The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

That is not good enough for me.

And there you go, proving the point I have made for a long time..... Nothing will ever be good enough for you, because you clearly think your opinion always prevails.

No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details.

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.
 
Once again you are proving a point I made. Not only are you again telling me what to do and how I should do it, but you also contradict yourself rather hilariously by saying on the one hand that no massive book is needed and then telling me I should include everything I have ever argued in the past. Give me a break.

You don't want an actual discussion about the (quality of the) evidence, you want confirmation of your own opinion and you seek it by asking silly questions that are near impossible to answer, in the way you want them to be answered, as well as time consuming. And the outcome is already predetermined; none of it will ever be good enough for you. Even worse, you simply ignore an answer when one is given to you and ask the same question again. I have already adressed your question about CE399 and here you are asking the same question again.

Do you really think I am going to waste my time on something like this? If you do, you're delusional.

would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe

And who are you to make any kind of judgment?

I should just take your word for it that the conspiracy you envision is rather small

I have already told you before I have no desire to try to convince you of anything, because that would be a waste of my time. So, I don't care if you take my word for something or not. I do indeed think a small compartementalized conspiracy is not only a possibility, it's also a far more plausible scenario than the one you envision

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

And here you go again, telling me up front what it would mean to you if I provide a list you deem to be long.

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.

Sorry, not interested in your obsession with Trump

Similarly, you don’t spell out all the “evidence” that was controlled. So, it looks like you are both pushing for large conspiracies.

Pathetic... Once again, your desperation to have your opinion prevail is getting the better of you. Why don't you go and stand in front of a mirror and tell yourself 1000 times just how right your are and how wrong others are.

The sad part is that I am truly convinced that you do not understand what it is your are actually doing. You just don't see it that way and will probably tell me I'm wrong.

[Martin Weidmann]

"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).

Indeed. If there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, it would be a very small one, involving only a few people in overall charge, a small team to set up a patsy and a team to carry out the assassination.

Some of the individuals in overall charge would likely also be involved in the subsequent cover up but beyond that nobody else would actually have sufficient knowledge about everything that was happening. Some of the people would even be "involved" without knowing it (like SA Odum, who the FBI falsely claimed had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright in april 1964) or they were simply following orders (like Paul O'Connor, who was present at the autopsy and ordered to speak to nobody about it, which he in fact continued to do until he got permission to talk to the HSCA in the late 70's).

Joe would consider all these people to be actively part of the conspiracy which is utterly ridiculous.

[Joe Elliott]

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

The same defense could be used by Donald Trump. He could say “To lay out all that these conspirators did, I would have to have access to all the Dominion internal information, all the poll workers secret information that only they know, all the information known by the governors and Secretary of State for all the states, before I could answer that question”.

Do you disagree?

I believe we do have access to all the evidence about the JFK assassination. Not all the information in the world. Not the names of the contacts within Cuba known to agents who are accused of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. But I think everything that is really germane to the assassination.

It's too easy for CTers to accuse someone who has information that they cannot divulge, possibly accusing someone who had no part in the assassination of JFK, and then, when they don’t divulge all their information, when all the files related to what these agents know is not released, to present this reluctance to release this information as “proof” of the government’s involvement or coverup on the JFK assassination.

For instance, the U. S. government waited 75 years before releasing all the information on the President Lincoln assassination. CTers argued this was proof that the government was hiding its involvement with the Lincoln assassination. When the information was finally released, it contained nothing about the government’s involvement in this assassination. Perhaps secrets like the identity of spies who helped Union armies, and who could be killed if the KKK found out about them. But nothing really new about the Lincoln assassination.

Do CTers really have proof of the government’s involvement in hiding secrets? Absolutely. All governments do that. Sometimes for good and laudable reasons. Proof of the government’s involvement in the JFK assassination? No. Although some people assume so.


And to your original question. No. I disagree. CTers say they already have enough information about what evidence was tampered with. All they have to do is present a list, with a reasonable estimate of the numbers needed to accomplish each item on the list. They just have to cover what they “believe” they know was tampered with. Which they already “know”.

[Joe Elliott]

That is not good enough for me.

And there you go, proving the point I have made for a long time..... Nothing will ever be good enough for you, because you clearly think your opinion always prevails.

No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details.

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.
 
Once again you are proving a point I made. Not only are you again telling me what to do and how I should do it, but you also contradict yourself rather hilariously by saying on the one hand that no massive book is needed and then telling me I should include everything I have ever argued in the past. Give me a break.

You are misrepresenting what I request. Not a copy of all your posts or all you ever wrote on the subject. Just something like this:

I believe the conspirators accomplished the following:

* Assassinated JFK. This required, I would estimate, 3 people.

* Made CE-399. This required, I would estimate, 1 ballistic expert.

* Substituted CE-399 for the real stretcher bullet. This would require, 5 people with the all the access to CE-399. So that no one would say “Wait, I took a picture of the stretcher bullet and it looks nothing like CE-399”.

My former beliefs:

* I used to think the General Walker assassination attempt evidence was faked, but I now think it was not.

There. Done. If you really believe in a small conspiracy, involving maybe 9 people (like in my example), perhaps less if some pulled double duty, it would not be a labor of Hercules for you to provide such a list.

However, if there is so much evidence that you think was modified, you don’t think you could make such a list, even after spending hours of work, and would still leave out half of the modified evidence because you forgot about for the moment, then making such a list would be a big project. And doing so would be futile because it would only prove my suspicions. So, naturally, you would make excuses for not doing so.

