JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael Walton on April 17, 2025, 02:00:18 PM
-
The conspiracy doesn't have to be complicated. And it wasn't. To whit:
You have some low level people making a few bucks snitching, etc. for the good of the nation. They act like they're one thing [Marxists] but are something else [ex military, etc.]. Very similar to how Donald Trump became a paid agent of Russia today but will occasionally spout anti-Russia stuff just to keep things on the level.
Presidents used to ride in open cars with no problem. Look it up - Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy. Perfect advantage to a cross fire.
You know - on the QT - the president is traveling to Dallas. Perfect. Scout the area, create a fake sniper's nest, plant the fake gun, etc. Not hard to do.
Have your shooters practice in an undisclosed location.
The day comes, the guy taking the fall works in the fake sniper's nest building, the car comes down the street, they stick their guns out and fire [one from Dal-Tex] one from somewhere on the knoll, the deed is done. Perfect.
From there, it's easy to control the message. The Dallas police can easily be manipulated. You got the patsy going to his rooming house [how in the world could a guy making a buck 25 an hour afford to live with his wife and kids AND afford a rooming house too? Uh huh, sure].
Get him to go to the theater to "wait." Gun down a police officer and then "lead" the cops to the theater. Perfect...but not quite. Somewhere along the way, he's not murdered too during a possible shootout.
He starts spouting things when he knows the jig is up. Time to go. Let his murderer waltz right into the garage and he guns him down.
From there, it's pretty much media manipulation of the story, putting on the big show in DC, etc. Pretty much how it's going on in DC today - manipulating the MAGATs in the news.
Not too hard to do.
-
The conspiracy doesn't have to be complicated. And it wasn't. To whit:
You have some low level people making a few bucks snitching, etc. for the good of the nation. They act like they're one thing [Marxists] but are something else [ex military, etc.]. Very similar to how Donald Trump became a paid agent of Russia today but will occasionally spout anti-Russia stuff just to keep things on the level.
Presidents used to ride in open cars with no problem. Look it up - Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy. Perfect advantage to a cross fire.
You know - on the QT - the president is traveling to Dallas. Perfect. Scout the area, create a fake sniper's nest, plant the fake gun, etc. Not hard to do.
Have your shooters practice in an undisclosed location.
The day comes, the guy taking the fall works in the fake sniper's nest building, the car comes down the street, they stick their guns out and fire [one from Dal-Tex] one from somewhere on the knoll, the deed is done. Perfect.
From there, it's easy to control the message. The Dallas police can easily be manipulated. You got the patsy going to his rooming house [how in the world could a guy making a buck 25 an hour afford to live with his wife and kids AND afford a rooming house too? Uh huh, sure].
Get him to go to the theater to "wait." Gun down a police officer and then "lead" the cops to the theater. Perfect...but not quite. Somewhere along the way, he's not murdered too during a possible shootout.
He starts spouting things when he knows the jig is up. Time to go. Let his murderer waltz right into the garage and he guns him down.
From there, it's pretty much media manipulation of the story, putting on the big show in DC, etc. Pretty much how it's going on in DC today - manipulating the MAGATs in the news.
Not too hard to do.
I would hope this is exceedingly tongue-in-cheek, no?
"Scout the area, create a fake sniper's nest, plant the fake gun, etc. Not hard to do."
Well, actually, phenomenally hard to do at almost every twist and turn.
In your hopefully exceedingly tongue-in-cheek way, you have made precisely the point I made in the original post in my "If I had planned the conspiracy" thread.
At some point in that thread, I did lay out a genuinely simple, plausible conspiracy theory. Like all PLAUSIBLE conspiracy theories, it involved Oswald as one of the assassins, doing everything the LN narrative posits him doing.
-
I would hope this is exceedingly tongue-in-cheek, no?
"Scout the area, create a fake sniper's nest, plant the fake gun, etc. Not hard to do."
Well, actually, phenomenally hard to do at almost every twist and turn.
In your hopefully exceedingly tongue-in-cheek way, you have made precisely the point I made in the original post in my "If I had planned the conspiracy" thread.
At some point in that thread, I did lay out a genuinely simple, plausible conspiracy theory. Like all PLAUSIBLE conspiracy theories, it involved Oswald as one of the assassins, doing everything the LN narrative posits him doing.
