JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on November 11, 2021, 01:01:58 AM
-
What a Conspiracy Theorist Needs to Do to be Taken Seriously.
A Conspiracy Theorist needs to establish that he does not believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Hence, his theory cannot not be dismissed out of hand as being wildly unlikely to work, without someone betraying the conspiracy. So, of very high priority is to provide a list of:
* All the tasks carried out by the conspiracy.
* The number of people required to carry out this conspiracy.
JKF Conspiracy theorists have not done so. Even when challenged to do so (with one lone exception) they do not do so. They make excuses for not doing so, like the classic “I’m not going to play your game.” A sure sign that the JFK CTers are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers.
JFK CTers generally give the strong impressions that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. They talk of multiple shooters. Of CIA, FBI, Dallas police, doctors, film experts, photograph experts, Oil companies, etc. participating in this conspiracy. And talk of false autopsy reports, false autopsy X-Rays and photographs, false ballistic evidence, dishonest investigators, etc. And the goal of the conspiracy? To steer the U. S. into a larger Vietnam war. And even to permanently control the U. S. government, as they do to this very day. This does not sound like a small conspiracy.
JFK CTers will claim that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. But won’t provide a list of what they believe that would support this.
Questions:
Why don’t JFK CTers demonstrate that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?
Why are JFK CTers reluctant to admit that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?
I suspect CTers will dodge one or both simple questions.
-
Define “Large Conspiracy”. 3 people? 10 people? 50 people?
Obviously the more individuals who are involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to succeed or be kept secret indefinitely.
-
I suspect CTers will dodge one or both simple questions.
If it is all so simple why are people adamantly interested 58 years later and most...unyielding in their viewpoint. Including you.
So Joe Elliot...I don't know who you are but I propose that you know nothing about power..or fear..and most of all.. fear of power.
I also suggest that you don't read posts that you don't agree with anyway.
-
What a Conspiracy Theorist Needs to Do to be Taken Seriously.
A Conspiracy Theorist needs to establish that he does not believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Hence, his theory cannot not be dismissed out of hand as being wildly unlikely to work, without someone betraying the conspiracy. So, of very high priority is to provide a list of:
* All the tasks carried out by the conspiracy.
* The number of people required to carry out this conspiracy.
JKF Conspiracy theorists have not done so. Even when challenged to do so (with one lone exception) they do not do so. They make excuses for not doing so, like the classic “I’m not going to play your game.” A sure sign that the JFK CTers are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers.
JFK CTers generally give the strong impressions that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. They talk of multiple shooters. Of CIA, FBI, Dallas police, doctors, film experts, photograph experts, Oil companies, etc. participating in this conspiracy. And talk of false autopsy reports, false autopsy X-Rays and photographs, false ballistic evidence, dishonest investigators, etc. And the goal of the conspiracy? To steer the U. S. into a larger Vietnam war. And even to permanently control the U. S. government, as they do to this very day. This does not sound like a small conspiracy.
JFK CTers will claim that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. But won’t provide a list of what they believe that would support this.
Questions:
Why don’t JFK CTers demonstrate that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?
Why are JFK CTers reluctant to admit that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?
I suspect CTers will dodge one or both simple questions.
The very instant a second (or more) gunman is proposed we have entered Large-Secret-Enduring-Conspiracy territory.
Every single CTer who believes in more than one gunman automatically finds themselves in the LSEC group.
I propose a single gunman firing three shots from the SN.
This requires four conspirators, on the ground, who had foreknowledge of events - Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz.
Involving a second gunman would increase the complexity of the co-ordination, logistics and execution of the operation exponentially which then requires an ever-increasingly large cover-up.
Here's a very simple question for you Joe - why is it, if these are just everyday working men going about their business, that almost everyone who was on the 6th floor that day lies to the investigating authorities?
You would be the fourth LNer I've put this question to.
All three previous LNers fled from it.
Two of them (wise old heads) refused to even touch it.
The third tried it on another thread you started and you saw what happened to him.
It's not just CTers who have big questions to answer.
-
The very instant a second (or more) gunman is proposed we have entered Large-Secret-Enduring-Conspiracy territory.
Every single CTer who believes in more than one gunman automatically finds themselves in the LSEC group.
I propose a single gunman firing three shots from the SN.
This requires four conspirators, on the ground, who had foreknowledge of events - Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz.
Involving a second gunman would increase the complexity of the co-ordination, logistics and execution of the operation exponentially which then requires an ever-increasingly large cover-up.
Here's a very simple question for you Joe - why is it, if these are just everyday working men going about their business, that almost everyone who was on the 6th floor that day lies to the investigating authorities?
You would be the fourth LNer I've put this question to.
All three previous LNers fled from it.
Two of them (wise old heads) refused to even touch it.
The third tried it on another thread you started and you saw what happened to him.
It's not just CTers who have big questions to answer.
You have provided no credible evidence to support the baseless claim that Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz had any "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination. Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination. In classic CTer tradition, you have substituted your own desired subjective narrative to fill gaps and account for minor, pedantic differences in the testimony. Witnesses had imperfect knowledge of events. They often used imprecise language to describe events. But don't take my word for it. Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them. Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty. If you did so, it would be dismissed as the stuff of Bigfoot and UFOs. Even the most of the more outlandish JFK CTers have not gone so far as to implicate these ordinary folks in a conspiracy to assassinate the president. You can dress it up all you want, but it is still tin foil hat nonsense.
-
Define “Large Conspiracy”. 3 people? 10 people? 50 people?
Obviously the more individuals who are involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to succeed or be kept secret indefinitely.
Three people in a conspiracy is plausible.
Ten people starts to become a little unbelievable, particularly for as outrageous a proposition as assassinating a President. Would someone know nine other people that one can safely approach to invite them to join this scheme? Even if one thinks one knows nine others, is it not the possible that one of them might decide to become a big hero. If one of them alerts the authorities, and the gunman is captured within the last hour red handed with the rifle, the person who turned them in would be a big American hero. Who could resist such a prize? If there is only a ten per cent chance that a certain person would betray the conspiracy in hopes of becoming a big American hero, the odds of success are just under 35 per cent, with about a 65 per cent chance that up to nine would go to prison.
Fifty people in a large conspiracy becomes totally unbelievable. Even if one is 98 per cent confident that each invitee won’t betray them, an implausibly high percentage, the odds that these conspirators will fail and go to prison is still around 63 per cent.
And, I should again note, that assuming there is only a 2 per cent, of even only a 10 per cent chance that a person would betray the conspiracy, is a wildly optimistic estimate. With a more reasonable estimate that there is a 20 per cent chance that a person would make the selfish decision, even if they hate Kennedy, for a chance to be lauded as a great hero, the odds of failure with 10 people is 89 per cent (1 - .8 ** 10) and with 50 people is over 99.99 per cent (1 - .8 ** 50).
So, I have answered your question. How about answering mine. The side without the truth on their side will always dodge questions. Both questions address what you believe probably happened, not what you know for certain happened.
Question 1:
What tasks did the conspiracy successfully complete (the assassination, faking the Zapruder film, faking the autopsy reports, etc.)?
Question 2:
How many people would you estimate would be needed to do all that?
-
If it is all so simple why are people adamantly interested 58 years later and most...unyielding in their viewpoint. Including you.
Because Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy stories have a powerful grip on the imagination. 58 years? That’s nothing. People have been concerned about the powerful Bavarian Illuminati conspiracy for over 250 years. Fear of a large world-wide conspiracy of many Jews, possibly all Jews, as been an obsession with some CTers (not talking about the JFK CTers but the antisemitic CTers), notably the Nazis, for many centuries.
I confess that getting me to yield on my viewpoint, come to believe in the existence of any Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory, including the JFK conspiracy theory, is going to be difficult.
So Joe Elliot...I don't know who you are but I propose that you know nothing about power..or fear..and most of all.. fear of power.
Yes, yes. The same claim that any CTer can use to support their favorite conspiracy theory. The Apollo Moon Landing hoax. The Elders of Zion conspiracy theory. The 2020 Presidential Election was stolen conspiracy theory. All these false conspiracy theories could use the same defense.
You don’t know who I really am? Well, I’m not Joe Elliot. I’m Joe Elliott. You don’t know who I really am? You seem to imply that I might be part of the coverup, possibly a late addition to this conspiracy, in the coverup phase. So, if you want to add my name to your long list of likely conspirators, feel to do so.
