The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.


Again, it was and still is an hypothesis.

hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.

Which makes it no different than your Gang of Four theory. The fact that witnesses pointed to the TSBD tells you nothing about the involvement of the four men you accuse of being part of a conspiracy. The fact that Brennan and Euins saw a man in the window with a rifle or pipe doesn't even support your claim that it was Dougherty and that he was the shooter.

And saying that Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator is no more corroboration than me saying Doughtery could have been a decoy because it would explain why nobody was seen running down the stairs after the shots were fired.

But perhaps for you a theory without solid evidence is better that a hypothesis that lacks evidence. In any case, the main difference seems to be that you want to defend your theory and I am merely testing the possible validity of my hypothesis

[Dan O'meara]

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.


Again, it was and still is an hypothesis.

hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.

Which makes it no different than your Gang of Four theory. The fact that witnesses pointed to the TSBD tells you nothing about the involvement of the four men you accuse of being part of a conspiracy.

And saying that Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator is no more corroboration than me saying Doughtery could have been a decoy because it would explain why nobody was seen running down the stairs after the shots were fired.

But perhaps for you a theory without solid evidence is better that a hypothesis that lacks evidence. In any case, the main difference seems to be that you want to defend your theory and I am merely testing the possible validity of my hypothesis

I'm perfectly aware it was a hypothesis.
The post I responded to - involving your hypothesis of Dougherty the decoy, distracting attention from the Dal-Tex - contained the following statement:

"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..."

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!

Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".

PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm perfectly aware it was a hypothesis.
The post I responded to - involving your hypothesis of Dougherty the decoy, distracting attention from the Dal-Tex - contained the following statement:

"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..."

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!

Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".

PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.

That's not a weakness. It's a given for a hypothesis. By your criteria every hypothesis ever made needs to be dismissed instantly, just because there is no evidence to support it yet.

The first question that needs to be answered in a hypothesis is; is there a circumstance that makes it an impossibility? The answer for my hypothesis is; no, there isn't. It is not impossible that the man seen in the window was a decoy, nor is it impossible that shots were actually fired from the Dal-Tex building. The next question would have to be; can credible evidence be found to support the hypothesis. In this case we never got to that point because you dismissed it instantly, probably to protect your own pet theory, by making the classic mistake of only looking at the evidence published by the WC. Just how many interviews did the FBI conduct and for how many of those are there TD 302 reports that never got to the WC? Who knows what's in those?

For example, are you aware the FBI investigated a claim from a worker at the Dal-Tex that a day before the assassination she saw men putting rifles in cars behind the TSBD. The chased it all the way to Mexico to clear up the matter and as far as I know none of it is mentioned in the WC report or 26 volumes.

Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".

First of all, you agreed with me that not much can be considered a fact in this case. Secondly, I don't hold anybody to almost impossible standards. If you make a claim or present a theory you either have evidence for it or you don't. Normally people who lack that evidence are the ones complaining about my high standard of proof. Rather telling, don't you think?

Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!

There was nothing to counter. Your so called scrutiny was no more that saying you can't find evidence for it so it needs to be dismissed. And since when is pointing out the flaws in your theory "lashing out"? You really need to have a good look in the mirror. One moment we had a normal conversation and the next you are in full attack mode calling my hypothesis a fantasy.

Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".

You really don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, don't you?

PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.

And do I disagree with you? Did I say he was not credible? But whatever you say, chief, you're the one who seems to think he has all the answers.

[Dan O'meara]

So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.

That's not a weakness. It's a given for a hypothesis. By your criteria every hypothesis ever made needs to be dismissed instantly, just because there is no evidence to support it yet.

The first question that needs to answer in a hypothesis is; is there a circumstance that makes it an impossibility? The answer for my hypothesis is; no, there isn't. It is not impossible that the man seen in the window was a decoy, nor is it impossible that shots were actually fired from the Dal-Tex building. The next question would have to be; can credible evidence be found to support the hypothesis. In this case we never got to that point because you dismissed it instantly, probably to protect your own pet theory.

My bad.
What's the evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex?

[Martin Weidmann]

My bad.
What's the evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex?

Let's start with this;

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm

Is this guy being there, just making a phone call, a mere coincidence?