


...I definitely took it as though you were questioning his credibility as a witness. And again, when you posted:

"...I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall."

...I really got the very strong impression that you were totally trashing Euins as a witness for no particular reason. "Just Because" seemed to be good enough.
I see I was mistaken.

It's pretty obvious that he instantly realized the shooter was inside the TSBD and told a cop. I deliberately use the word "realized" because concluding the shooter was inside the building is not the same as seeing a man with a rifle at a particular 6th floor window. I would have agreed with you that Euins was a witness that could be relied upon, if he had been more specific about the location inside the building to the officer.

I don't understand what you're saying here.
You seem to be agreeing that Euins saw a shooter in the TSBD.
You seem to agree that he told Harkness almost immediately.
But Euins isn't credible because Harkness didn't state exactly what floor the shooter was on.
I don't get it.
What am I missing?

If the three shots were fired from that window, a logical and fair conclusion would indeed be that the shells they found probably came from the rifle. Fritz contaminating the crime scene is something I will never understand. He should have known better, even by the standard of that day. It seems to me there are way too many instances of strange things happening involving the physical evidence, that you simple can not put it all down to incompetence.

I agree that this is too incompetent to be just incompetence.
Alyea is freaked when Fritz does this and rightly so.
It was this action that first put Fritz on my radar as "a person of interest" as far as a conspiracy goes.

And yet, the WC went with Brennan and Euins and did everything they could to discredit Rowland.

Why would they discredit Rowland?
He should be a star witness, supporting Brennan and Euins and giving a specific time the assassin was in place.
One obviously massive problem was the black male in the SN window at the same time. At a time when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch. The remains of this lunch initially being discovered on top of the SN.

I disagree that it was a professional hit.

Well that settles that then, right? Btw I never suggested it was a profession hit. The word If at the beginning is the give away.

Fair enough.
I didn't really need to make that point.

I would never claim Brennan and Euins were CIA assets, but if you want the dismiss a possible suggestion just because you don't think it's likely or possible (which btw a lot of LNs frequently also do) that a decoy was used in a misdirection operation to draw attention away from the real shooters, than that's fine. You've already said that you don't think it was a professional hit, so this goes out of the window as well, right?

But here's something to ponder; what if Dougherty was in fact the decoy and not the shooter? Just think about for a second. He works there and if they test him he would come back negative on powder residue...

Again, fair enough. There's no harm in conjecture.
Dougherty as a decoy negates the need for someone running around with a rifle to plant.
But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?
Where are the three audible shots coming from?

I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.

Fair enough. For me it certainly is a possibility as well, but I remain skeptical. Why would a gun man place himself on the 6th floor with only one way to escape? It hardly makes sense to me. IMO something else must have been going on.

Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.

Yes and no. He might be seen, but would he be noticed with all sorts of law enforcement people rushing into the building with rifles making their way to the higher up floors? A good way to hide, is in a crowd, isn't it? Btw you did notice it was a a hypothesis?

I understand it's a hypothesis. I'm just pointing out it's weaknesses.

[Martin Weidmann]

My bad. When you wrote:

"Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired."


...I definitely took it as though you were questioning his credibility as a witness. And again, when you posted:

"...I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall."

...I really got the very strong impression that you were totally trashing Euins as a witness for no particular reason. "Just Because" seemed to be good enough.
I see I was mistaken.

No biggie.

I don't understand what you're saying here.
You seem to be agreeing that Euins saw a shooter in the TSBD.
You seem to agree that he told Harkness almost immediately.
But Euins isn't credible because Harkness didn't state exactly what floor the shooter was on.
I don't get it.
What am I missing?

Well, let me try to explain it this way. Euins is a witness to the assassination and I have no reason to assume he would intentionally lie. Having said that, I find it strange that he claims to have seen the gunman before and when he was firing, when he said in an interview that he actually ducked behind a wall when he heard the shots. Things get even stranger when he said in another interview that he brought a camera and had actually taken pictures of the TSBD but then somehow lost the camera and he didn't know what happened.

The biggest issue with Euins I have is that if he had seen somebody in the 6th floor window, he would have known exactly from where the shots came and could have told the police. He clearly didn't because it took them some time before the sniper's nest was found.

I agree that this is too incompetent to be just incompetence.
Alyea is freaked when Fritz does this and rightly so.
It was this action that first put Fritz on my radar as "a person of interest" as far as a conspiracy goes.

I can not understand Fritz's behavior, and the same goes for Studebaker who failed to photograph the paper bag that was allegedly found in the sniper's nest. There again you had officers who saw the bag and some who didn't, and if I remember correctly those who saw it did so after Fritz had arrived. There is a photograph of Fritz in the sniper's nest where he is standing at the location of where the bag is supposed to have been. Was he standing on it or was it not there at that moment?

Why would they discredit Rowland?
He should be a star witness, supporting Brennan and Euins and giving a specific time the assassin was in place.
One obviously massive problem was the black male in the SN window at the same time. At a time when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch. The remains of this lunch initially being discovered on top of the SN.