Question:
Is your image of this conspiracy so large that you suspect LNers like myself who post on this forum are also part of this conspiracy?
I also suggest that you don't read posts that you don't agree with anyway.
I have limited time so I don’t read all the posts on this board. I go away from the board for days at a time and then come back for an hour, or maybe a few minutes. So, I don’t have time to read all the posts that have come in since I last visited. But I try to guess which ones are pertinent, based on the thread, and read them, regardless of whether I agree with the poster or not. I read and respond to posters I disagree with more than I do with posters I agree with (about the JFK assassination) like Richard Smith or Bill Chapman or any other LNer.
-
You have provided no credible evidence to support the baseless claim that Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz had any "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination. Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination. In classic CTer tradition, you have substituted your own desired subjective narrative to fill gaps and account for minor, pedantic differences in the testimony. Witnesses had imperfect knowledge of events. They often used imprecise language to describe events. But don't take my word for it. Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them. Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty. If you did so, it would be dismissed as the stuff of Bigfoot and UFOs. Even the most of the more outlandish JFK CTers have not gone so far as to implicate these ordinary folks in a conspiracy to assassinate the president. You can dress it up all you want, but it is still tin foil hat nonsense.
I don’t know much about Dougherty, Truly, Shelly and Fritz but I suspect Richard is right. But, the one thing Dan O’meara has going for him is that he is proposing a Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, which is not nearly as implausible as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. But the story of some TSBD workers and a single Dallas police detective is not nearly as compelling as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, involving the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas police department and host of others (politicians, doctors, photograph and film experts, ballistic experts) so Dan’s story is rejected by the vast majority of CTers in favor of some other much more sensational, but wildly improbable story.
-
Because Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy stories have a powerful grip on the imagination. 58 years? That’s nothing. People have been concerned about the powerful Bavarian Illuminati conspiracy for over 250 years. Fear of a large world-wide conspiracy of many Jews, possibly all Jews
There is a Bavarian Illuminati or World wide Jewish conspiracy discussion board with widespread interest?
If there is no such thing as a conspiracy...why was the word invented?
What politician has had the balls to stand up and doubt the official story? Did they review the testimony and exhibits? Or what main stream news person?
They all feel that it is in their best interest to remain ...a conspiracy of silence. Like these guys--------
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81Fcvhv9o-L._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
-
------
LSEC
------
'Lets spoof every conspiracy'
Finally, the call-to-action for yours truly, the 'Manitobian Candidate'
Lets get this party started:
-----------------------------
BILL CHAPMAN RELOADED
-----------------------------
Click-Click
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2444.msg80740.html#msg80740
The Nobody Who Shot The Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.msg80948.html#msg80948
Operation Sitzgoose
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2674.msg96788.html#msg96788
-
Three people in a conspiracy is plausible.
Ten people starts to become a little unbelievable, particularly for as outrageous a proposition as assassinating a President. Would someone know nine other people that one can safely approach to invite them to join this scheme? Even if one thinks one knows nine others, is it not the possible that one of them might decide to become a big hero. If one of them alerts the authorities, and the gunman is captured within the last hour red handed with the rifle, the person who turned them in would be a big American hero. Who could resist such a prize? If there is only a ten per cent chance that a certain person would betray the conspiracy in hopes of becoming a big American hero, the odds of success are just under 35 per cent, with about a 65 per cent chance that up to nine would go to prison.
By your logic, no conspiracy would ever succeed.
Here in the real world, criminal conspiracies happen and often succeed. In the criminal underworld, where violence is a commonly used tool, it's easier to get people to keep secrets.
Aside from organized crime, the CIA also uses tools like deception and plausible deniability to execute conspiracies around the world and in some cases they've collaborated with the criminal underworld.
Of course, the CIA isn't the only intelligence agency that kills people and uses deception and plausible deniability. There are foreign intelligence agencies that use similar tactics. So don't think I'm only pointing fingers at our American spies.
Lastly, organized crime and intelligence agencies use "compartmentalization". Which means that people could unwittingly be part of a conspiracy and not even know who they're working with or what the over-arching objective is. Sort of like how it's alleged that some of the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were on a suicide mission. They were only told what they needed to know to complete certain tasks. They may not have been told that it was a suicide mission.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.september111
So, I have answered your question. How about answering mine. The side without the truth on their side will always dodge questions. Both questions address what you believe probably happened, not what you know for certain happened.
Question 1:
What tasks did the conspiracy successfully complete (the assassination, faking the Zapruder film, faking the autopsy reports, etc.)?
Question 2:
How many people would you estimate would be needed to do all that?
First off, I don't believe the Zapruder film is "fake".
Secondly, the problems with the autopsy are part of the Cover-Up, which I view as separate from the Conspiracy plot to kill Kennedy.
The people involved with the Cover-Up likely had different motives than those who plotted to kill JFK. For example:
- LBJ suspected others were involved but wanted to prevent WW3
- Some wanted to cover up incompetence by law enforcement and the national security agencies
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to operations against Cuba or the Soviets (ie RFK)
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to the CIA's domestic spy programs (it's illegal for the CIA to conduct operations domestically)
Therefore I view the assassination and post-assassination cover-ups as separate (but related) issues. Covering up evidence of a conspiracy makes them indirectly complicit after the fact.
Also, some agencies (ie the FBI and CIA) have admitted to covering up information about the Kennedy assassination so it's not even debatable that there were in fact cover-ups and that leads to valid questions about the evidence.
-------------------
To answer your questions, I believe a minimum of ten people would be needed in order to execute a plot against JFK. Two to three people handled Oswald while the rest handled the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza.
Whether that qualifies as "large conspiracy" likely varies from person to person. I personally don't think ten people is a "large enduring conspiracy".
-
I don’t know much about Dougherty, Truly, Shelly and Fritz but I suspect Richard is right. But, the one thing Dan O’meara has going for him is that he is proposing a Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, which is not nearly as implausible as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. But the story of some TSBD workers and a single Dallas police detective is not nearly as compelling as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, involving the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas police department and host of others (politicians, doctors, photograph and film experts, ballistic experts) so Dan’s story is rejected by the vast majority of CTers in favor of some other much more sensational, but wildly improbable story.
One of the problems the conspiracists who believe in a large scale conspiracy behind the assassination make is to view all of these agencies as sort of a monolithic thing. As in: "the CIA", "the FBI", "the Warren Commission" or just "the government." They get into trouble with the definite article "the."
All of these agencies are bureaucracies. Bureaucracies consisting of dozens if not hundreds if not, over the past near 60 years since the assassination, thousands of people. We've had dozens of heads of the CIA, of the FBI. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. All men and women of various backgrounds and views and politics.
It is utterly absurd to think that all of these people have covered up for the government's role in the assassination. The role of "the CIA." But they do. Because "the CIA" overturned this or that government, or tried to assassinate Castro, or did "bad thing X or Y" they were behind the assassination. And since then all of the men and women who served in it over that time have covered it up. We just heard, again, that "the CIA" is withholding documents. So the only explanation is "they" are covering it up. Who is "they"? There never are any names. It's just "the CIA."
But here we are. With the same conspiracy view that the reason that investigations haven't uncovered the conspiracy is simply proof of the conspiracy. We've had multiple government investigations, multiple news media investigations, multiple independent investigations by historians and reporters and it's uncovered nothing of this giant "C" conspiracy. But all of this work is dismissed. It's all evidence, in the conspiracy view, of how big the conspiracy was. Even today it's being covered up.
-
One of the problems the conspiracists who believe in a large scale conspiracy behind the assassination make is to view all of these agencies as sort of a monolithic thing. As in: "the CIA", "the FBI", "the Warren Commission" or just "the government." They get into trouble with the definite article "the."
All of these agencies are bureaucracies. Bureaucracies consisting of dozens if not hundreds if not, over the past near 60 years since the assassination, thousands of people. We've had dozens of heads of the CIA, of the FBI. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. All men and women of various backgrounds and views and politics.
You guys are attacking strawmen. Who has argued that the Dallas PD, FBI, Secret Service, and CIA act as a monolith? Name the posters.
Clearly there were (and still are) cover-ups but each bureaucracy likely had different reasons for secrecy and obstructing investigations.
Also, compartmentalization is easier to accomplish within large bureaucracies. No one seriously believes that everyone who works for the CIA or FBI knows about every secret project or knows who all the undercover assets are.
And hasn't it been established that Richard Helms and James Angleton kept secrets that even the CIA directors they served under didn't know about?
