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

[Lance Payette]

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?”

As we see here all the time, CTers want to talk (and talk and talk and talk) about the curtain rods! the lunchroom encounter! the throat wound! that damn Ruth Paine! and so on and so forth, completely divorced from any overarching theory of, “OK, what’s your alternative explanation and what sense would that have made?”

Let’s start with this: What was the point of the JFKA? Was it simply to kill JFK or was it to kill JFK and “something more”?

If it was simply to kill JFK, nothing but a “small, very small” conspiracy makes any real-world sense at all. A pro sniper firing one shot with a pro-quality rifle from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing. Pretty much risk-free. Child’s play – indeed, business as usual – for the Mafia, and no problem for anyone else, from LBJ on down, with connections to a reliable sniper.

No need for Oswald and his Carcano – either as a patsy or a knowing participant – and all the risks that he and the TSBD would entail. It simply makes no sense at all. No need for Dealey Plaza, really; there were surely opportunities that didn’t have hundreds of potential witnesses and weren’t crawling with reporters and police.

Unless … Oswald was integral to the plan. Killing JFK was either his idea or he was talked into it. It still makes little real-world sense to take all the crazy and unnecessary risks associated with the TSBD unless Oswald is calling the shots (pun intended) and doesn’t realize how much less risky (to him and the conspiracy) a shot from the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building would be.

This would have to be a “small, very small” conspiracy that I call LN+. Oswald “conspired” with others because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that killing JFK would get him into Cuba. He originated the idea or it was planted in his head, but what took place in Dealey Plaza was basically just the LN scenario. This puts complete trust in Oswald and his Carcano, so if the sole objective was to kill JFK the conspirators could not have been very bold or sophisticated; if they were, they would have had a pro sniper and no need for Oswald. I suppose we could add another gunman if we like, but he couldn’t have been any sort of pro or there would have been no need for Oswald and all the risks associated with the TSBD; he would have to have been someone with no more planning ability or resources than Oswald.

Let’s now say the objective was more than just killing JFK. What would the “more” have been? If the Mafia eliminated JFK, RFK would be neutralized – but a sniper on the County Records building would accomplish that. LBJ would be President – but a sniper would accomplish that, too. JFK would be out of the CIA’s hair, or Hoover wouldn’t have to retire, or the oil depletion allowance would remain in place, or those enraged by the Bay of Pigs fiasco would have their revenge, or Castro would have his revenge, or whatever – but, again, simply killing JFK with a pro sniper would have all those consequences.

The only “more” that really makes any sense to me is to kill JFK while pointing the finger at Castro and/or the Russians as the culprit(s). An invasion of Cuba would be of great economic benefit to the Mafia via the restoration of their lucrative pre-Castro empire. It would make all those enraged by the Bay of Pigs fiasco happy. It might even make the cigar-chomping, war-hungry Joint Chiefs happy. (It would make all the Cubans who had fled during Castro’s revolution and wanted to go back happy, but that’s too large and amorphous of a group to think they were involved in the JFKA. Ditto for those who simply hated JFK’s politics or religion.)

But pointing the finger would also risk World War III, precisely as LBJ feared (I believe genuinely feared). No one planning to point the finger at Castro or the Russians could have been oblivious to this possibility. It seems to me that only the cigar-chomping, war-hungry Joint Chiefs might actually have thought this was an acceptable risk.

OK, our conspirators were not only going to kill JFK but point the finger at Castro and/or the Russians. Is Oswald how they would have done this? They were simply going to trust in his background as a Marxist, a defector and a Castro supporter and assume the public would make the connection and demand justice in the form of an invasion of Cuba or attack on Russia? Doesn’t this seem like an extremely iffy and risky assumption?

Think of all the conspirators would’ve had to do in order to make this work. It inevitably leads to precisely the sort of incredibly elaborate, convoluted CT scenarios we see, with umpteen conspirators planting and faking evidence and engaging in a massive cover-up. Why would they need Oswald at all, why would they need to trust in the public to make the requisite connections and demands? Just leave pro-Castro literature and a rambling manifesto at the scene of the crime – no need to frame Oswald or involve him or the TSBD at all. Ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing.

Even when I wear my CT beanie, I simply cannot escape the feeling that 99% of CT thinking is just an ad hoc effort to deal with two realities that simply can’t be escaped: Oswald and Dealey Plaza. A real-world Presidential assassination conspiracy involving even mildly savvy conspirators would not have involved either Oswald or Dealey Plaza. There would have simply been too many uncertainties and absurd, unnecessary risks.

