JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on January 25, 2024, 10:54:42 PM
-
Do you think it is possible for somebody to be involved in some sort of scheme which is a minor part of a bigger scheme, that somebody knows nothing about?
-
Do you think it is possible for somebody to be involved in some sort of scheme which is a minor part of a bigger scheme, that somebody knows nothing about?
Why beat around the bush, your "somebody" is obviously Oswald and the people behind the "bigger scheme" are clearly the people who wanted Kennedy dead.
Now, let's examine this closely.
1. Kennedy was nearing the end of his term.
2. Why Kill Kennedy with all the potential headaches and the threat of the Electric chair, when you can simply blackmail Kennedy about his womanizing ways?
3. Or blackmail him about his drug use?
4. Or bring his lies about his Addison disease into the open.
5. Or All three of the above.
6. If the people behind the Bigger Scheme could do all the manipulation that took months before and after, why wouldn't they secure Oswald, but instead idiotically, let him just roam about the building?
7. If Oswald was in fact a minor player, why wouldn't a car be waiting for him and then they could just take Oswald away and let him disappear?
8. Why let Oswald be arrested and potentially blab?
9. In the theatre, and after Oswald pulled out his weapon, killing Oswald in self defense wouldn't be a problem.
10. If Oswald was a minor player, then he must have had some idea, so why let Oswald blab to his family, and in the Police halls, and why give him a Press conference?
I could go on and on, but any scenario in which Oswald wasn't just a silly little commie lone nut, just doesn't make sense.
JohnM
-
Why beat around the bush, your "somebody" is obviously Oswald and the people behind the "bigger scheme" are clearly the people who wanted Kennedy dead.
Now, let's examine this closely.
1. Kennedy was nearing the end of his term.
2. Why Kill Kennedy with all the potential headaches and the threat of the Electric chair, when you can simply blackmail Kennedy about his womanizing ways?
3. Or blackmail him about his drug use?
4. Or bring his lies about his Addison disease into the open.
5. Or All three of the above.
6. If the people behind the Bigger Scheme could do all the manipulation that took months before and after, why wouldn't they secure Oswald, but instead idiotically, let him just roam about the building?
7. If Oswald was in fact a minor player, why wouldn't a car be waiting for him and then they could just take Oswald away and let him disappear?
8. Why let Oswald be arrested and potentially blab?
9. In the theatre, and after Oswald pulled out his weapon, killing Oswald in self defense wouldn't be a problem.
10. If Oswald was a minor player, then he must have had some idea, so why let Oswald blab to his family, and in the Police halls, and why give him a Press conference?
I could go on and on, but any scenario in which Oswald wasn't just a silly little commie lone nut, just doesn't make sense.
JohnM
My very simple question required only a "yes" or "no" answer.
Not a list of "reasons" why it doesn't make sense to you.
-
Do you think it is possible for somebody to be involved in some sort of scheme which is a minor part of a bigger scheme, that somebody knows nothing about?
This is a good question, and of course the answer should be an obvious Yes. When we look at other conspiracies that were eventually at least partially exposed, we see plenty of cases where many of the people who participated in the conspiracy did so without knowing they were aiding a conspiracy or did so with only very limited knowledge of the conspiracy.
This brings up the point that WC apologists constantly invoke the strawman scenario of a massive, all-controlling, all-powerful, all-knowing conspiracy that should not have made any mistakes of any kind, ala the outlandish Oliver Stone-Fletcher Prouty conspiracy theory in Stone's 1991 movie JFK.
The better, more-credible, more-responsible researchers posit no such fantastic scenario. We recognize that throughout history, even some carefully planned military operations were plagued by numerous mistakes and oversights when they were executed, even though they still accomplished their primary objectives. We posit the following about the JFK assassination plot:
-- A major motive, if not the primary motive, was revenge. Hence the public execution.
-- Another major motive was to provide a clear warning to others who might have been thinking about doing what JFK did. Hence the public execution.
-- Many mistakes were made, some of them huge, and some unexpected developments occurred. For example:
* Connally was not supposed to be hit.
