Understanding the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Cover-Up

[John Corbett]

I really don't understand your obstinancy on this. Oswald was a very visible Pro-Castro Guy in the hotbed of New Orleans long before the JFKA.

In New Orleans. Not in Dallas. Do you have any reason to believe anybody in New Orleans knew or cared about Oswald's whereabouts once he left that city?

We don't know what contacts he may have made in the pro-Castro community or the anti-Castro-posing-as-pro-Castro community.

Don't you think that is an important thing to establish if you  are going to theorize that he conspired with one of those groups to kill JFK.

JFK's trip to Dallas was announced even before he went to MC.

People knew he was coming to Dallas. BFD. You need much more specific information if you are going to set up an assassination.

In MC he reportedly said some wild-and-crazy things. We don't know what contacts he may have made there. It is not at all implausible that he would have been on the radar screen of anyone, up to and including Marcello's guys, long in advance of the JFKA. There was going to be a hit on JFKA in Dallas, and Oswald was one of Their Guys, either as a participant or a dupe. Possible locations in Dallas were scouted before the motorcade route was finalized - hence Oswald's inquiry at the Allright Parking Garage a week before. If he was a dupe in a Mafia or anti-Castro conspiracy, the conspirators would not have cared whether he was killed in the TSBD or lived to stand trial because anything he knew - or thought he knew - pointed exactly where they wanted it to point.

For it to make any sense for any of the aforementioned groups to include Oswald in their plans, they would need to know the motorcade route and that Oswald would have access to a building along that route. The route was not announced until 11/18/1963. There is zero evidence the Mafia or any Cuban group was in contact with Oswald before or after that date. You can speculate wildly if you want but if you are going to make a compelling argument, you need some actual evidence.

There is nothing inherently implausible about this scenario. The issue is, what evidence supports it?

None whatsoever.

Gus Russo is clearly a Grade A researcher of the JFKA. I only wish he hadn't dropped from the scene and had been a little more forthcoming about his contacts with the G2 folks.

I've already asked this question. Is there a certification process for being a Grade A JFKA researcher? What are the requirements? I already got duped once by someone who had a reputation as a top-notch investigative reporter, Jack Anderson. He briefly had me convinced the assassination was a collaboration between the CIA and the Mafia who had a shared interest in getting rid of Castro. It took me a few years to figure out his story was BS and that he was a charlatan.

Your logic seems to flow backwards. You start with the unlikelihood that JFK's motorcade would pass at 11 mph directly in front of Oswald's perch - which is equally unlikely regardless of whether there was any conspiracy - and then declare it impossible that conspirators would have known this in advance. They DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW this long in advance. Once the motorcade route was announced, they realized they had indeed got extremely lucky. (We could go off on the tangent that the turn onto Elm was "arranged," but I am trying to keep this as realistic and plausible as possible.)

What reason would they have had to include Oswald in their plans prior to 11/18/1963? I find it a bit far-fetched to believe they planned to use Oswald as either the shooter or the patsy and then they the route is announced and they said, "Oh, look. The guy we hired to shoot JFK works right along the motorcade route.". It makes little sense that they would have hired Oswald for the biggest contract killing in history even after the motorcade route was announced and makes zero sense they would have had any interest in using Oswald before they knew where the motorcade was going.

The Mafia and G2 are two of the scenarios that can't simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Yes it can. It makes no sense.

They may be 100% incorrect, but they can't just be dismissed.

You seem to be trying really hard to convince yourself this is a plausible scenario.
[/quote]

[Michael T. Griffith]

WC defenders ignore or summarily brush aside the fact that on November 16-17, five days before the assassination, David Ferrie spent the weekend with Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello at Marcello's Churchill Farms estate. Supposedly, the two were discussing "defense strategy" for the final week of Marcello's deportation trial in federal court. However, strangely enough, Marcello’s attorneys were not there.. Humm. . . . Ferrie was no lawyer. It is very hard imagine what legal strategy Marcello and Ferrie could have discussed for two entire days; it is also hard to fathom how a weekend-long legal defense strategy meeting would not have included at least one of Marcello's attorneys. Dr. Richard Mahoney correctly and logically suspects that Marcello and Ferrie were finalizing some of the details of the planned assassination of JFK in Dallas (The Kennedy Brothers: The Rise and Fall of Jack and Bobby, 2017 edition, p. 386).

Not only was David Ferrie an operative for Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello, and not only had he publicly said JFK should be shot over the Bay of Pigs, but he associated with anti-Castro Cubans and with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Among other evidence of a Ferrie-Oswald association, six credible witnesses saw Oswald with David Ferrie (and  with Clay Shaw) in Clinton, Louisiana, in late August/early September 1963. There were six Clinton witnesses, including a member of the state legislature, a deputy sheriff, and a registrar of voters. The HSCA was understandably skeptical of any evidence produced by Jim Garrison's investigation, so they reinterviewed the six Clinton witnesses. After doing so, the HSCA concluded the witnesses were "credible and significant":

The reports of Oswald in Clinton were not, as far as the committee could determine, available to the Warren Commission, although one witness said he notified the FBI when he recognized Oswald from news photographs right after the assassination.25(182) In fact, the Clinton sightings did not publicly surface until 1967, when they were introduced as evidence in the assassination investigation being conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.(184) In that investigation, one suspect, David W. Ferrie, a staunch anti-Castro partisan, died within days of having been named by Garrison; the other, Clay L. Shaw, was acquitted in 1969.(185) Aware that Garrison had been fairly criticized for questionable tactics, the committee proceeded cautiously, making sure to determine on its own the credibility of information coming from his probe. The committee found that the Clinton witnesses were credible and significant. They each were interviewed or deposed, or appeared before the committee in executive session. (HSCA report, p. 143)

Yet, WC apologists ask us to believe that Ferrie and Marcello spent two days together at Marcello's estate the weekend before the assassination merely to discuss legal strategy for Marcello's deportation trial, even though not one of Marcello's lawyers was there, and even though Ferrie had no legal background whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that most WC apologists are simply not interested in credible evidence of conspiracy, and they will look for any excuse, no matter how lame and vacuous, to dismiss such evidence.

Yes, I've read the replies of Lance Payette and John Corbett in this thread. I don't think they're worth answering. Payette has at least done enough research to be able to give the occasional appearance of credibility, but his replies fail to explain the evidence I've presented and contain numerous invalid arguments and disingenuous posturing. Corbett seems to know very little about the JFK case and seems to have only read snippets on pro-WC websites. The unserious and erroneous nature of Corbett's replies are highlighted by the fact that he has recently declared that he doesn't have to explain the indisputable conflicts in the medical evidence (even ones documented by medical experts who supported/support the single-assassin scenario) and that the sciences of trajectory analysis, acoustical identification of gunfire, and wound-ballistics testing are worthless when it comes to the JFK assassination.

If anyone has any questions about Payette's and Corbett's arguments, please message me or post them in a reply.

[John Corbett]

The fact of the matter is that most WC apologists are simply not interested in credible evidence of conspiracy, and they will look for any excuse, no matter how lame and vacuous, to dismiss such evidence.

I'd be very interested in such evidence if I ever saw any.

Yes, I've read the replies of Lance Payette and John Corbett in this thread. I don't think they're worth answering.

If I had made a statement like that, you'd accuse me of dodging.