JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
CTers: Do yourself a favor and focus on plausibility
Lance Payette:
Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.
I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.
Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.
Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:
1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible
There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:
1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy
The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.
This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.
As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.
Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.
Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.
Jarrett Smith:
Mafia very small operation. You have Oswald, someone on the knoll pretending to be with SS flashing credentials, and Ruby.
In 2009, a secret FBI informant exploded a verbal bombshell: Carlos Marcello once told him during a prison yard conversation, “I had the little bastard (JFK) killed. He was a thorn in my shoe.”
Jack Van Laningham—a former cellmate of the Mafia don—disclosed Marcello’s confession in a TV interview on the Discovery Channel’s “Did the Mob Kill JFK?” Van Laningham subsequently passed a polygraph test.
He said Marcello explained that Oswald had visited him in New Orleans and that “he was my man. He did what the hell I told him to do.”
As for Jack Ruby, Marcello told his cellmate that Dallas strip club owner was under his thumb, deeply in debt, and owed the Mob boss “big.” So Marcello, according to Van Laningham, ordered Ruby to pay off the debt by rubbing out Oswald.
Van Laningham, who was at the Texarkana Federal Prison for bank robbery, ratted out Marcello for the FBI in a deal that sprung him from prison early. Thomas Kimmel, the FBI agent who supervised the informant, says he has no reason to disbelieve Van Laningham’s story.
https://crimemagazine.com/carlos-marcello-and-assassination-president-kennedy
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:52:49 PM ---Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.
I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.
Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.
Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:
1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible
There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:
1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy
The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.
This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.
As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.
Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.
Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.
--- End quote ---
Several observations:
1. Nobody was going to be executed. Not even Oswald. He would have been found guilty and sentenced to death but he couldn't have extended the appeals process until SCOTUS vacated the death penalty in 1972.
2. Oswald didn't need anybody to carry out the assassination. It only required one man with reasonable proficiency with a rifle.
3. Any conspiracy theory, large or small, requires connecting the conspirators to the gunman, who was Oswald.
4. There is nothing implausible about the SBT. The geometry works perfectly. A shot fired from the sniper's nest through JFK's throat couldn't have missed JBC. He was perfectly aligned to receive that bullet.
5. Conway Twitty had hit record that would apply to all conspiracy theories. It's Only Make Believe. There is no evidence Oswald was acting on behalf of anybody but himself.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Jarrett Smith on June 04, 2026, 09:07:17 PM ---Mafia very small operation. You have Oswald, someone on the knoll pretending to be with SS flashing credentials, and Ruby.
In 2009, a secret FBI informant exploded a verbal bombshell: Carlos Marcello once told him during a prison yard conversation, “I had the little bastard (JFK) killed. He was a thorn in my shoe.”
Jack Van Laningham—a former cellmate of the Mafia don—disclosed Marcello’s confession in a TV interview on the Discovery Channel’s “Did the Mob Kill JFK?” Van Laningham subsequently passed a polygraph test.
He said Marcello explained that Oswald had visited him in New Orleans and that “he was my man. He did what the hell I told him to do.”
As for Jack Ruby, Marcello told his cellmate that Dallas strip club owner was under his thumb, deeply in debt, and owed the Mob boss “big.” So Marcello, according to Van Laningham, ordered Ruby to pay off the debt by rubbing out Oswald.
Van Laningham, who was at the Texarkana Federal Prison for bank robbery, ratted out Marcello for the FBI in a deal that sprung him from prison early. Thomas Kimmel, the FBI agent who supervised the informant, says he has no reason to disbelieve Van Laningham’s story.
https://crimemagazine.com/carlos-marcello-and-assassination-president-kennedy
--- End quote ---
Insofar as I know, the supposed tapes of Van Laningham’s supposed conversations with Marcello are still sealed. Larry Schnapf at the Ed Forum said in 2022 he was working to get them unsealed, but I don’t know the status. The only FBI documents I have seen refer only to Marcello saying “Yeah, I had the SOB killed” in a conversation outside in the prison yard. Marcello later denied saying this (surprise, surprise) and the FBI had doubts about his mental capacity.