* Oswald was not supposed to leave the TSBD alive.
* There were too many misses, misses that witnesses saw strike and/or that left visible bullet marks that were seen by witnesses and then by journalists and others (the Aldredge curb hit, the Tague curb hit, the pavement hit, and the south Elm St. manhole-cover-grass hit).
* It took the gunmen too many shots to kill JFK.
* Because there were several misses and because it took too many shots to kill JFK, the Zapruder film could not be edited enough to make it support the lone-gunman theory, which is why it was suppressed for years and was not shown to the public until 1975 (when Geraldo Rivera ignored threats of legal action and showed the film on national TV).
* A Dallas patrolman accidentally recorded the shooting because his mic remained stuck in the open position.
* Some FBI personnel issued honest reports that contained evidence that contradicted the lone-shooter story (e.g., the initial FBI lab report on the JFK shirt slits and the Sibert & O'Neill report on the autopsy, to name two examples).
-- Many powerful elements in the government were either not part of the plot or did not know that some/most of the main plotters hoped to use JFK's death to spark an invasion of Cuba, and these elements prevented those plotters from using the assassination to provoke an invasion of Cuba. I have many issues with James Douglass's book JFK and the Unspeakable, but one of the valid and valuable disclosures in his book is the documentation that Hoover and Johnson and other officials issued stern cease-and-desist orders to those CIA officials who were trying to pin the assassination on Castro via news stories about real and phony Oswald-Cuba/Castro connections.
-- The CIA elements that were involved in the assassination were rogue elements who were operating without the knowledge or consent of CIA Director John McCone and his staff.
-- In the case of the Mafia elements involved in the plot, they acted (1) because RFK had humiliated Carlos Marcello and (2) because JFK, via RFK, was in the process of waging an unprecedented war on the Mafia and was working to shut down the lucrative Marcello, Trafficante, and Giancana operations.
-- The autopsy doctors were ordered to do what they did and were told that this was necessary for reasons of vital national security. To varying degrees, over the years the autopsy doctors disclosed damning information about JFK's wounds while still appearing to maintain their pro-WC position. Although Humes eventually succumbed to the HSCA FPP's intense pressure to go along with the cowlick entry site, Finck and Boswell adamantly refused to do so. Finck even questioned the origin of the back-of-head autopsy photo when the FPP pressed him about the red spot in the photo. Also, Humes later repudiated the cowlick site and returned to his original position on the rear head entry wound. Dr. Boswell, in particular, made a number of crucial and historic disclosures about JFK's wounds to the ARRB.
-
Why beat around the bush, your "somebody" is obviously Oswald and the people behind the "bigger scheme" are clearly the people who wanted Kennedy dead.
Maybe he is asking for a friend. LOL. Imagine the mindset that conflates what is "possible" with the facts and evidence. Almost anything is conceivably "possible." That alone does not give it any validity. It's possible that the Earth is not round. All the evidence of such could be faked. I've never walked around it to confirm. So perhaps it is just my "assumption" that all the evidence lends itself to that conclusion. This is endlessly repeated Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy that takes every thread down the same rabbit hole.
-
Maybe he is asking for a friend. LOL. Imagine the mindset that conflates what is "possible" with the facts and evidence. Almost anything is conceivably "possible." That alone does not give it any validity. It's possible that the Earth is not round. All the evidence of such could be faked. I've never walked around it to confirm. So perhaps it is just my "assumption" that all the evidence lends itself to that conclusion. This is endlessly repeated Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy that takes every thread down the same rabbit hole.
And another dishonest LN, who is too afraid to simply answer "yes" or "no" bites the dust.
Imagine the mindset that conflates what is "possible" with the facts and evidence.
You mean the guy who claims it was possible for Oswald to come down the stairs unnoticed, despite the fact there is no evidence for it, or for that matter for him being on the 6th floor in the first place?
Almost anything is conceivably "possible." That alone does not give it any validity.
So, we agree there is no validity to the claim that Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed, simply because it is possible? Great, that's progress...