-
You have provided no credible evidence to support the baseless claim that Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz had any "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination. Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination. In classic CTer tradition, you have substituted your own desired subjective narrative to fill gaps and account for minor, pedantic differences in the testimony. Witnesses had imperfect knowledge of events. They often used imprecise language to describe events. But don't take my word for it. Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them. Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty. If you did so, it would be dismissed as the stuff of Bigfoot and UFOs. Even the most of the more outlandish JFK CTers have not gone so far as to implicate these ordinary folks in a conspiracy to assassinate the president. You can dress it up all you want, but it is still tin foil hat nonsense.
I'm not surprised you're so uptight after the mauling I gave you on "The Sign of a Large-secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory" thread. I invite any reader to go to that thread and read through the record of our discussion. It ends abruptly after Reply #53 when Richard flees the debate. And note, it is Richard who comes across as the tin foil merchant, constantly barking pronouncements, deliberately refusing to understand the most simple arguments and displaying a startling lack of knowledge concerning the most basic elements of this case.
"Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination."
I painstakingly lay out the reality of these lies.
The lies I deal with in that thread have nothing to do with "complicity in the JFK assassination". Strawman alert!!
And these lies are not "pedantic differences in the testimony", they are wholesale fabrications.
I hadn't even begun to deal with those lies that do reveal complicity (you'd ran for the hills before that could happen).
"Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them. Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty."
Never, ever forget, Richard - all you have is a narrative.
You have zero credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots.
Think about that for a minute while you bask in your certainty - zero credible evidence.
The only thing you have that's even close is the eye-witness testimony of Brennan.
That's it!
Absolutely nothing else.
Think about that.
And how credible is Brennan?
"Howard Brennan was not, however, an especially reliable witness:
He claimed that the man was standing up when aiming the rifle, but the sash window made this impossible; it was open only up to about waist height.
He claimed that “I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion”, but later explicitly denied that he had seen the man fire the gun.
He claimed on the afternoon of the assassination that “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again”, but he was unable to pick out Oswald at an identification parade a few hours later, despite having seen Oswald’s photograph on television in the meantime.
[http://www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window]
I came across this quote attributed to Brennan on the Spartacus educational site:
"My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor... By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do."
So, while the WC has Oswald racing across the floor, miraculously removing all prints from the rifle, Brennan has the assassin hanging around admiring his handiwork. Go figure.
This seems to be more in line with the fact BRW, Norman and Jarman, directly underneath the assassin, never reported anyone running across the floor or coming down the stairs. And Dorothy Garner never saw him/heard him coming down the stairs. And almost all witness describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a white shirt Oswald didn't have. And Oswald reportedly seeing Norman and Jarman enter the building around 12:25PM places him on the first floor, ten minutes after Rowland's man with a rifle on the 6th floor. And on and on...
Never forget - you only have a narrative.
And if you do ever come up with some credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots why don't you "take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet" and put an end to all this?
Pulitzer winning stuff indeed.
-
There is a Bavarian Illuminati or World wide Jewish conspiracy discussion board with widespread interest?
I don’t know about on-line discussion boards but in the past those two conspiracy theories had a large following. Particularly the alleged worldwide Jewish conspiracy. By far the most destructive conspiracy theory in history, resulting in 6 million deaths. Yes, the Nazis believed that most of the Jews of the world, perhaps all, knew about and were involved in a large conspiracy against Gentiles. And now the Neo-Nazis have made a new Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory saying the Holocaust was a hoax.
If there is no such thing as a conspiracy...why was the word invented?
No one denies that conspiracies exist. What skeptics argue against are Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies. Such conspiracies, like the large one involving the CIA, the FBI, the police, politicians, various experts, etc. are wildly too improbable to exist.
A conspiracy involving three, or five or eight, yes, that might happen. Particularly if there is no large payoff, like becoming a national hero if you go to the authorities, as in the case of a hypothetical JFK conspiracy. Oh, yes, except I forgot. You believe that all the authorities were in on it, and everyone knew they were all in on it. So that was not an option.
But in any case, rational skeptics find that large conspiracies are not plausible. And skeptics have been following this reasoning for at least two hundred years. And, so far as I know, this reasoning has never failed. The larger a conspiracy is the more likely it would fail. In the real world, secret conspirators try to limit the size of a conspiracy, not bring in as many people as they can.
What politician has had the balls to stand up and doubt the official story? Did they review the testimony and exhibits? Or what main stream news person?
They all feel that it is in their best interest to remain ...a conspiracy of silence. Like these guys--------
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81Fcvhv9o-L._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
Ah, the main stream news people. Like the Pro Trump Stolen Election Conspiracy Theorists, you think the media helped cover up the JFK assassination. Just as they are allegedly covering up for those who stole the 2020 Election. Well, you have one thing in common with Trump supporters. You readily accept a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory. You have no problem believing that the media can cover up a major story that should be presented to the public.
What politician had the balls to stand up to the Warren Commission. I guess Trump supporters would say that the Republican Governor and Secretary of State in Georgia did not have the nerve to question the election in the state. The classic JFK conspiracy arguments have been recycled by the Trump supporters.
-
By your logic, no conspiracy would ever succeed.
Here in the real world, criminal conspiracies happen and often succeed. In the criminal underworld, where violence is a commonly used tool, it's easier to get people to keep secrets.
Aside from organized crime, the CIA also uses tools like deception and plausible deniability to execute conspiracies around the world and in some cases they've collaborated with the criminal underworld.
Of course, the CIA isn't the only intelligence agency that kills people and uses deception and plausible deniability. There are foreign intelligence agencies that use similar tactics. So don't think I'm only pointing fingers at our American spies.
Lastly, organized crime and intelligence agencies use "compartmentalization". Which means that people could unwittingly be part of a conspiracy and not even know who they're working with or what the over-arching objective is. Sort of like how it's alleged that some of the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were on a suicide mission. They were only told what they needed to know to complete certain tasks. They may not have been told that it was a suicide mission.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.september111
First off, I don't believe the Zapruder film is "fake".
Secondly, the problems with the autopsy are part of the Cover-Up, which I view as separate from the Conspiracy plot to kill Kennedy.
The people involved with the Cover-Up likely had different motives than those who plotted to kill JFK. For example:
- LBJ suspected others were involved but wanted to prevent WW3
- Some wanted to cover up incompetence by law enforcement and the national security agencies
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to operations against Cuba or the Soviets (ie RFK)
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to the CIA's domestic spy programs (it's illegal for the CIA to conduct operations domestically)
Therefore I view the assassination and post-assassination cover-ups as separate (but related) issues. Covering up evidence of a conspiracy makes them indirectly complicit after the fact.
Also, some agencies (ie the FBI and CIA) have admitted to covering up information about the Kennedy assassination so it's not even debatable that there were in fact cover-ups and that leads to valid questions about the evidence.
-------------------
To answer your questions, I believe a minimum of ten people would be needed in order to execute a plot against JFK. Two to three people handled Oswald while the rest handled the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza.
Whether that qualifies as "large conspiracy" likely varies from person to person. I personally don't think ten people is a "large enduring conspiracy".
Real life large conspiracies do happen. But they are hardly secret. Many are involved in the Mafia, but this is hardly a secret.
I think you separate the original assassination and the coverup so you can claim a small conspiracy.
It’s similar to how one might argue that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the election for Biden. Only ten higher ups in the company knew of this conspiracy. The people lower down did not know this. One programmer was ordered to add 3,000 votes for the Democratic candidate in this county, and a different programmer was told to add 280 votes for the Democratic candidate in this town. But they didn’t realize this was done to rig the entire national election for Biden. Yeah, right.
Okay, there were only ten in the original conspiracy. A conspiracy that will surely be exposed. Except, unbeknownst to the original ten, a bunch of others would decide, independently of each other, to cover up for them. What a lucky break.
In mid-November 1963, how would the original ten have known they would be so lucky?
And seven or eight to handle the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza. You mean to make certain no policemen or secret service agent immediately arrest or shoot at a shooter? Wouldn’t that take more than seven or eight?
And what sort of tasks did the ones who “unknowingly” helped cover up for the assassination. Unknowingly make fake autopsy reports? Unknowingly plant bullets? How exactly did they help cover things up?
Again, I can’t tell how many were involved in covering up for the assassination, if you don’t list all the tasks that they accomplished. What were these tasks. And are they the sort of tasks that no one would figure out what the overall goal was? Since this is a small conspiracy, you should have no problem listing all the tasks.
