A Very Simple Conspiracy Redux

[Jim Hawthorn]

So they knew who really killed JFK and covered up for them? Them being? The Soviets? Castro? Rogue CIA? For political necessity at that time? And then the HSCA continued with this necessary coverup? The Church Committee? The news media?

You start with a plausible argument for the original coverup/suppression but then it all falls apart when you have to explain the subsequent coverups. By people who weren't even alive or very young at the time of the original crimes?

It's been a 60 plus year series of necessary coverups?

No. Gerald Ford said (to the President of France) that they knew that there was a conspiracy but they didn't know who was behind it. This couldn't go before the American public and the rest of the world so i all had to point to the lone nut at all cost.

[Michael Walton]

Glad you mentioned Ford's statement. Right on the money. And let us not forget, too, Ford scratched out "neck" when reviewing the final draft of the Warren report. I mean, if that isn't a classic and perfect example of toeing the line to what they wanted all along, I don't know what is.

And here is that " Trump is who he is" that you can only find in a foreign news outlet. How many American outlets have said anything about this, something that's blatantly obvious if you simply watch his current behavior toward everyone EXCEPT Russia.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1k17h1s/readingrussia_moscow_seems_pleased_one_paper/

[John Iacoletti]

In 1993, the PBS investigatory/documentary program "Frontline" devoted five years and millions of dollars investigating the assassination. The reporters and editors traveled around the world during the investigation. It culminated in the show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?": https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/

Conclusion: It was Oswald. Did they cover up what happened too? At some point don't you have to ask yourself, "Gosh, all of these people couldn't have been part of the coverup?"

Well, if it says so on TV then it must be true.

 

[Tom Graves]

Well, if it says so on TV then it must be true.

Iacoletti,

How many evil, evil bad guys and/or really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

[Zeon Mason]

Now if we could just get BW.Frazier to agree that he did not see one end of the bag in the cupped hand of Oswald and the other end under Oswald’s armpit and therefore his 2ft +/- couple inches estimate of the bag length is wrong.

If  only BW.Frazier could  have been convinced by Dan Rather, that Frazier just missed seeing that 8” of bag above Oswalds shoulder line because the top of the bag was twisted around the barrel.

If only somebody could demonstrate how to carry the bag with the top of the bag under the
armpit and the other end of the 35” length bag extending past the cupped hand about 12” downwards and then convince BWF that he simply missed seeing that 12” extension of the bag past the cupped hand.

What really should be done is to hypnotize Frazier to disbelieve what he saw and convince him he must be mistaken.

What should be demonstrated is how Linnie May Randel saw a 35” bag carried by Oswald with one hand gripping  the top of the bag,  swinging it along just a few inches off the ground if Oswalds forearm was not perpendicular to the ground.

Or maybe there is a way to carry the bag in the middle with just one hand so that only 18” of bag extends downward from the hand thus allowing the 5’9” Oswald to carry the bag with his forearm down and hand with thumb pointed down. And somehow LMR mistakenly thought that looked like Oswald was gripping the bag at the top.