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]

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.

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]

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

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]

Several observations:

You continue to live in your own little LN Bubble that is as impermeable as any Conspiracy Bubble.

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.

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."

2. Oswald didn't need anybody to carry out the assassination. It only required one man with reasonable proficiency with a rifle.

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.

3. Any conspiracy theory, large or small, requires connecting the conspirators to the gunman, who was Oswald.

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.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

[John Corbett]

You continue to live in your own little LN Bubble that is as impermeable as any Conspiracy Bubble.

That's a good thing. It keeps me from getting silly ideas for which there is no evidence. CTs continue to assume there was a conspiracy despite never providing any evidence of such.

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.

Yes, that is what I said. 

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."

Only one man who committed a murder after the JFKA was executed for his crime and that was a man who chose not to appeal his sentence. Everyone else who was on death row extended the appeals process beyond 1967 when there was a de facto moratorium on executions because of cases working their way up to SCOTUS. The only way Oswald would have been executed would have been if he chose not to take advantage of the appeals process and accepted his death sentence.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about plausible conspiracy theories.

As far as the JFKA is concerned, "plausible conspiracy theories" is an oxymoron. No one has ever come up with one for which there is any evidence. There are lots of make believe conspiracy theories.

For that matter, there are plausible conspiracies that can accommodate pretty much everything the LN narrative posits.

Maybe you can share one with us. The only one that is even theoretical/y possible is one in which Oswald conspired with maybe one or two individuals for which no evidence was ever found. In that circumstance, the evidence would be exactly what it is, but since there is no evidence of such a small conspiracy and the fact Oswald was a loner his whole life, I see no reason to believe even a small conspiracy existed.

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.

Such a conspiracy would out of necessity been put together in just a matter of days because the motorcade route was not made public until the Monday of that week.

The SBT posits a so-called Magic Bullet that emerges nearly pristine even after the damage caused to JBC.

Oh, Christ. Are you still peddling that old wives' tale. The bullet was not nearly pristine. It was flattened at the base indicating it was tumbling when it first struck bone. Full metal jacket bullets are designed not to deform when passing through soft tissue which CE399 did when it went through JFK's torso. Such a bullet tumbles upon exiting which has been shown experimentally. The shape of the entry wound on JBC's back indicates it did not enter nose first.   The only way that happens is if the bullet had struck something else first, like JFK's torso.

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.

Where the hell are you going with this. Are you saying the bullet that went through his clothing isn't the one that entered his back. That would require a real Magic Bullet.

The provenance of the Magic Bullet is uncertain at best, with Landis claiming he found it on the back seat of the limousine.

Landis claim is quite dubious given that he waited 60 years to tell anybody about it and it would make him look like an idiot because anyone with an ounce of sense would know that was a really important piece of evidence. Even if it is true, it does nothing to invalidate the SBT.

One of the victims, JBC, rejected it.

JBC rejected the SBT because he had been told JFK was hit by the first shot and he knew he had been hit by the second shot. It follows that if JFK was hit by the second shot, which he was, then they were both hit by the same shot.

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.

Marrion Baker was on Houston St. when the shots were fired. How the hell would he know which shots hit JFK and JBC.

You once again continue to play the "no evidence" game as though saying this made it true.

You could prove me wrong by presenting evidence of your goofy theories but you never do.

The supposed confessions by Trafficante and Marcello are evidence for Mafia involvement.

Supposed? You really are reaching now.

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.

That is true but the bad news is you are really bad at weighing evidence as you have just demonstrated. Don't feel too bad. Most CTs have the same problem. Do you ever bother to think these things through before you post them. I feel like I'm back in 1991 debunking the same old nonsense I was dealing with back then.

This is the the reason I urge CTers to focus on the theories that are actually plausible and the evidence supporting them.

It seems to me the first step should be to come up with a plausible conspiracy theory supported by evidence which no one ever has.

[Lance Payette]

"What about Larry Hancock and John Newman?" screams the peanut gallery. "They know way more than you, bub."

Well, they know way more about some JFKA-related things, I'm sure. I think Newman and his crowd are driven by motives other than trying to solve the JFKA. There is no way the conspiracy they posit - whatever the hell it is - has any real-world plausibility. It's all dark intrigue and speculation, peppered with names and acronyms and documents until your eyes glaze over (or at least mine do). IMHO, they'll never connect it to Dealey Plaza.

Larry Hancock's work would fit into my category 4 and is certainly more plausible than Newman's. As with Newman, however, you are overwhelmed with names and acronyms and whatnot, and it's all just too elaborate for me to find it believable, nor have I seen anything convincingly tying Oswald into the plot.

I always remind myself and others that Newman is also the author of Quest for the Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism, a weird but undeniably scholarly book that I have never even seen mentioned in my vast Christian-oriented reading. Hancock is the author of Unidentified; The National Security Problem of UFOs, which I likewise have never even seen mentioned in my vast UFO-oriented reading. This is not to minimize their work - I found Newman's book fascinating - but just to emphasize that though they may seem to be "major figures" in the JFKA community they are pretty much fringe figures in other areas into which they have waded.

Just my $0.02 worth and where I would - and do - focus my attention if I were open to JFKA conspiracy theories.

P.S. - I'm not going to try to deal with John C.'s goofy formatting, but there were 46 executions between 1963 and 1967. WHAT THE HELL is the point, other than arguing for the sake of arguing? No one involved in the JFKA was thinking, "Hey, the way the law is trending we may only spend life in prison instead of being executed." What a weirdo.