OK, there was a conspiracy: What was the point?

[Dan O'meara]

Nope, doesn't work.

In a professional hit, a patsy is not required. Your guy does the deed and is gone. It doesn't matter who suspects you, because they are never going to prove it. This would be especially the case with the JFKA, where there were probably 50 diverse and plausible suspects.

A patsy vastly complicates the scenario and invites questions that you don't need. Especially a live patsy. If anyone involved with the JFKA had actually been thinking in terms of a patsy, said patsy would have been some dead Cuban who was planted with the rifle with a "suicide" round in his head. Even I, a rank amateur at planning assassinations, can grasp this.

Whoever and whatever LBJ, the Mafia, the CIA, Army Intelligence, Yada Yada were, they weren't amateurs. They weren't the Three Stooges.

Your mind is stuck in ad hoc gear. Think small, very small - and rational, if that's possible.

Nope, doesn't work.

In a professional hit, a patsy is not required.

Honestly, dealing with you is like trying to help some doddering old man across the road.
You counter that the scenario I've presented doesn't work because a patsy is not required in a professional hit.
 
Didn't you read the post you are responding to or had you just forgotten what was written in the time it took you to respond.
I wrote - "The assassination itself was sloppy and unprofessional".
I literally used the word UNPROFESSIONAL.
And your amazing response is that the scenario doesn't work because a patsy is not required in a professional hit, as though I was arguing it was a professional hit.
Bizarrely, the way you've phrased it implies that a patsy IS required for an unprofessional hit, in essence agreeing with what I've posted.

Take a nap.

[Paul May]

I don't think Oswald was to be a "patsy", but nobody expected his encounter with Tippit and killing him. Who was the "SS agent" behind the fence? Why was ruby at Parkland? So many questions with no answers.

99% of all murder investigations have unanswered questions. Perhaps, just perhaps CT’s expect to much when the answers are staring them in the face.

[Jake Maxwell]

“The thing I am most concerned about — and so is Mr. Katzenbach — is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”
—J. Edgar Hoover (as quoted in a White House memorandum recording a telephone conversation) November 24, 1963.

If this comment from the "top cop" doesn't suggest something big... it would seem rational conversation is over.

Also, if these photos below are not a concern, it would seem LN'ers are just as insistent as Hoover to pin the dirty deed on Oswald...

Gunman on the bridge...


Gunman at the Zapruder perch...


Zapruder on a walkie talkie...


Gunman behind the wall...

[Lance Payette]

LBJ had one play - and only one play - to save his career, his legacy and his life.
JFK had to be assassinated, making LBJ President.

Hoover was dictating the result of the investigation - Oswald was to be shown to be the sole assassin.

The assassination itself was sloppy and unprofessional. It relied on as much luck as it did proficiency with a rifle (two of the three shots missed the target from very close range for a rifle shot).

Didn't you read the post you are responding to or had you just forgotten what was written in the time it took you to respond.
I wrote - "The assassination itself was sloppy and unprofessional".
I literally used the word UNPROFESSIONAL.
And your amazing response is that the scenario doesn't work because a patsy is not required in a professional hit, as though I was arguing it was a professional hit.

Oh, OK, now I see. In order to become President of the United States, LBJ recruited the Three Stooges to carry out a sloppy and unprofessional assassination! He would, of course, be disgraced and executed if the slightest hint of his involvement came out, but Curly, Larry and Moe nevertheless seemed like a better choice than a pro. Moe had this patsy character named Oswald and he was confident he could plant all sorts of evidence and make it work. Hoover could be relied upon to tidy up any messes after the fact, albeit at the risk of execution himself.

Let's see, LBJ was known to be the ultimate savvy operator. When Henry Marshall needed to go bye-bye, all LBJ needed was Mac Wallace - and Mac's handiwork was tidy enough to pass as a suicide. But when it came to JFK and certain execution if caught, LBJ decided to go the sloppy and unprofessional route just to make things exciting. Instead of just having JFK neatly whacked by a pro, he added to the fun with a patsy is the TSBD. Uh-huh, works for me. Silly me just assumed that an assassination with LBJ at the helm would resemble a professional hit.

As you always do, you introduced your ad hoc "sloppy and unprofessional" theme after being made to look like a dolt. Your post about LBJ and Hoover said nothing about sloppy and unprofessional. Because your silly theory requires all sorts of chicanery and fakery, up to and including a completely innocent Oswald, you are forced to declare it "sloppy and unprofessional" even though LBJ was at the helm. Nope, doesn't work.