The only halfway plausible conspiracy involving Oswald and Dealey Plaza is what I call LN+ - either Oswald alone in Dealey Plaza, having in some sense "conspired" with one or more persons who weren’t there (who were either as pro-Castro as him or somehow convinced him they were), or Oswald and perhaps another gunman who was essentially his ideological twin and had an equally unlikely weapon (because a pro would not have needed Oswald at all, and a more sophisticated conspiracy would have equipped them both with much more likely weapons than the Carcano).

In short, a “small, very small” conspiracy, one that is scarcely distinguishable from the LN scenario and is unlikely ever to get beyond the realm of speculation unless a startling, definitive piece of evidence comes to light.

Please, convince I’m wrong. But do so with something resembling a plausible alternative explanation as to what you think occurred and not just more tired blather about the curtain rods! the lunchroom encounter! the throat wound! that damn Ruth Paine!

[Lance Payette]

Anyone else notice how any attempt at semi-rational discussion is quickly buried beneath reams of KGB Tom's, WC Sham Man Dan's and Nothing-Too-Crazy Michael's tired, repetitive nonsense? It almost seems ... conspiratorial! In any event, it renders a discussion forum such as this pretty much pointless. Good thing I should be off my crutches and back to real life in a few days.

[Tom Graves]

Anyone else notice how any attempt at semi-rational discussion is quickly buried beneath reams of KGB Tom's, WC Sham Man Dan's and Nothing-Too-Crazy Michael's tired, repetitive nonsense? It almost seems ... conspiratorial! In any event, it renders a discussion forum such as this pretty much pointless. Good thing I should be off my crutches and back to real life in a few days.

Dear Lance,

Don't you realize that the KGB* is a world-class humanitarian organization compared to the evil, evil CIA (even though it did install The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") as our "President" on 20 January 2017)?

*Today's SVR and FSB

-- Tom

[Jarrett Smith]

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?”

As we see here all the time, CTers want to talk (and talk and talk and talk) about the curtain rods! the lunchroom encounter! the throat wound! that damn Ruth Paine! and so on and so forth, completely divorced from any overarching theory of, “OK, what’s your alternative explanation and what sense would that have made?”

Let’s start with this: What was the point of the JFKA? Was it simply to kill JFK or was it to kill JFK and “something more”?

If it was simply to kill JFK, nothing but a “small, very small” conspiracy makes any real-world sense at all. A pro sniper firing one shot with a pro-quality rifle from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing. Pretty much risk-free. Child’s play – indeed, business as usual – for the Mafia, and no problem for anyone else, from LBJ on down, with connections to a reliable sniper.

No need for Oswald and his Carcano – either as a patsy or a knowing participant – and all the risks that he and the TSBD would entail. It simply makes no sense at all. No need for Dealey Plaza, really; there were surely opportunities that didn’t have hundreds of potential witnesses and weren’t crawling with reporters and police.

Unless … Oswald was integral to the plan. Killing JFK was either his idea or he was talked into it. It still makes little real-world sense to take all the crazy and unnecessary risks associated with the TSBD unless Oswald is calling the shots (pun intended) and doesn’t realize how much less risky (to him and the conspiracy) a shot from the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building would be.

This would have to be a “small, very small” conspiracy that I call LN+. Oswald “conspired” with others because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that killing JFK would get him into Cuba. He originated the idea or it was planted in his head, but what took place in Dealey Plaza was basically just the LN scenario. This puts complete trust in Oswald and his Carcano, so if the sole objective was to kill JFK the conspirators could not have been very bold or sophisticated; if they were, they would have had a pro sniper and no need for Oswald. I suppose we could add another gunman if we like, but he couldn’t have been any sort of pro or there would have been no need for Oswald and all the risks associated with the TSBD; he would have to have been someone with no more planning ability or resources than Oswald.

Let’s now say the objective was more than just killing JFK. What would the “more” have been? If the Mafia eliminated JFK, RFK would be neutralized – but a sniper on the County Records building would accomplish that. LBJ would be President – but a sniper would accomplish that, too. JFK would be out of the CIA’s hair, or Hoover wouldn’t have to retire, or the oil depletion allowance would remain in place, or those enraged by the Bay of Pigs fiasco would have their revenge, or Castro would have his revenge, or whatever – but, again, simply killing JFK with a pro sniper would have all those consequences.

The only “more” that really makes any sense to me is to kill JFK while pointing the finger at Castro and/or the Russians as the culprit(s). An invasion of Cuba would be of great economic benefit to the Mafia via the restoration of their lucrative pre-Castro empire. It would make all those enraged by the Bay of Pigs fiasco happy. It might even make the cigar-chomping, war-hungry Joint Chiefs happy. (It would make all the Cubans who had fled during Castro’s revolution and wanted to go back happy, but that’s too large and amorphous of a group to think they were involved in the JFKA. Ditto for those who simply hated JFK’s politics or religion.)

