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

[Paul May]

No doubt Carlos Marcello had him killed, and if not Dallas it would have been elsewhere. Oswald and another shooter on the knoll killed JFK, Oswald killed Tippit, and Ruby killed Oswald to keep him quiet. That is your small conspiracy. 4 shots 3 hits 1 miss. The rest of the conspiracy stuff is either confusion or untrue.

62 years later, this nonsense still exists. Simply unreal.

[Lance Payette]

The conspiracy I am advocating couldn't be less sophisticated.
And obviously a patsy was required. In fact, two patsies would be preferable.
The function of a patsy is to focus the spotlight of investigation elsewhere. In the case of Oswald, the investigation was solely focused on him to the exclusion of almost any other possibility. It worked like a dream.
Before the investigation had barely begun, Hoover was dictating the result of the investigation - Oswald was to be shown to be the sole assassin. This sounds like some kind of sick joke but it is a reality.

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).

Killing the President wasn't like taking out a man who was in the way.
It was an attack on the office of President.
It was an attack on America; it's armed forces, it's intelligence agencies, it's law enforcement and its citizenry.
To imagine the mafia would draw that kind of heat on its operations is naive, to say the least.
This wasn't just a shooting on a street in Dallas.
It directly affected every single person in America at the time, not to mention its global impact.

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.

[Jarrett Smith]

OK, we have Ben's theory, which is basically my LN+ with some acknowledged loose ends.

We are also offered the Mafia and LBJ, both with the objective of simply killing JFK. The question I raised in my original post is what Oswald and the TSBD are doing in a scenario where anyone as sophisticated as the Mafia or LBJ simply wanted JFK eliminated.

Did the Mafia or LBJ need a patsy, with the incredible level of complexity and risk this would add to the hit? Do professional hits require a patsy? No, your guy simply walks into the County Records building looking like any other citizen with his disassembled weapon in a nice briefcase, ascends to the roof during the noon hour, takes the shot, disassembles the rifle in seconds, and walks out and blends into the chaos. People can speculate it was the Mafia or LBJ for the next 100 years, but no one will ever know.

I just don't think you can make these other scenarios work, except on an ad hoc basis: "Well, they DID IN FACT use Oswald - fantastically unlikely as this may seem." This is what old William of Ockham was talking about when he said that you don't unnecessarily add layers of complexity when a simpler explanation will do.

"Oswald shot JFK" is neat and tidy. If you want to expand upon this, you need to think in terms of "small, very small" - not "fantastically elaborate, convoluted and risky."

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.

[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?