-
Do you think it is possible for somebody to be involved in some sort of scheme which is a minor part of a bigger scheme, that somebody knows nothing about?
Yes and that is possibly where Oswald was at.
He could also have been on his independent mission that day - unconnected to the (very small) conspiracy that was playing out at the same time. Explains everything and everyone here can get on fine.
-
Why beat around the bush, your "somebody" is obviously Oswald and the people behind the "bigger scheme" are clearly the people who wanted Kennedy dead.
Now, let's examine this closely.
6. If the people behind the Bigger Scheme could do all the manipulation that took months before and after, why wouldn't they secure Oswald, but instead idiotically, let him just roam about the building?
7. If Oswald was in fact a minor player, why wouldn't a car be waiting for him and then they could just take Oswald away and let him disappear?
8. Why let Oswald be arrested and potentially blab?
10. If Oswald was a minor player, then he must have had some idea, so why let Oswald blab to his family, and in the Police halls, and why give him a Press conference?
And if Oswald was totally unconnected to the conspirator's plot? That theory reconciles everything. The problem with everyone here is that they feels that it has to be black or white.
-
Why beat around the bush, your "somebody" is obviously Oswald and the people behind the "bigger scheme" are clearly the people who wanted Kennedy dead.
Now, let's examine this closely.
1. Kennedy was nearing the end of his term.
2. Why Kill Kennedy with all the potential headaches and the threat of the Electric chair, when you can simply blackmail Kennedy about his womanizing ways?
3. Or blackmail him about his drug use?
4. Or bring his lies about his Addison disease into the open.
5. Or All three of the above.
6. If the people behind the Bigger Scheme could do all the manipulation that took months before and after, why wouldn't they secure Oswald, but instead idiotically, let him just roam about the building?
7. If Oswald was in fact a minor player, why wouldn't a car be waiting for him and then they could just take Oswald away and let him disappear?
8. Why let Oswald be arrested and potentially blab?
9. In the theatre, and after Oswald pulled out his weapon, killing Oswald in self defense wouldn't be a problem.
10. If Oswald was a minor player, then he must have had some idea, so why let Oswald blab to his family, and in the Police halls, and why give him a Press conference?
I could go on and on, but any scenario in which Oswald wasn't just a silly little commie lone nut, just doesn't make sense.
JohnM
in regard number 10 the DPD had little choice but to allow the media to see Oswald and allow him to speak briefly to prove he was not being mistreated . also you have dreamed up a massive conspiracy that involves everyone it seems bar santa . so now your theory is that the DPD would have to have been party to jfks assassination ? lol . it is funny that you guys think up this nonsense and then attempt to falsely attribute it to CT lol .
" In the theatre, and after Oswald pulled out his weapon, killing Oswald in self defense wouldn't be a problem"
wouldnt it ? i know it was the 60s and not today but the arrested man is screaming I Am not resisting arrest , i am not resisting arrest ,and i protest this police brutality AND YOU THINK THAT THE DPD BLOWING HIM AWAY IN FRONT OF WITNESSES WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM ? lol .
pretty much all that remains in your much repeated post is well speculation and theory . why do LN seemingly prefer to talk so much more about speculation and theory and not so much about that which we can prove or disprove ? . why is a yes or no answer so difficult for LN ?. not every question can be answered with yes or no , some times we have to qualify the answer . but in this instance the question asked is not that difficult yet this far LN have not answered . its funny .
-
And if Oswald was totally unconnected to the conspirator's plot? That theory reconciles everything. The problem with everyone here is that they feels that it has to be black or white.
No it doesn't. There is a ton of evidence left to connect Oswald to the crime. It is found quickly. As a result, Oswald is either the assassin or someone planned to frame him for the crime by planting evidence in advance that links Oswald to the crime. His rifle for example. Either way, Oswald is connected to the plot in advance of the crime.