Your theories aren't merely ad hoc. Your posts are ad hoc. Indeed, I fear your brain is ad hoc. You embarrass yourself over and over and over and almost seem to revel in it.



Gee, ya think?

[Dan O'meara]

Oh, OK, now I see. In order to become President of the United States, LBJ recruited the Three Stooges to carry out a sloppy and unprofessional assassination! He would, of course, be disgraced and executed if the slightest hint of his involvement came out, but Curly, Larry and Moe nevertheless seemed like a better choice than a pro. Moe had this patsy character named Oswald and he was confident he could plant all sorts of evidence and make it work. Hoover could be relied upon to tidy up any messes after the fact, albeit at the risk of execution himself.

Let's see, LBJ was known to be the ultimate savvy operator. When Henry Marshall needed to go bye-bye, all LBJ needed was Mac Wallace - and Mac's handiwork was tidy enough to pass as a suicide. But when it came to JFK and certain execution if caught, LBJ decided to go the sloppy and unprofessional route just to make things exciting. Instead of just having JFK neatly whacked by a pro, he added to the fun with a patsy is the TSBD. Uh-huh, works for me. Silly me just assumed that an assassination with LBJ at the helm would resemble a professional hit.

As you always do, you introduced your ad hoc "sloppy and unprofessional" theme after being made to look like a dolt. Your post about LBJ and Hoover said nothing about sloppy and unprofessional. Because your silly theory requires all sorts of chicanery and fakery, up to and including a completely innocent Oswald, you are forced to declare it "sloppy and unprofessional" even though LBJ was at the helm. Nope, doesn't work.

Your theories aren't merely ad hoc. Your posts are ad hoc. Indeed, I fear your brain is ad hoc. You embarrass yourself over and over and over and almost seem to revel in it.



Gee, ya think?

As you always do, you introduced your ad hoc "sloppy and unprofessional" theme after being made to look like a dolt.

What on earth are you talking about?
I actually started a thread entitled "The Assassination Was Sloppy and Amateurish"!!
YOU TOOK PART IN THE DISCUSSION, YOU DITHERING OLD FOOL.

I see you agree that LBJ was a corrupt psychopath who had no qualms about murder as a solution.
His involvement with the likes of Mac Wallace was just about to be made public. He was about to lose everything.
His one and only way out of his predicament was the assassination of JFK.
There was literally no other solution.

Your notion, that LBJ would be involved in the planning and execution of the assassination of the President of the United States, demonstrates your tenuous grasp of anything remotely resembling common sense.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Ben’s suggestion that CTers need to think in terms of a “small, very small” conspiracy – with which I agree – once again has me wondering why CTrs are almost never willing to discuss the JFKA in terms of, “What sense would that have made?”

This is just surreal. It is further evidence of the shallow nature of your research. If you would ever bother to read some of the better scholarly books that argue for an assassination plot, you would find that they spend a great deal of time, dozens of pages, explaining the motives and goals of the plotters.

It is just baffling that you would get on a public board and pretend that WC skeptics are "almost never" willing to discuss "what sense" killing JFK "would have made."

Let me briefly summarize some of the points that skeptics have made on this issue:

Major elements of the Mafia had two powerful motives for wanting JFK dead: survival and revenge. JFK, through RFK, was threatening the Mafia's very existence, and JFK-RFK had humiliated Carlos Marcello and other major Mafia figures.

Many CIA-backed anti-Castro Cubans and their CIA handlers viscerally hated JFK over the Bay of Pigs and viewed JFK as a traitor or a dangerous pro-communist dupe. One of their motives, and probably the main motive for many of them, was certainly revenge. The other motive was the hope that the more conservative, hawkish LBJ would enable them to topple Castro's regime. Some of them clearly framed Oswald as a Castro-loving commie who shot JFK in the hope that the killing of the president by a pro-Castro Marxist would lead to a U.S. retaliatory invasion of Cuba. 

Violent right-wing extremists, some of whom had ties to anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA, despised JFK for several reasons, especially his civil rights initiatives, which enraged them. These folks had already proved themselves quite willing to use violence. Joseph Milteer, a wealthy leader among these extremists, got wind of the JFK murder plot and revealed it to someone he thought was a trustworthy friend but who was actually a Miami police informant.

Most conspiracy theorists contend that the plot involved elements of these three groups, just as many other plots throughout history involved a coalition of various elements, some of whom were not always on friendly terms with each other but who agreed to work together under the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to remove a common foe whom they viewed as the most dangerous threat.