-
I'm not surprised you're so uptight after the mauling I gave you on "The Sign of a Large-secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory" thread. I invite any reader to go to that thread and read through the record of our discussion. It ends abruptly after Reply #53 when Richard flees the debate. And note, it is Richard who comes across as the tin foil merchant, constantly barking pronouncements, deliberately refusing to understand the most simple arguments and displaying a startling lack of knowledge concerning the most basic elements of this case.
"Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination."
I painstakingly lay out the reality of these lies.
The lies I deal with in that thread have nothing to do with "complicity in the JFK assassination". Strawman alert!!
And these lies are not "pedantic differences in the testimony", they are wholesale fabrications.
I hadn't even begun to deal with those lies that do reveal complicity (you'd ran for the hills before that could happen).
"Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them. Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty."
Never, ever forget, Richard - all you have is a narrative.
You have zero credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots.
Think about that for a minute while you bask in your certainty - zero credible evidence.
The only thing you have that's even close is the eye-witness testimony of Brennan.
That's it!
Absolutely nothing else.
Think about that.
And how credible is Brennan?
"Howard Brennan was not, however, an especially reliable witness:
He claimed that the man was standing up when aiming the rifle, but the sash window made this impossible; it was open only up to about waist height.
He claimed that “I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion”, but later explicitly denied that he had seen the man fire the gun.
He claimed on the afternoon of the assassination that “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again”, but he was unable to pick out Oswald at an identification parade a few hours later, despite having seen Oswald’s photograph on television in the meantime.
[http://www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window]
I came across this quote attributed to Brennan on the Spartacus educational site:
"My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor... By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do."
So, while the WC has Oswald racing across the floor, miraculously removing all prints from the rifle, Brennan has the assassin hanging around admiring his handiwork. Go figure.
This seems to be more in line with the fact BRW, Norman and Jarman, directly underneath the assassin, never reported anyone running across the floor or coming down the stairs. And Dorothy Garner never saw him/heard him coming down the stairs. And almost all witness describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a white shirt Oswald didn't have. And Oswald reportedly seeing Norman and Jarman enter the building around 12:25PM places him on the first floor, ten minutes after Rowland's man with a rifle on the 6th floor. And on and on...
Never forget - you only have a narrative.
And if you do ever come up with some credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots why don't you "take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet" and put an end to all this?
Pulitzer winning stuff indeed.
If there is anything that I've learned here, it is that the more farfetched a theory, the more fanatical is its proponent because it is a faith based belief. As a result, the proponent is all the more impervious to facts and evidence since they would not have reached this baseless conclusion in the first place had they been capable of reason. So meaningful discussion is impossible. Your problem is not just with LNers, though. To my knowledge there is not a single CTer on this forum who has professed a belief or support for your baseless conclusion that Truly, Shelley, Fritz, and Dougherty all had "foreknowledge" of the assassination. In fact, those that have expressed any opinion share my skepticism which you also rebutted in the same way with insults and snide remarks. Your theory is an outlandish outlier theory even in the JFK CTer community. Which is saying a great deal.
Unlike your baseless theory, no LNer needs to take our conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK to the NY Times or anyone else to have it validated. The official investigations and history books already agree with that conclusion. It does not surprise me, however, that you wish to limit your "evidence" and singular wisdom in uncovering the truth to an Internet forum rather than be exposed and embarrassed in the real world. Imagine the laughter if you made that silly pitch outside the context of this forum to a serious historian or journalist. You must know that is the case since you won't give it try. Now you are dismissed.
-
It’s similar to how one might argue that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the election for Biden. Only ten higher ups in the company knew of this conspiracy. The people lower down did not know this. One programmer was ordered to add 3,000 votes for the Democratic candidate in this county, and a different programmer was told to add 280 votes for the Democratic candidate in this town. But they didn’t realize this was done to rig the entire national election for Biden. Yeah, right.
For a conspiracy theory to be taken seriously, it needs to have some level of evidence. Even if it's mostly circumstantial evidence (as is the case with most JFK assassination theories).
There's zero evidence for the 2020 election rigging thing. It's entirely about protecting Trump's ego by refusing to acknowledge that he lost fair and square.
I think a better comparison for the JFK assassination is the Covid lab leak theory.
Meaning, it's plausible based on circumstantial evidence that the coronavirus accidentally leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China but as of today, there's no smoking gun or conclusive evidence.
I view the JFK assassination pretty much the same way. A conspiracy is plausible but there's no smoking gun.
Okay, there were only ten in the original conspiracy. A conspiracy that will surely be exposed. Except, unbeknownst to the original ten, a bunch of others would decide, independently of each other, to cover up for them. What a lucky break.
If you're involved with the murder of a President, what's your incentive for cooperating with investigators? If you don't get killed before you confess to investigators, you're going to get the chair after conviction for the crime. Those are pretty rational reasons for those who might've been involved keeping silent.
As you may or may not know, several CIA and mafia figures suspected of involvement with the JFK assassination died coincidentally around the time when they began talking to
Congressional investigators. Dead men tell no tales.
And seven or eight to handle the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza. You mean to make certain no policemen or secret service agent immediately arrest or shoot at a shooter? Wouldn’t that take more than seven or eight?
And what sort of tasks did the ones who “unknowingly” helped cover up for the assassination. Unknowingly make fake autopsy reports? Unknowingly plant bullets? How exactly did they help cover things up?
Beyond 2 or 3 two-man teams posted in different parts of Dealey Plaza (one shooter and one lookout) I can't speculate any further about the logistics. I'm only speculating on the bare minimum of conspiracy participants needed to accomplish the job.
Again, I can’t tell how many were involved in covering up for the assassination, if you don’t list all the tasks that they accomplished. What were these tasks. And are they the sort of tasks that no one would figure out what the overall goal was? Since this is a small conspiracy, you should have no problem listing all the tasks.
Sorry but this is a pointless game. What difference does it make how many people were involved with the cover-up?
As I said earlier, people who had no knowledge of or involvement with the conspiracy can still have motives for engaging in cover-ups.
The police don't like for their cases to remain unsolved (especially a high profile case involving the murder of a President). It was in their best interest to close the book quickly and give Americans closure. And other bureaucracies had other concerns. It's that simple.
-
. . .
If you're involved with the murder of a President, what's your incentive for cooperating with investigators? If you don't get killed before you confess to investigators, you're going to get the chair after conviction for the crime. Those are pretty rational reasons for those who might've been involved keeping silent.
I’m not talking about the original 2 or 3 or 10 conspirators. I’m talking about the ones not involved in the assassination but who were investigating it. It seems unlikely that they were all not involved in the conspiracy, but all decided to make decisions that helped cover it up. Just as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy is highly unlikely it is also unlikely that a lot of investigators would, independently of each other, decide to cover things up, since they were not all involved in a large secret enduring conspiracy.
As you may or may not know, several CIA and mafia figures suspected of involvement with the JFK assassination died coincidentally around the time when they began talking to
Congressional investigators. Dead men tell no tales.
Beyond 2 or 3 two-man teams posted in different parts of Dealey Plaza (one shooter and one lookout) I can't speculate any further about the logistics. I'm only speculating on the bare minimum of conspiracy participants needed to accomplish the job.
OK, this is being to sound like a Large-Enduring-Conspiracy. Not involving two or three or ten, but various CIA and Mafia individuals, some of whom had to be eliminated because they knew what had happened.
Sorry but this is a pointless game. What difference does it make how many people were involved with the cover-up?
As I said earlier, people who had no knowledge of or involvement with the conspiracy can still have motives for engaging in cover-ups.
The police don't like for their cases to remain unsolved (especially a high profile case involving the murder of a President). It was in their best interest to close the book quickly and give Americans closure. And other bureaucracies had other concerns. It's that simple.
The people working for the Warren Commission said they wanted to find a conspiracy. It would be the find of their lifetime. It would be their ticket to fame. But they couldn’t find it. Their claims sound plausible to me. I individual policemen would have the same hopes, making a major breakthrough in the case of the century. Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe they were all really part of a Large-Secret-Conspiracy bent on covering it up. Not the Small-Secret-Conspiracy that committed the original murder. But the Large-Secret-Conspiracy that sprang up spontaneously to cover it up.