-
in regard number 10 the DPD had little choice but to allow the media to see Oswald and allow him to speak briefly to prove he was not being mistreated . also you have dreamed up a massive conspiracy that involves everyone it seems bar santa . so now your theory is that the DPD would have to have been party to jfks assassination ? lol . it is funny that you guys think up this nonsense and then attempt to falsely attribute it to CT lol .
The DPD "had little choice but to allow the media to see Oswald"? Huh. Oswald was in custody. The DPD had no obligation to allow the media to have access to him. He was in jail. They had complete control over his movements and who he spoke with. Good grief. Obviously, if the DPD were involved in a plot to frame Oswald and wanted to silence him, they wouldn't have arrested him and allowed him to speak to the media and family. There were numerous opportunities to kill him before even taking him into custody. But you think the plan was to arrest him, allow him to speak to the media, and then find someone willing to murder him in front of law enforcement who is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail while keeping quiet. That is the plan? LOL.
-
The DPD "had little choice but to allow the media to see Oswald"? Huh. Oswald was in custody. The DPD had no obligation to allow the media to have access to him. He was in jail. They had complete control over his movements and who he spoke with. Good grief. Obviously, if the DPD were involved in a plot to frame Oswald and wanted to silence him, they wouldn't have arrested him and allowed him to speak to the media and family. There were numerous opportunities to kill him before even taking him into custody. But you think the plan was to arrest him, allow him to speak to the media, and then find someone willing to murder him in front of law enforcement who is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail while keeping quiet. That is the plan? LOL.
They could let a couple of "CIA controlled" reporters - remember the conspiracy people are always making this claim about how they controlled the media - meet with Oswald and clear any questions about his treatment.
If you're worried about him exposing your plot, revealing your murder of the president and assorted other crimes, you sure as hell don't do this below. C'mon, conspiracy people have to believe utter nonsense in order for their conspiracy to work out. This is just absurd; they are NOT going to allow this IF they know he could expose them.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184921/m1/1/high_res/)
-
...Oswald is either the assassin or someone planned to frame him for the crime by planting evidence in advance that links Oswald to the crime.
I don't see either of those scenarios fitting what happened. Oswald as an LN shooter, yes (unconnected to the hired assassin), but I don't buy the elaborate pre November 22nd framing.
-
They could let a couple of "CIA controlled" reporters - remember the conspiracy people are always making this claim about how they controlled the media - meet with Oswald and clear any questions about his treatment.
If you're worried about him exposing your plot, revealing your murder of the president and assorted other crimes, you sure as hell don't do this below. C'mon, conspiracy people have to believe utter nonsense in order for their conspiracy to work out. This is just absurd; they are NOT going to allow this IF they know he could expose them.
I suggest that the conspirators knew nothing of Oswald before November 22nd and played no part in the following framing of him for the murder.
-
The DPD "had little choice but to allow the media to see Oswald"? Huh. Oswald was in custody. The DPD had no obligation to allow the media to have access to him. He was in jail. They had complete control over his movements and who he spoke with. Good grief. Obviously, if the DPD were involved in a plot to frame Oswald and wanted to silence him, they wouldn't have arrested him and allowed him to speak to the media and family. There were numerous opportunities to kill him before even taking him into custody. But you think the plan was to arrest him, allow him to speak to the media, and then find someone willing to murder him in front of law enforcement who is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail while keeping quiet. That is the plan? LOL.
you are talking about LEGAL OBLIGATION , i was not talking about that . the DPD came under pressure to allow the media to see oswald ,to see that he was not being mistreated, that is what i said .
i have never said that the DPD played a part in jfks assassination , after all YOUR theory (not mine ) would require a reason for the DPD to want to murder Oswald YES ? . so YOUR theory infers a direct involvement of the DPD in jfks death such that they then would then have a requirement (to plan) to shut Oswald up permanently . i have never claimed this or anything like it , it is sheer LN imagination .
Mr ruby is a seperate matter , we know he was there , we know what he did in that basement , its on film . and we know what HE said and what witnesses said about him . for this we dont need theory , a little speculation has its place of course , but we dont need wild LN theory .Mr ruby however is a topic that warrants its own thread , i am sure there probably is one already .