You don't want an actual discussion about the (quality of the) evidence, you want confirmation of your own opinion and you seek it by asking silly questions that are near impossible to answer, in the way you want them to be answered, as well as time consuming. And the outcome is already predetermined; none of it will ever be good enough for you. Even worse, you simply ignore an answer when one is given to you and ask the same question again. I have already adressed your question about CE399 and here you are asking the same question again.

Near impossible to answer? Dan O’meara had no problem convincing me that he is a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. At least he has made a good case for this claim about himself. He just gave me a short list of the number of people involved, who used Oswald’s rifle, stated none of the evidence was faked, and boom, he made his case. Simple.

But you have not done so. Nor has any other CTer done so, on this forum or in any book that I know of. Dan O’meara is a very atypical CTer.

My questions are not near impossible for you to answer, unless you are a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. Which you seem to be.

Do you really think I am going to waste my time on something like this? If you do, you're delusional.

would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe

And who are you to make any kind of judgment?

Well, until you provide us with some kind of list, like the one I took just 10 minutes to create, I can’t judge for certain if you are a Large-Secret-Enduring CTer. But your reluctance to provide such a list is a pretty good indication that you are such a CTer. Otherwise, I wouldn’t get this constant run around. I would get a short list and we would be done with it.

What I can do is conclude that you have not made a convincing case, or any kind of a case, that you are a believer in a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Other than just making the unsupported claim that this is so. When it would be so easy for you to show that you are a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer, if that were so.

[John Iacoletti]

And to your original question. No. I disagree. CTers say they already have enough information about what evidence was tampered with. All they have to do is present a list, with a reasonable estimate of the numbers needed to accomplish each item on the list. They just have to cover what they “believe” they know was tampered with. Which they already “know”.

I'm not going to chase your strawman about what "CTers" say.

Please explain why you disagree that it would only take one person to insert CE399 into the evidence stream.

[Dan O'meara]

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 understand why I've been confused by the point your making about Euins.
At 12:36 PM on the DPD tapes Sgt Harkness makes a call:
"Witness says shots came from fifth floor, Texas Book Depository store at Houston and Elm. I have him with me now and we are sealing off the building."
You don't seem to realise that this witness was Amos Euins.
It doesn't matter what Euins went on to say or was reported to have said.
It is completely irrelevant.
What matters is that within minutes of the assassination Euins had told Harkness that the shots had come from the 5th floor (I believe Euins made a common mistake when trying to assess which floor it was as the first floor of the TSBD has no windows. He was actually talking about the 6th floor).
As far as I'm concerned, this is incredibly strong evidence that Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the moment of the assassination.

We know also from the DPD tapes that 4 minutes after the assassination Booby Hargis (I think) makes the first call about the TSBD:
"A passer-by states that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building"
although I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute later Haygood calls in:
"I talked to a guy at the scene who says the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository Building with the Hertz Rent A Car sign on top."
Again, I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute after this is the Harkness call with Euins' information and two minutes after this is Brewer's call:
"A witness says he saw 'em pull the weapon from the window off the second floor on the southeast corner of the Depository Building."
We also know from Barnett's testimony that within three minutes of the assassination Brennan had come forward with his information.

Within eight minutes of the shooting witnesses had approached five different officers with information that the shots had come from the TSBD.

I can not understand Fritz's behavior...

Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator whose specific function was to control the evidence/suspect/early investigation.

I don't understand it either why the WC would discredit Rowland, but they did.

As I 've said, the problem with Rowland's testimony is that he has a black man in the SN at the same time as he sees the man with the rifle.
They cannot accept his observation of the man with the rifle even though it totally supports the testimony of others who witnessed a white male with a rifle on the 6th floor. If they accept that, they also have to accept that he saw Bonnie Ray Williams having his lunch in the SN at the same time.
This is so big a problem that they discard this star witness testimony about a white man with a rifle on the 6th floor just before the motorcade arrives.

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?

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...

You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.

Other than that it's rock solid.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are misrepresenting what I request. Not a copy of all your posts or all you ever wrote on the subject. Just something like this:



There. Done. If you really believe in a small conspiracy, involving maybe 9 people (like in my example), perhaps less if some pulled double duty, it would not be a labor of Hercules for you to provide such a list.

However, if there is so much evidence that you think was modified, you don’t think you could make such a list, even after spending hours of work, and would still leave out half of the modified evidence because you forgot about for the moment, then making such a list would be a big project. And doing so would be futile because it would only prove my suspicions. So, naturally, you would make excuses for not doing so.


Near impossible to answer? Dan O’meara had no problem convincing me that he is a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. At least he has made a good case for this claim about himself. He just gave me a short list of the number of people involved, who used Oswald’s rifle, stated none of the evidence was faked, and boom, he made his case. Simple.

But you have not done so. Nor has any other CTer done so, on this forum or in any book that I know of. Dan O’meara is a very atypical CTer.

My questions are not near impossible for you to answer, unless you are a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. Which you seem to be.

Well, until you provide us with some kind of list, like the one I took just 10 minutes to create, I can’t judge for certain if you are a Large-Secret-Enduring CTer. But your reluctance to provide such a list is a pretty good indication that you are such a CTer. Otherwise, I wouldn’t get this constant run around. I would get a short list and we would be done with it.

What I can do is conclude that you have not made a convincing case, or any kind of a case, that you are a believer in a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Other than just making the unsupported claim that this is so. When it would be so easy for you to show that you are a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer, if that were so.

I'll say it one more time. I'm not playing your game and don't give a damn what your "conclusions" are. What is it that you don't understand when I say that I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything?

It's beyond obvious that you have set out to conclude that most CT's believe in a conspiracy involving a massive number of people, so that you can then say that it would be impossible for such a conspiracy to ever work. The funny part is that you have already told us what your ultimate conclusion will be, so it doesn't matter what anybody tells you.