In conclusion, your tactic seems to be to split the Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy in two parts. A small part, of 2 or 3 or 10, that committed the murder. And the large part that covered it up. Except the large part sprang up spontaneously and so, under your accounting, should not be counted as part of the conspiracy. This is just a clever accounting tactic, which is just as unlikely as saying they were all part of a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. Since it is unlikely that the second large coverup, involving all those people, would just happen to spring up and leave the original plotters off the hook. Unless they decide to bump each other off.
-
I’m not talking about the original 2 or 3 or 10 conspirators. I’m talking about the ones not involved in the assassination but who were investigating it. It seems unlikely that they were all not involved in the conspiracy, but all decided to make decisions that helped cover it up. Just as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy is highly unlikely it is also unlikely that a lot of investigators would, independently of each other, decide to cover things up, since they were not all involved in a large secret enduring conspiracy.
Unlikely based on what specifically?
We know that LBJ and RFK suspected that there was a conspiracy yet still endorsed the Warren Report. That should be proof enough that there were "other" motives for sticking with the Lone Assassin conclusion beyond involvement with the conspiracy.
Why do YOU think LBJ chose to go against his personal belief that there was a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder?
I've already given my opinion based on what Johnson told Earl Warren.
OK, this is being to sound like a Large-Enduring-Conspiracy. Not involving two or three or ten, but various CIA and Mafia individuals, some of whom had to be eliminated because they knew what had happened.
I honestly don't know. It could all be coincidental that people like Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, David Morales, Bill Harvey, and George DeMorenschildt (all suspected of involvement with the assassination) died around the time when Congress began re-investigating the JFK assassination. Or maybe it wasn't coincidental.
The people working for the Warren Commission said they wanted to find a conspiracy. It would be the find of their lifetime. It would be their ticket to fame.
Not if it was an inside job.
If the truth is that individuals within the US national security community participated in the murder of a US President, that sort of thing could bring down our entire political system and cause all sorts of political disorder.
If you think Americans distrusting their government is bad now, imagine how much worse things would be if it were confirmed that Kennedy's assassination was an inside job.
Granted, I'm sure there were individuals within the Warren Commission and Dallas law enforcement who investigated the case in good faith but the people calling the shots and directing the investigations (ie Johnson, Hoover Wade, Dulles, Katzenberg, etc) decided almost immediately that Oswald acted alone before all potential conspiratorial evidence could be addressed.
In conclusion, your tactic seems to be to split the Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy in two parts. A small part, of 2 or 3 or 10, that committed the murder. And the large part that covered it up. Except the large part sprang up spontaneously and so, under your accounting, should not be counted as part of the conspiracy. This is just a clever accounting tactic, which is just as unlikely as saying they were all part of a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. Since it is unlikely that the second large coverup, involving all those people, would just happen to spring up and leave the original plotters off the hook. Unless they decide to bump each other off.
In 2021, if you're still in denial that various institutions covered up information about the Kennedy assassination, you're just as bad as the Conspiracy Theorists that you mock.
neither the FBI nor CIA even deny any longer that they hid stuff from the Warren Commission. The fact that you ignore or downplay those facts is pretty breathtaking.
And if anything, I'm letting those institutions off the hook for their confirmed cover-ups by suggesting that they likely had other motives for doing it besides complicity in Kennedy's murder.
In conclusion, no, I don't believe the persons involved with killing JFK necessarily needed to have the same agenda and motivations as the institutions that covered up things after the assassination. It's plausible in my honest opinion to view the Conspiracy plot against JFK and the various institutional coverups as two entirely separate things...
-
If there is anything that I've learned here, it is that the more farfetched a theory, the more fanatical is its proponent because it is a faith based belief. As a result, the proponent is all the more impervious to facts and evidence since they would not have reached this baseless conclusion in the first place had they been capable of reason. So meaningful discussion is impossible. Your problem is not just with LNers, though. To my knowledge there is not a single CTer on this forum who has professed a belief or support for your baseless conclusion that Truly, Shelley, Fritz, and Dougherty all had "foreknowledge" of the assassination. In fact, those that have expressed any opinion share my skepticism which you also rebutted in the same way with insults and snide remarks. Your theory is an outlandish outlier theory even in the JFK CTer community. Which is saying a great deal.
Unlike your baseless theory, no LNer needs to take our conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK to the NY Times or anyone else to have it validated. The official investigations and history books already agree with that conclusion. It does not surprise me, however, that you wish to limit your "evidence" and singular wisdom in uncovering the truth to an Internet forum rather than be exposed and embarrassed in the real world. Imagine the laughter if you made that silly pitch outside the context of this forum to a serious historian or journalist. You must know that is the case since you won't give it try. Now you are dismissed.
"If there is anything that I've learned here, it is that the more farfetched a theory, the more fanatical is its proponent because it is a faith based belief."
I'm trawling through this mass of contradictory and often misleading evidence and eye-witness testimony, trying to make my own sense of it, my own interpretation of events based on the evidence as it stands. I am trying to create my own narrative from all this. If that narrative agrees with others, all well and good. If it doesn't, so be it.
You, on the other hand, have had your narrative spoon-fed to you like some big baby. You've done nothing to earn it, added nothing to it, questioned nothing.
And you have the audacity to talk about a "faith based belief" as if it doesn't apply to you.
You simply regurgitate what you've swallowed whole.
There is no greater fanatic that he who is absolutely and utterly convinced he is right. You believe you are above the need to engage in any type of discussion and can contemptuously dismiss any serious debate without actually taking part.
But let us not forget this one, mind-blowing fact - there is not one iota of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.
Really think about that. Think about your certainty and the quicksand it is built on.
Not one single, credible piece of evidence!
How can that be?
How can you have so much certainty over so little?
The answer to that is - pure faith.
If there's one thing I've learned here, a fanatic will never consider anything outside his own, spoon-fed beliefs.
"As a result, the proponent is all the more impervious to facts and evidence since they would not have reached this baseless conclusion in the first place had they been capable of reason. So meaningful discussion is impossible."
Again, I would steer the reader to "The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory" to look through the record of the discussion I had with Richard there. It is me presenting the facts, analysing the evidence and proposing theories. Richard is simply in denial, the most telling sign of which is his deliberate refusal to understand the most basic arguments because they cause a problem for him and his faith.
Even in my last post here I'm providing a list of problematic issues as far as Oswald being the shooter:
All the witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor describe him wearing a light/white shirt. Oswald was never described wearing such a shirt at the TSBD and no such shirt was found in his possession.
The only thing Amos Euins can remember is a bald spot. Something Oswald didn't have.
Brennan insists the shooter waited around admiring his handiwork yet seconds later Oswald is confronted in the second floor lunchroom.
Hank Norman can hear the shells hitting the floor but neither he, Williams nor Jarman hear "Oswald" running across the floor just above them.
Dorothy Garner reports hearing Adams and Styles racing down the stairs and Truly coming up the stairs but no Oswald.
Oswald's reported observation of Norman and Jarman entering the TSBD places him on the first floor (in the Domino Room) around 12:25Pm, exactly where he places himself at the time of the assassination.
These are all genuine issues in the evidence for the Oswald-Did-It scenario. The credible evidence for placing Oswald on the
6th floor at the time of the shooting is non-existent but that's good enough for you (because it is a matter of faith in your spoon-fed beliefs).
Argue against these points, I dare you.
"To my knowledge there is not a single CTer on this forum who has professed a belief or support for your baseless conclusion that Truly, Shelley, Fritz, and Dougherty all had "foreknowledge" of the assassination. In fact, those that have expressed any opinion share my skepticism which you also rebutted in the same way with insults and snide remarks. Your theory is an outlandish outlier theory even in the JFK CTer community. Which is saying a great deal."
You have no idea what a compliment this is.
I have often bemoaned the fact that I am, by default, lumped in with the CTer community because I don't accept Oswald was the shooter. I consider myself an "outlier" in this community of mental health issues. The narrative I'm working on is my own, best interpretation of the evidence as I find it and is subject to radical revision in the light of relevant evidence or compelling argument. This is something I have demonstrated elsewhere on this forum. You can make yourself feel like a big man shooting down the farcical nonsense most forum members post here but, as you've already found out, you won't be getting such an easy ride from me.
I'd advise you to do what you did on the other thread, and run along.
"Unlike your baseless theory, no LNer needs to take our conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK to the NY Times or anyone else to have it validated. The official investigations and history books already agree with that conclusion."
Yet another divisive tactic usually reserved for the lunatic fringe - misrepresentation.
I never wrote that you should take your "conclusion" anywhere. This is actually what I posted:
"Never forget - you only have a narrative.