Once we get past the bare confession, Van Laningham’s tale sounds suspiciously like all too many JFKA tall tales – as though he knew just enough to weave one. Both Oswald and Ruby had close relationships with Marcello? Really?
If Oswald was in Marcello’s pocket, why is there zero evidence of this in his life? If I was in a Mob boss’s pocket, I would not expect to continue to live in utter poverty and ratty apartments and to float from one grungy minimum-wage job to the next. This is the problem with all theories that have Oswald as a CIA operative or Mafia guy or whatever – there is zero evidence that he had any hidden income or benefactor.
Why would Marcello trust Ruby to whack Oswald? That would make Ruby as dangerous to the plot as Oswald. If I had to trust either Ruby or Oswald not to talk, I’d trust Oswald.
This sounds like James Files all over again. I can believe Marcello was a prime mover behind the JFKA. I can believe he might have blabbed that he had the SOB killed. I cannot believe that he had the relationships with Oswald and Ruby that Van Laningham claims. It just makes no sense.
If we favor a particular conspiracy theory – here, the Mafia – I think we have to be very careful to keep our wits and not become credulous believers of everything that supports that theory. I understand, it's almost irresistable not to make the Mafia-Ruby connection, but it just makes no sense.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 04, 2026, 10:11:45 PM ---Several observations:
--- End quote ---
You continue to live in your own little LN Bubble that is as impermeable as any Conspiracy Bubble.
--- Quote ---1. Nobody was going to be executed. Not even Oswald. He would have been found guilty and sentenced to death but he couldn't have extended the appeals process until SCOTUS vacated the death penalty in 1972.
--- End quote ---
Mr. Pretend Lawyer strikes again. In 1963, any participant in the JFKA - up to and including LBJ - would have faced a certain sentence of execution. You optimistically assume none of these would have been carried out by 1972. In 1963, the average time between sentencing and execution was far less than eight years - some sources say two. Apart from all this, my point was that anyone planning a Presidential assassination in 1963 would have known "We're all looking at execution if this goes south."
--- Quote ---2. Oswald didn't need anybody to carry out the assassination. It only required one man with reasonable proficiency with a rifle.
--- End quote ---
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about plausible conspiracy theories. For that matter, there are plausible conspiracies that can accommodate pretty much everything the LN narrative posits.
--- Quote ---3. Any conspiracy theory, large or small, requires connecting the conspirators to the gunman, who was Oswald.
--- End quote ---
OK, and so? One of my stated parameters is that the only two plausible conspiratorial roles for Oswald were as a knowing gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy or as a patsy gunman in what he thought was a pro-Castro conspiracy.
--- Quote ---4. There is nothing implausible about the SBT. The geometry works perfectly. A shot fired from the sniper's nest through JFK's throat couldn't have missed JBC. He was perfectly aligned to receive that bullet.
--- End quote ---
The SBT posits a so-called Magic Bullet that emerges nearly pristine even after the damage caused to JBC. The SBT requires JFK's clothes to have been bunched to accommodate the misaligned holes in his clothing and body, and even then it's difficult to make it work. The provenance of the Magic Bullet is uncertain at best, with Landis claiming he found it on the back seat of the limousine. One of the victims, JBC, rejected it. The witnesses such as Baker who described a very quick bang-bang sequence are problematical for the SBT. The SBT may be correct, but it is far from rock-solid.
--- Quote ---5. Conway Twitty had hit record that would apply to all conspiracy theories. It's Only Make Believe. There is no evidence Oswald was acting on behalf of anybody but himself.
--- End quote ---
You once again continue to play the "no evidence" game as though saying this made it true. The supposed confessions by Trafficante and Marcello are evidence for Mafia involvement. They are not evidence that will ever be tested in court, but none of the evidence has ever been tested in court other than in the artificial environment of a mock trial. All we can do is attempt to determine how credible any piece of evidence is and how much weight it should receive. This is the the reason I urge CTers to focus on the theories that are actually plausible and the evidence supporting them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version