I don't understand it either why the WC would discredit Rowland, but they did. Just like they dismissed Victoria Adams' timeline (and ignored the Stroud letter) based on a physically impossible encounter with Shelley and Lovelady.

Fair enough.
I didn't really need to make that point.

Again, fair enough. There's no harm in conjecture.
Dougherty as a decoy negates the need for someone running around with a rifle to plant.
But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?
Where are the three audible shots coming from?

But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?

If you follow the train of thought that Dougherty was a decoy, he would have to be there to draw attention away from the real shooter's location. The actual shooter (or perhaps even one of the shooters) could have been on one of the higher up floors of the Dal Tex building, which would fit the trajectory as well.

Would it really be possible to distinguish between shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD or from the building next to it?

I understand it's a hypothesis. I'm just pointing out it's weaknesses.

That's fine. A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something...

[Rick Plant]

These are conspiracies are not even comparable.

Criminal Donald and his henchmen purposely lied that the "election was stolen" so he could illegally seize power and overthrow the US Government.

Researchers make up Kennedy conspiracies so they can pretend they discovered some new "evidence".         

[Joe Elliott]

These are conspiracies are not even comparable.

Criminal Donald and his henchmen purposely lied that the "election was stolen" so he could illegally seize power and overthrow the US Government.

Researchers make up Kennedy conspiracies so they can pretend they discovered some new "evidence".         

The conspiracies are not comparable?

Donald Trump makes the false claim that there was a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy by (partial list):

* Dominion Voting Systems (with hundreds of computer programmers)
* Poll workers, or some mysterious group, to include millions of fraudulent mail-in ballots
* State officials, like governors and secretary of state, including Republicans
* The USA media, to cover this up
* The foreign media, like Reuters and BBC, to cover this up

To steal the election from Trump. And also, a bunch of judges, including Trump appointees, who looked the other way.

So, it seems to me that Donald Trump’s false stolen election claims and the JFK conspiracy claims are both Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories. If anything, Donald Trump’s claims are even more obviously such a theory.

[Joe Elliott]

You could do it with a short article.

That's only your opinion. I disagree


This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy.

Again, only your opinion. You are doing what you always do; predetermine the way somebody should respond to you. I don't play that game.

It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy.

Oh yes it would require a massive book, as there are way too many variables in this case that were never properly addressed. I could write a complete chapter alone about the rifle transaction, another one about CE399 and so on. I'm not about to do it, but if I did the result would indeed be a massive book.

No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details. Just list the actions the conspiracy accomplished:

* Swapped out CE-399. Number of people needed to do this without anyone knowing.

* Fake Autopsy Report. Number of people needed to do this.

* Fake Autopsy photographs. Number of people needed to do this.

* Fake Autopsy X-Rays. Number of people needed to do this.

* General Walker shooting evidence. Number of people needed to do this.

* Officer Tippit shooing evidence. Number of people needed to do this.

Etc.

* What the purpose of the assassination was. Like getting the U. S. involved in the Vietnam war.

Don’t leave out anything you argued for in the past, unless you have changed your mind. But include this in a separate list so if one looks at your old posts, we won’t think you were leaving out things to make it appear the conspiracy you believe in was not big.

No long chapters on anything. Just a list. Or would such a list be too long to make?

The problem is that not only do you not have enough time to do this, almost no CTer has enough time to do this, not even those who write books.

Instead of providing such a list, which would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe if, you just say no list is necessary, it would take too much time to make such a list. Instead, I should just take your word for it that the conspiracy you envision is rather small. That is not good enough for me.

And what makes you think I am defending any kind of conspiracy? It is simply my position that, if Oswald did not do it, the most likely conspiracy would be a small scale one with the means to control the evidence.

What evidence being controlled. If you provide a long list than that means a large conspiracy.


Like Trump, you don’t spell out all that you think is “controlled”. He doesn’t provide a list of counties where the votes were altered. He can bring up a new county any time he wants to. Similarly, you don’t spell out all the “evidence” that was controlled. So, it looks like you are both pushing for large conspiracies.

[Jon Banks]

"Large" and "Small" are subjective terms. Some would argue that 10 or more individuals makes a "Large" conspiracy. Others might have a higher minimum number in mind.

And I suspect you're including people who were involved with the JFK coverups as part of the conspiracy, which I don't agree with.

People who had no knowledge of whether or not there was a conspiracy had other motives for participating in the coverup (ie protecting their careers, preventing WW3, or covering up CIA-Mafia plots).

[John Iacoletti]

It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy. You could do it with a short article. This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy. So, that means that you believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. One that is so large, one would have to write a whole book, just to list all the actions taken by the conspiracy:

* Making CE-399.
* Getting the right people on your side so you can swap in CE-399.
etc.

And coming up with an estimate of the number of people needed to pull this off.

If this was done, all it would take would be one person with access to the evidence.  Do you disagree?