And if you do ever come up with some credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots why don't you "take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet" and put an end to all this?
Pulitzer winning stuff indeed."
The point wasn't about the conclusions you've been spoon-fed and suck up unquestioningly (remember, they're not even your own conclusions, they've been provided for you)
The point of the post was the mind-blowing fact that there is not one jot of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.
Nothing. Nada. Nil.
Only someone of true faith could accept such a thing.
"Now you are dismissed."
Dismissed??
By you ??
:D :D :D :D :D :D
You must be joking.
Isn't it time for your diaper change?
-
The point wasn't about the conclusions you've been spoon-fed and suck up unquestioningly (remember, they're not even your own conclusions, they've been provided for you)
'they've been provided for you'
... by the witnesses
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFbkFC8m/QUOTES-TSBD.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/28StyqFW/QUOTES-BECKLEY-2.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd28KptQ/QUOTES-PATTON-2.png)
billchapman/hunter of trolls
And so on..
Pssst, try Fox News
They'll believe anything.
-
The point wasn't about the conclusions you've been spoon-fed and suck up unquestioningly (remember, they're not even your own conclusions, they've been provided for you)
'they've been provided for you'
... by the witnesses
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFbkFC8m/QUOTES-TSBD.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/28StyqFW/QUOTES-BECKLEY-2.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd28KptQ/QUOTES-PATTON-2.png)
billchapman/hunter of trolls
And so on..
Pssst, try Fox News
They'll believe anything.
Your conclusions were provided for you by the witnesses Bill?
That doesn't make any sense.
Did they phone you?
-
Your conclusions were provided for you by the witnesses Bill?
That doesn't make any sense.
Did they phone you?
You apparently missed the point of the above locations being in quotes
-
You apparently missed the point of the above locations being in quotes
Apparently.
-
Sorry that I can't shoe-horn word-salads in-between those quotation marks.
Hint, hint..
-
No problem
-
No problem
Ditto
Oh, wait... let me leave you my calling card:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YSH8cNSB/whatwhat-update.png)
billchapman/hunter of trolls
-
Unlikely based on what specifically?
Unlikely that all those people would act against the investigation of the JFK murder. Just as it is unlikely that a large group of people would decide to assassinate JFK and keep it a secret. No one would alert the authorities so as to save the President and become a great American hero.
We know that LBJ and RFK suspected that there was a conspiracy yet still endorsed the Warren Report. That should be proof enough that there were "other" motives for sticking with the Lone Assassin conclusion beyond involvement with the conspiracy.
Why do YOU think LBJ chose to go against his personal belief that there was a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder?
I've already given my opinion based on what Johnson told Earl Warren.
Now everyone in the chain of command would drop the investigation. Some would pursue it, if only in the hopes of making the biggest break in their career. People would have to be repeatedly told the drop it. But we don’t have reports of FBI agents or policemen being told to drop it time and time again.
As far as LBJ is concerned, yes, it is clear he feared, in the worst-case scenario, that the Warren Commission, would find that Castro arranged for Kennedy’s murder. In which case, the American public would likely demand an invasion of Cuba to bring Castro to justice. Which might trigger the Soviet Union to retaliate. Like invading West Germany. But, while having these fears, there is no evidence he made certain the Warren Commission made certain they really reined in their investigation. Many who took part said they tried hard to find a conspiracy. It would be the highlight of their career. But could not find a strong link. None say that LBJ or anyone else pressured them to not find anything.
I honestly don't know. It could all be coincidental that people like Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, David Morales, Bill Harvey, and George DeMorenschildt (all suspected of involvement with the assassination) died around the time when Congress began re-investigating the JFK assassination. Or maybe it wasn't coincidental.
OK. So, you are not a Small-Secret-Enduring CTers, who only believes there were two or two involved. You think there were five others. And, I bet, if I looked through your old posts, I would find a lot of other names.
And who ever heard of someone in the Mafia dying? And if someone well known in the Mafia does die, they shoot up to the top of the list of suspects in the JFK assassination. The one who is different is George DeMorenschildt. But, one of the most common forms of death in the elderly is suicide. Particularly if they are running out of money. And DeMorenschildt was under extra stress, about to testify to the HSCA where he would have to answer questions about joking with Oswald about him becoming an “assassin of Fascists”. Or why he suspected Oswald of trying to kill General Walker but just seemed to laugh it off.
And, it is strange, that if the HSCA had discovered a “bombshell”, why did they keep this a secret, even after DeMorenschildt died? Just what questions were they going to ask him that would require him to commit suicide or to be murdered? They have never said.
Not if it was an inside job.
If the truth is that individuals within the US national security community participated in the murder of a US President, that sort of thing could bring down our entire political system and cause all sorts of political disorder.
If you think Americans distrusting their government is bad now, imagine how much worse things would be if it were confirmed that Kennedy's assassination was an inside job.
Again, it’s beginning to sound like a larger conspiracy then the two or three you talked about. Just how large is the conspiracy that you suspect existed?
In conclusion, no, I don't believe the persons involved with killing JFK necessarily needed to have the same agenda and motivations as the institutions that covered up things after the assassination. It's plausible in my honest opinion to view the Conspiracy plot against JFK and the various institutional coverups as two entirely separate things...
A convenient way to pare down the size of the conspiracy. A smaller number of people who knew about the assassination beforehand. And a larger group who acted as if they were part of the conspiracy, but, by coincidence, were following their own motives that just happened to always work against a serious investigation. Whether they worked for the government or the media.
-
Unlikely that all those people would act against the investigation of the JFK murder. Just as it is unlikely that a large group of people would decide to assassinate JFK and keep it a secret. No one would alert the authorities so as to save the President and become a great American hero.
Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden tried to do that and ended up in prison later (falsely accused of corruption). He tried to blow the Whistle on the Chicago assassination plot against JFK.
The US government and Press doesn't treat national security Whistleblowers like heroes. Ask Daniel Ellsberg, Daniel Hale, and Edward Snowden.
Now everyone in the chain of command would drop the investigation. Some would pursue it, if only in the hopes of making the biggest break in their career. People would have to be repeatedly told the drop it. But we don’t have reports of FBI agents or policemen being told to drop it time and time again.
That's false. People were told by higher ups to "drop it".
There are reports of FBI agents, CIA, and diplomats being told to stop investigating conspiratorial leads.
One example was ambassador Thomas Mann. He said he was told to stop investigating Oswald's visit to Mexico City. CIA agents in MC received similar orders:
"...within days of the assassination, the ambassador received an astonishing top-secret message directly from Secretary of State Dean Rusk. According to Mann’s testimony years later to congressional investigators, Rusk ordered the embassy to shut down any investigation in Mexico that might “confirm or refute rumors of Cuban involvement in the assassination.” No reason was given for the order, the ambassador said.
Mann told the congressional investigators that he was under the impression that the same “incredible” shut-down order had been given by the CIA to the spy agency’s station chief in Mexico, Winston Scott."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/jfk-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-mexico-116195/
A decision was made early in the investigations not to pursue conspiratorial leads (ie the Katzenberg memo). It likely started at the White House and flowed down through the various bureaucracies from there.
-
Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden tried to do that and ended up in prison later (falsely accused of corruption). He tried to blow the Whistle on the Chicago assassination plot against JFK.
. . .
OK. Clearly you are not being honest with us. Nor to yourself.
You claim that you are not a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. That the original assassination conspiracy only involved two or three people in Dealey Plaza. Then, you inadvertently revealed five people who had to be killed off in the 1970’s to conceal the plot. Hardly sounds necessary when “only two or three” were involved. And now, once again, you inadvertently reveal that not only was there a plot to kill JFK in Dallas, there was another one in Chicago, and that the Secret Service was involved in both plots, or at least the one in Chicago.
Come on. Come clean with us. Admit that you are a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorist. Even when you try to pare down your beliefs, you can’t go more than a day or two before you reveal that it’s bigger than a conspiracy of just two or three guys. You just can’t help yourself.
I don’t want anymore distractions where you bring up mysterious deaths. Or any alleged Secret Service plots. I just want you to make the case that you really believe the JFK assassination plot consisted of only two or three people who tried to kill JFK and no more than that. Can you do so for more than a day or two? Or will your real beliefs come out because you just can’t help yourself, even when your trying to appear to be only a small conspiracy believer. I wonder if you now claim the conspiracy didn’t involve two or three, but really more like ten or twenty, if a month from now you will be trying to convince us that the conspiracy involved no more than forty to fifty.