-
I suggest that the conspirators knew nothing of Oswald before November 22nd and played no part in the following framing of him for the murder.
Well, that makes you unique among the conspiracists who believe the reason he was killed by Ruby was to prevent him from exposing their actions. Of course, then they have to silence Ruby to prevent him from exposing things; something that didn't happen. Then all of the people involved in the conspiracy, directly and indirectly, had to remain silent. Then the investigations into what happened had to cover it up. Then the news media which investigated the event had to cover it up. Multiple generations of Americans in government and out of it had to cover it up. This is absurd. But this is what the leading JFK conspiracists - Stone, DiEugenio et al. - claim happened.
Once again though: if Oswald could have exposed the plot, revealed the assassins of the president, then why permit him to potentially do so so many times? He had unmonitored meetings with his wife, his brother, his mother and the head of the Dallas Bar Association. Then he had chances to tell the media - the police station was filled with dozens of them - what really happened. But he never did.
-
Well, that makes you unique among the conspiracists who believe the reason he was killed by Ruby was to prevent him from exposing their actions. Of course, then they have to silence Ruby to prevent him from exposing things; something that didn't happen. Then all of the people involved in the conspiracy, directly and indirectly, had to remain silent. Then the investigations into what happened had to cover it up. Then the news media which investigated the event had to cover it up. Multiple generations of Americans in government and out of it had to cover it up. This is absurd. But this is what the leading JFK conspiracists - Stone, DiEugenio et al. - claim happened.
Once again though: if Oswald could have exposed the plot, revealed the assassins of the president, then why permit him to potentially do so so many times? He had unmonitored meetings with his wife, his brother, his mother and the head of the Dallas Bar Association. Then he had chances to tell the media - the police station was filled with dozens of them - what really happened. But he never did.
let me guess you are one of those LN who asserts (as far as this case is concerned ) that anyone who does a hit must then be hit them selves lol lol . in which case why would anyone desire to be a hitman if carrying out a hit would mean being hit yourself and certain death .
"Then the investigations into what happened had to cover it up "
but they did cover up , they deceived , lied , sealed away testimonies that disputed them etc etc . why would honest panels supposedly conducting honest investigations do that ? . can you explain that ? .
-
let me guess you are one of those LN who asserts (as far as this case is concerned ) that anyone who does a hit must then be hit them selves lol lol . in which case why would anyone desire to be a hitman if carrying out a hit would mean being hit yourself and certain death .
"Then the investigations into what happened had to cover it up "
but they did cover up , they deceived , lied , sealed away testimonies that disputed them etc etc . why would honest panels supposedly conducting honest investigations do that ? . can you explain that ? .
Let me guess in return: You think hitmen kill their targets in broad daylight and surrounded by dozens of police officers who proceed to immediately arrest them? And these hitmen essentially commit suicide - throw away their lives - for what reason?
Or do you think they kill their targets in secret, away from the public where they then make their escape? Then they get paid for their work.
Which makes more sense? The first - killing a person in broad daylight and immediately being arrested? - or the second - doing it covertly where you're not captured and can get your compensation? More important, what is the documented history of hitmen for the Mob et cetera? Do they kill their targets on orders in broad daylight where they are certain to be arrested? Or do they do it covertly where they can escape? Would you hire a hitmen to kill a person for you with the certainty they would be arrested? Why? Wouldn't you worry that he would expose you? Tell who paid him for his work? And why would that person agree to giving his life away? This is what you think Ruby dd. It's completely illogical.
They are called hitmen for a reason: they are hired to kill people, plural. Not a person.
Question: So what did Ruby get for his work, for murdering Oswald, for throwing away his life? What was his compensation? Do you have any evidence he got anything? He's going to jail for life; what is $10,000 or $50,000 going to do for him even if he got paid? He's got no family either. Where is the money going?