But pointing the finger would also risk World War III, precisely as LBJ feared (I believe genuinely feared). No one planning to point the finger at Castro or the Russians could have been oblivious to this possibility. It seems to me that only the cigar-chomping, war-hungry Joint Chiefs might actually have thought this was an acceptable risk.

OK, our conspirators were not only going to kill JFK but point the finger at Castro and/or the Russians. Is Oswald how they would have done this? They were simply going to trust in his background as a Marxist, a defector and a Castro supporter and assume the public would make the connection and demand justice in the form of an invasion of Cuba or attack on Russia? Doesn’t this seem like an extremely iffy and risky assumption?

Think of all the conspirators would’ve had to do in order to make this work. It inevitably leads to precisely the sort of incredibly elaborate, convoluted CT scenarios we see, with umpteen conspirators planting and faking evidence and engaging in a massive cover-up. Why would they need Oswald at all, why would they need to trust in the public to make the requisite connections and demands? Just leave pro-Castro literature and a rambling manifesto at the scene of the crime – no need to frame Oswald or involve him or the TSBD at all. Ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing.

Even when I wear my CT beanie, I simply cannot escape the feeling that 99% of CT thinking is just an ad hoc effort to deal with two realities that simply can’t be escaped: Oswald and Dealey Plaza. A real-world Presidential assassination conspiracy involving even mildly savvy conspirators would not have involved either Oswald or Dealey Plaza. There would have simply been too many uncertainties and absurd, unnecessary risks.

The only halfway plausible conspiracy involving Oswald and Dealey Plaza is what I call LN+ - either Oswald alone in Dealey Plaza, having in some sense "conspired" with one or more persons who weren’t there (who were either as pro-Castro as him or somehow convinced him they were), or Oswald and perhaps another gunman who was essentially his ideological twin and had an equally unlikely weapon (because a pro would not have needed Oswald at all, and a more sophisticated conspiracy would have equipped them both with much more likely weapons than the Carcano).

In short, a “small, very small” conspiracy, one that is scarcely distinguishable from the LN scenario and is unlikely ever to get beyond the realm of speculation unless a startling, definitive piece of evidence comes to light.

Please, convince I’m wrong. But do so with something resembling a plausible alternative explanation as to what you think occurred and not just more tired blather about the curtain rods! the lunchroom encounter! the throat wound! that damn Ruth Paine!

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.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

What evidence is there that Marcello had him killed?

What evidence is there for a kill shot being fired from the knoll?

[Jarrett Smith]

What evidence is there that Marcello had him killed?

What evidence is there for a kill shot being fired from the knoll?

He confessed to having it done and I doubt he lied about it.

The hole in the back of his head didn't come from the rear, not to mention two areas of blood splatter.

[Tim Nickerson]

He confessed to having it done and I doubt he lied about it.

Where can one read or hear his confession? James Files confessed to having done it. Was he working for Marcello?

The hole in the back of his head didn't come from the rear, not to mention two areas of blood splatter.

Where do you see a hole on the back of the head?



There was blood and brain matter on the forward occupants of the limo. It was on the windshield and even on the hood. How is that explained by a head shot from the front?

[Benjamin Cole]

LP--

My take is if "The Deep State" or globalist elite militarists even wanted to remove JFK, they would do so in the manner Nixon, Carter and Trump (2016)were deposed. The manipulation of media, partisan animosities and prosecutorial agencies.

(Set aside JFK was an ardent anti-communist, came from a wealthy family, and cut income taxes on the upper brackets. And Vietnam was just not that important to anybody in 1963.)

So...the JFKA perps were people without institutional power. Not powerful people. They had recourse only to shooting JFK, and not even in private, but when JFK appeared in public. The way any nuts would.

My guess is the JFKA perps were motived by intense ideological, nationalistic and personal animosities for perceived betrayal--the BoP vets come to mind. A long shot: Individuals angered at the Kennedy Administration-backed  deposing and assassination of the Diem brothers in Vietnam. Or G-2'ers involved in revenge shooting for the many attempts on Castros life during the Kennedy Administration.

What tales the perps told LHO...who knows? LHO wanted passage to Cuba. LHO may have thought he was involved in a CIA false-flag event.

So why the WC cover-up?

Some WC'ers (Dulles) may have suspected LHO's co-conspirators were CIA assets (Diaz and Del Valle come to mind). There were thousands of CIA assets in the US at the time, Cuban exiles and others involved in Cuba. A story that LHO was assisted by CIA assets...not a good look. There was the whole Kostikov WWIII idea too.

And in fact, LHO's accomplices escaped, and LHO dead in two days. To this day no one has afforded us a convincing explanation of who perped the JFKA, while LHO is the only suspect known beyond reasonable doubt to be in DP in 11/22.

Ruby shooting LHO remains an intriguing clue---and suggests someone was worried LHO would talk. 

But who?