The truth is, JFK CTers are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. All the major movies and TV shows, most prominently “JFK”, all the major CT books, push a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
A challenge for any CTer here:
1. Name me one prominent CT movie that does not push a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
2. Name me one prominent CT TV show that does not push a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
3. Name me one prominent CT book that does not push a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
4. Name my one CTer who posts at this forum, who at least initially did not get sucked in by a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy belief?
-
OK. Clearly you are not being honest with us. Nor to yourself.
Terms like "large" "big" "small" are all subjective. Therefore, my definition of a "large" conspiracy isn't necessarily the same as yours.
How many people were involved with Iran-Contra? Was that a "Large Enduring Conspiracy"?
-
Terms like "large" "big" "small" are all subjective. Therefore, my definition of a "large" conspiracy isn't necessarily the same as yours.
A defense that can be made for any Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. All of them will claim, when pressed, that they are really not that large. None of them provide an estimate of how many people were involved in the conspiracy. I don’t know of any JFK conspiracy book or movie that does so. Any more than I know of any such book on the Stolen 2020 Election, or the U. S. Government run 9/11 attack or the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy theories.
I would just like there to be a book that really grabs people, a best seller, on the JFK assassination, that lists all the sub tasks the author thinks were done, and the number of people required to do so. You will never see such a book. Large conspiracies grab the imagination. That is why they have been so successful over the centuries. But the author isn’t going to provide the details that show how implausible it is. Hence, there will be references to the CIA being involved, the FBI being involved. No one could alert the authorities because the police and the press were all involved. And the conspiracy had a large goal, to start a war. Naturally, a book on all this is not going to come up with an estimate of the number of people involved in all this. It would involve too many people to be plausible.
How many people were involved with Iran-Contra? Was that a "Large Enduring Conspiracy"?
No. How many years was this conspiracy kept hidden? 50 years? 40 years? No. It fails to meet the criteria because, while it may have been Large and Secret, the secret did not endure for long. This is a classic example of why Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies do not exist. With too many people involved the secret is bound to be exposed, sooner rather than later.
-
A defense that can be made for any Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. All of them will claim, when pressed, that they are really not that large. None of them provide an estimate of how many people were involved in the conspiracy. I don’t know of any JFK conspiracy book or movie that does so. Any more than I know of any such book on the Stolen 2020 Election, or the U. S. Government run 9/11 attack or the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy theories.
The best JFK assassination books I've read are the ones that don't propose any theory at all (ie "Accessories After The Fact" by Sylvia Meagher). It's possible to be skeptical of the Warren Report and take apart the LN narrative without proposing an alternative theory of who really killed JFK.
It's not possible at this point to know "Who did it" but there seems to be enough holes in the official narrative that we can conclude that the case remains unsolved.
Earlier in the thread I proposed a theory of "what might've happened" but I'd be lying if I said, "I know what really happened". All I said was that I think a minimum of ten people would need to be involved and that not everyone would agree that ten people is a "large conspiracy".
I also noted that the conspiracy and cover-ups are two different categories involving two or more different groups of people with different, and sometimes conflicting motives.
For example, if the intention of blaming a "Communist" who had lived in the USSR for JFK's murder was to provoke a war between the US and Cuba/Soviets, that conflicted with Lyndon Johnson's desire to avoid a military confrontation with the Soviets. So I can see a scenario where Johnson's reaction might've conflicted with the motives of JFK's potential assassins.
If the Mob played a role in a plot against Kennedy, the CIA's motive for a cover-up would be to hide their relationships with Mobsters that were occurring in the early-60s while they were trying to kill Castro.
Those are just two examples to show how different institutions could have different reasons for silence or cover-ups.
I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know what really happened and am always willing to listen to new information.
I would just like there to be a book that really grabs people, a best seller, on the JFK assassination, that lists all the sub tasks the author thinks were done, and the number of people required to do so. You will never see such a book. Large conspiracies grab the imagination. That is why they have been so successful over the centuries. But the author isn’t going to provide the details that show how implausible it is. Hence, there will be references to the CIA being involved, the FBI being involved. No one could alert the authorities because the police and the press were all involved. And the conspiracy had a large goal, to start a war. Naturally, a book on all this is not going to come up with an estimate of the number of people involved in all this. It would involve too many people to be plausible.
Who has the power to investigate the CIA, or FBI, or Dallas PD? Usually law enforcement and intelligence institutions 'investigate themselves' and almost always, those institutions conclude that they 'did nothing wrong' when they investigate themselves.
Yes, there were attempts by Congress to investigate the CIA and FBI in the 1970s and we learned a great deal about some awful things that those agencies had done but Congress only grazed the surface because the CIA and FBI controlled the information that was shown to Congress.
Another obstacle is the fact that people within certain institutions are discouraged from becoming Whistleblowers. In recent years, several national security Whistleblowers have been prosecuted, not celebrated as heroes:
Chelsea Manning exposed US war crimes in Iraq.
Daniel Hale exposed war crimes in the Drone Assassination program.
Reality Winner exposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
All three were sent to prison for unauthorized disclosure of national security secrets.
Edward Snowden would've been prosecuted if he stayed in the US. Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted but he won his case. However, he's the exception, not the rule for national security Whistleblowers.
Against those odds, why do you expect that people in the know inside those institutions would come forward to expose corruption or actual crimes?
Doing so risks one's career, freedom, and in some cases, their life. A few might take the risk but most won't.
The national Press is different from the government. If you report on certain subjects that the political or national security establishment doesn't want to discuss, you simply won't be published. There are a number of examples of reporters who were demoted or fired for covering topics that they were discouraged from reporting on.
Gary Webb had his life and career ruined after his reporting on the CIA's involvement with the cocaine trade.
No. How many years was this conspiracy kept hidden? 50 years? 40 years? No. It fails to meet the criteria because, while it may have been Large and Secret, the secret did not endure for long. This is a classic example of why Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies do not exist. With too many people involved the secret is bound to be exposed, sooner rather than later.
Iran-Contra was exposed accidentally like Watergate. In both cases, we still don't know all the details of what happened as there was some stone-walling by intelligence agencies and enduring cover-ups in those examples still continue.
On a side note, 55 years later it has been all but concluded that the FBI and NYPD manipulated evidence and covered-up details about the 1965 Malcolm X assassination.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/nyregion/malcolm-x-killing-exonerated.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
Conspiracies happen. Cover-ups happen. The remaining question in the Malcolm X case is "Why did they do it?"
Why didn't they want the real killers caught?
-
The best JFK assassination books I've read are the ones that don't propose any theory at all (ie "Accessories After The Fact" by Sylvia Meagher). It's possible to be skeptical of the Warren Report and take apart the LN narrative without proposing an alternative theory of who really killed JFK.
Am I out of line to describe JFK CTers as Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories? The vast majority of JFK CTers certainly are.
What is the biggest influence of CT opinion? The movie JFK.
Let’s take a look at the dialog by “X” (the fore-runner of “Q”, in the popular imagination) at around 1:30:
. . . It is the best indication of a massive plot in Dallas. . . .
This whole dialog is not about a small conspiracy, but a massive one. This is because massive conspiracy theories are what seizes the imagination. That is why conspiracy theories are so persuasive to the masses.
But even the “good quality” books that you mention, which are not read by ten per cent of the CTers, don’t spell out what the conspirators accomplished, what evidence was faked. Nor provide a reasonable estimate on the number of conspirators needed to do this. The only reference to the size of the conspiracy is “Massive” in the movies and books about it. At least the movies and books that appeal to the masses.
. . .
Who has the power to investigate the CIA, or FBI, or Dallas PD? Usually law enforcement and intelligence institutions 'investigate themselves' and almost always, those institutions conclude that they 'did nothing wrong' when they investigate themselves.
Yes, there were attempts by Congress to investigate the CIA and FBI in the 1970s and we learned a great deal about some awful things that those agencies had done but Congress only grazed the surface because the CIA and FBI controlled the information that was shown to Congress.
Another obstacle is the fact that people within certain institutions are discouraged from becoming Whistleblowers. In recent years, several national security Whistleblowers have been prosecuted, not celebrated as heroes:
Chelsea Manning exposed US war crimes in Iraq.
Daniel Hale exposed war crimes in the Drone Assassination program.
Reality Winner exposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
All three were sent to prison for unauthorized disclosure of national security secrets.
Edward Snowden would've been prosecuted if he stayed in the US. Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted but he won his case. However, he's the exception, not the rule for national security Whistleblowers.