As to the second: The assassination is the most investigated event in US history. Multiple generations of Americans in the government and in the media have investigated it. We can add historians and scholars who studied the lives of the major figures. There is no evidence as a result of all of these investigations in this absurd alleged conspiracy behind the event. If you think all of these Americans would do this - for what reason? - then you are removed from the real world. The lying and deception had nothing to do with who shot JFK in Dallas.
Why the hell would the media cover up for this? It's silly.
-
Let me guess in return: You think hitmen kill their targets in broad daylight and surrounded by dozens of police officers who proceed to immediately arrest them? And these hitmen essentially commit suicide - throw away their lives - for what reason?
Or do you think they kill their targets in secret, away from the public where they then make their escape? Then they get paid for their work.
Which makes more sense? The first - killing a person in broad daylight and immediately being arrested? - or the second - doing it covertly where you're not captured and can get your compensation? More important, what is the documented history of hitmen for the Mob et cetera? Do they kill their targets on orders in broad daylight where they are certain to be arrested? Or do they do it covertly where they can escape? Would you hire a hitmen to kill a person for you with the certainty they would be arrested? Why? Wouldn't you worry that he would expose you? Tell who paid him for his work? And why would that person agree to giving his life away? This is what you think Ruby dd. It's completely illogical.
They are called hitmen for a reason: they are hired to kill people, plural. Not a person.
Question: So what did Ruby get for his work, for murdering Oswald, for throwing away his life? What was his compensation? Do you have any evidence he got anything? He's going to jail for life; what is $10,000 or $50,000 going to do for him even if he got paid? He's got no family either. Where is the money going?
As to the second: The assassination is the most investigated event in US history. Multiple generations of Americans in the government and in the media have investigated it. We can add historians and scholars who studied the lives of the major figures. There is no evidence as a result of all of these investigations in this absurd alleged conspiracy behind the event. If you think all of these Americans would do this - for what reason? - then you are removed from the real world. The lying and deception had nothing to do with who shot JFK in Dallas.
Why the hell would the media cover up for this? It's silly.
"Let me guess in return: You think hitmen kill their targets in broad daylight and surrounded by dozens of police officers who proceed to immediately arrest them? "
let me guess , you are talking about Mr ruby ? . your question here might have some relevance if i had posted and claimed that he was a hitman . but i can assure you that you wont find any such wording in any of my posts here . i have not said it nor do (as you falsely claimed ) think it , unless you claim now to be a mind reader .nor have i offered you or anyone here a theory or an absurd theory of any kind .so then your comment is moot .
""Then the investigations into what happened had to cover it up "
but they did cover up , they deceived , lied , sealed away testimonies that disputed them etc etc . why would honest panels supposedly conducting honest investigations do that ? . can you explain that ? .
why did you fail to reply to the above ? . however it appears you have admitted the so called investigations as you called them deceived and lied .lets see .
"The lying and deception had nothing to do with who shot JFK in Dallas"
so who do you say lied and deceived and why ? .
-
Question: So what did Ruby get for his work, for murdering Oswald, for throwing away his life? What was his compensation? Do you have any evidence he got anything? He's going to jail for life; what is $10,000 or $50,000 going to do for him even if he got paid? He's got no family either.
Ruby told Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald."
-
The question was raised why did not the hypothetical conspirators choose to manipulate JFK by blackmail rather than kill him?
Well they DID try to manipulate JFK at first but after the BOP covert operation refusal by JFK to release air force , and then the behind the scenes negotiation with Kruschev in the 62 missive crisis, the MIC and the War hawk Chiefs of Staff like Curtis LeMay considered JFK to be a traitor and the CIA heads Dulles and Angelton thought he was a national security threat.
JFK was not going to be manipulated, and he was standing in the way of the MIC, CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as a few angry Mafia heads, one of whom JFK had ordered to be kidnapped and dropped in the jungle, a man whom managed to survive and make his way back to Miami FL and most likely made contact with disgruntled. BOP survivors /CIA mercenary’s whom had motive to “cut off the head of the snake”
The shear vitriol expressed by many of these persons demonstrates why there’s so many CTs still questioning if the WC theory of no conspiracy, is tge correct conclusion.