Against those odds, why do you expect that people in the know inside those institutions would come forward to expose corruption or actual crimes?
Against what odds? I thought this was only a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy, as you claim. Against such a small conspiracy, there shouldn’t be too much danger in approaching the Secret Service or the Dallas Police with the information about when and where the assassination attempt was to take place.
I think you are trying to argue it both ways. The conspiracy was too large to make it safe to inform on it. But we should still think of this as only a small conspiracy of only about ten people.
. . .
Iran-Contra was exposed accidentally like Watergate. In both cases, we still don't know all the details of what happened as there was some stone-walling by intelligence agencies and enduring cover-ups in those examples still continue.
Which is exactly what one would expect to happen to a Large-Secret Conspiracy. And may happen to a Small-Secret Conspiracy. “Accidents” tend to happen when too many people are involved.
A better example, if you can come up with one, on how a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy can work, is to come up with one that held its secret for twenty years or so, and then fell apart. If it can keep its secrets for twenty years, maybe another could keep its secrets for fifty years or more. Coming up with examples that fell apart within a year or two does not help you make your case. Which is why skeptics have always been skeptical of Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. When they are attempted, they fall apart.
On a side note, 55 years later it has been all but concluded that the FBI and NYPD manipulated evidence and covered-up details about the 1965 Malcolm X assassination.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/nyregion/malcolm-x-killing-exonerated.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
Conspiracies happen. Cover-ups happen. The remaining question in the Malcolm X case is "Why did they do it?"
Why didn't they want the real killers caught?
I don’t think there has ever been much mystery about who brought about the death of Malcolm X. Elijah Muhammad wanted him dead.
But this is the best example of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy? Elijah Muhammad was suspected of being behind it right from the get go. You may have other sources claim that it was the government, that it was the police. But I don’t believe them.
Where is the evidence that Thomas Hagan was not one of the shooters?
Basically, what I want is a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy, that kept its secret for twenty years. Or at least ten years. And, like the Iran-Contra, we all know it happened. Not supporting one dubious CT theory (JFK, not killed by Oswald) with another dubious CT theory (Malcolm X, not killed by the Nation of Islam).
-
Am I out of line to describe JFK CTers as Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories? The vast majority of JFK CTers certainly are.
Most Americans are "CT-ers."
A majority of men, women, white people, people of color, registered voters, non-registered voters, old people, young people, Democrats, Republicans and so on all believe that more than one person was involved in Kennedy’s assassination. This is one of the few questions in this polarized age on which you can even find agreement among Hillary Clinton voters (59 percent believe in a conspiracy) and Trump voters (61 percent).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
What is the biggest influence of CT opinion?
The Zapruder film
Let’s take a look at the dialog by “X” (the fore-runner of “Q”, in the popular imagination) at around 1:30:
. . . It is the best indication of a massive plot in Dallas. . . .
You want to debate Oliver Stone so badly it hurts. :)
I've watched the movie 'JFK' and I will admit that I still enjoy it to this day. However, I'm aware that it's heavily dramatized and formed my own opinions on the assassination independent of the film.
You want to blame "Oliver Stone" for the endurance of JFK conspiracy theories.
The truth is quite obvious. There's a lot of weird and unresolved stuff in the JFK assassination and the combination of Oswald's murder plus the Zapruder film are why JFK conspiracy theories will continue to endure.
No one honestly learns of those things (Oswald's public murder and the Zapruder film) and doesn't at least think the official story stinks.
How many Americans under age 50 have even watched the movie 'JFK'? I suspect very few.
-
Most Americans are "CT-ers."
A majority of men, women, white people, people of color, registered voters, non-registered voters, old people, young people, Democrats, Republicans and so on all believe that more than one person was involved in Kennedy’s assassination. This is one of the few questions in this polarized age on which you can even find agreement among Hillary Clinton voters (59 percent believe in a conspiracy) and Trump voters (61 percent).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
Skeptics have never denied the power of Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories, and their power over the imagination of people. Of the ability of these theories to convince many, or even the majority, of their truth. That is why skeptics over the centuries have put a lot of effort to argue against these theories, to show how greatly improbable they are.
The Zapruder film
But the Zapruder film is not convincing, unless one has never seen film of animals being shot in the brain, which can cause their bodies to move in directions that do not indicate the source of the shot. If one first was to make a five-minute presentation showing how animals move when shot through the brain, explaining how the stronger muscles overcome the weaker muscles, how the movement is bilaterally symmetrical, which all causes terrestrial animals to bend their torso’s back and raise their forelimbs (or arms), the Zapruder film would not be convincing at all. The effect of the Zapruder film requires people to be ignorant of the neurological spasm that bullet through brains cause. Something that is not easily shown with people, simply because it is considered immoral to show a person being killed in this manner, but is easily shown with animals, where we don’t have the same kind of qualms.
You want to debate Oliver Stone so badly it hurts. :)
I am not a good debater. I don’t want to debate anyone. The better debater wins debates regardless of the truth or lack of truth that each debater has on their side.
I've watched the movie 'JFK' and I will admit that I still enjoy it to this day. However, I'm aware that it's heavily dramatized and formed my own opinions on the assassination independent of the film.
You want to blame "Oliver Stone" for the endurance of JFK conspiracy theories.
The truth is quite obvious. There's a lot of weird and unresolved stuff in the JFK assassination and the combination of Oswald's murder plus the Zapruder film are why JFK conspiracy theories will continue to endure.
No one honestly learns of those things (Oswald's public murder and the Zapruder film) and doesn't at least think the official story stinks.
How many Americans under age 50 have even watched the movie 'JFK'? I suspect very few.
Millions of Americans have seen the movie JFK and it does have a large effect. But its not just the movie JFK. TV shows and books never argue for a small conspiracy in the JFK case.
Question:
Can you name a single movie, TV show or book that argues for a JFK Conspiracy but that argues against a large conspiracy but instead argues for a small conspiracy? And stresses that large conspiracies (that remain secret) are inherently improbable but that small conspiracies can occur (which I would agree with)?
If you can, does this movie, TV show or book prominent, has a large effect on the CTers, or is just some obscure work that most CTers are unaware of?
A movie or book could make a more logical argument if it did make such a claim in favor of a small conspiracy. But it would rob this work of its biggest potential power, the lure of a large conspiracy that has such a powerful effect of the imagination. That is why you don’t see such movies or books, because, despite the logic of this approach, people won’t find it compelling.
-
Skeptics have never denied the power of Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories, and their power over the imagination of people. Of the ability of these theories to convince many, or even the majority, of their truth. That is why skeptics over the centuries have put a lot of effort to argue against these theories, to show how greatly improbable they are.
I'm a skeptic about most conspiracy theories.
There are a few CT's where I'm more open-minded and the JFK assassination is one example due to the inconclusive EVIDENCE.
It's not baseless conspiracy speculation like faked moon landings or Q-Anon...
But the Zapruder film is not convincing, unless one has never seen film of animals being shot in the brain, which can cause their bodies to move in directions that do not indicate the source of the shot. If one first was to make a five-minute presentation showing how animals move when shot through the brain, explaining how the stronger muscles overcome the weaker muscles, how the movement is bilaterally symmetrical, which all causes terrestrial animals to bend their torso’s back and raise their forelimbs (or arms), the Zapruder film would not be convincing at all. The effect of the Zapruder film requires people to be ignorant of the neurological spasm that bullet through brains cause. Something that is not easily shown with people, simply because it is considered immoral to show a person being killed in this manner, but is easily shown with animals, where we don’t have the same kind of qualms.
I'm aware of the explanations of JFK's reaction to the headshot but to most lay people, the Zapruder film suggests a shot from the front and it's totally understandable why people respond to the film that way.
My opinion that there might have been a shot from the front is based on the statements of the Parkland doctors and other witnesses about JFK's head wound. It's not based solely on the Zapruder film.
Can you name a single movie, TV show or book that argues for a JFK Conspiracy but that argues against a large conspiracy but instead argues for a small conspiracy? And stresses that large conspiracies (that remain secret) are inherently improbable but that small conspiracies can occur (which I would agree with)?
There's a few JFK CT films that suggest he was killed by the Mob, not the MIC or CIA. I think that's the premise of the 90s movie, "Ruby" and the Netflix movie, "the Irishman" also hints at mob involvement with Kennedy's assassination.
Again, I don't think everyone shares your definition of a "large conspiracy".
But large conspiracies happen too. Look up COINTELPRO for example.