I like the "manipulating the media" part. They (yes, them again) are able to manipulate the media (the MAGATs?) for 60 years. People like Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner, the NY Times and Washington Post, and CBS and NBC. All noted MAGATS? The NY Times and Post? Really? Two, three generations of reporters including those who exposed the abuses by the CIA and FBI.
Again: the same people and institutions that exposed the abuses such as Watergate, Vietnam and Cointelpro, were also controlled/manipulated into believing this false story? It's like the conspirators. They were both idiotic and brilliant, Gestapo and Keystone Cops. Up is down and down is up but sometimes down is down and up is up too. It's both and everything in between.
This is where they really lose me. It's one thing to argue that some 60 years ago a rogue group of CIA people with anti-Castro Cubans and maybe mobsters conspired to kill JFK. They had some assets in the DPD. Okay. But then to argue that that conspiracy was covered up all of this time, all of these decades? The Warren Commission? Okay, they were ordered to cover things up because it would have revealed the covert war on Cuba. Operation Mongoose, the assassination plots, the Mob. Lots of people would have been in trouble. But the HSCA too? The Church Committee? The news media? The same media that revealed the government's abuses but, for some reason, have covered this up?
Seymour Hersh has a revealing story where he said he once met with Oliver Stone to help him on his Noriega/Panama movie project. But all Stone wanted to talk about was how the CIA killed JFK. Eventually they had a blowup where Hersh said the whole idea was absurd, crazy. Stone looked at Hersh and replied, "I always knew you were CIA!".
But of course.
-
Oh, dear, I looked at some of Michael's other posts and now fear that he is perhaps not being tongue-in-cheek.
Well, let's just go full-tilt and get it over with:
"Not hard at all ... for all-powerful, invisible aliens."
-
Yep, not hard to do at all. How do we know? Because that's exactly what happened.
It seems that the media in the U.S. is easily manipulated. Just today the BBC released a video showing Russian quotes in various newspapers about his Trump this and Trump that and "we got him." If you don't believe me, look it up.
Now let's see how long the U.S. media takes to publish this as well. But they won't. Every single time the assassination is mentioned, they always - ALWAYS - bring out the same old tropes and people to say, "Nah, nothing to see here." Can't remember his name but it's the one who wrote that very inaccurate and biased book. Oh, yeah, just remembered his name - Posner. Over and over again.
The only time the media ever was fair and balanced enough about the murder was Cronkite's PBS show. But then even that was ruined by the kook David Lifton and his ridiculous "they threw his body down into the cargo hold and whisked him away on a copter so mad doctors - with scalpels at the ready - could alter the body" fable.
-
Support argument:
TSBD employees were apparently showing off their rifles to each other quite regularly, so another one in the building wouldn't have been a big deal. So yes, not hard at all.
Counter argument:
Michael, didn't the coloured guys on the 5th floor actually see the rifle barrel sticking out of the window above them and heard the cartridges hit the floor?
-
Yep, not hard to do at all. How do we know? Because that's exactly what happened.
It seems that the media in the U.S. is easily manipulated. Just today the BBC released a video showing Russian quotes in various newspapers about his Trump this and Trump that and "we got him." If you don't believe me, look it up.
Now let's see how long the U.S. media takes to publish this as well. But they won't. Every single time the assassination is mentioned, they always - ALWAYS - bring out the same old tropes and people to say, "Nah, nothing to see here." Can't remember his name but it's the one who wrote that very inaccurate and biased book. Oh, yeah, just remembered his name - Posner. Over and over again.
The only time the media ever was fair and balanced enough about the murder was Cronkite's PBS show. But then even that was ruined by the kook David Lifton and his ridiculous "they threw his body down into the cargo hold and whisked him away on a copter so mad doctors - with scalpels at the ready - could alter the body" fable.
LOL!
-
When arguments such as Michael's are made, I ask the person to think about:
1. How many Presidents, CIA Directors, FBI Directors, Directors of National Intelligence and employees of those agencies have there been since 1963? I posted a list at the Ed Forum of all the CIA, FBI and NI Directors since 1963 and their incredible diversity of political affiliations, educational and employment backgrounds, etc., etc. Many of these, understandably, were men and women of the highest caliber and moral integrity in every area of their lives. Is it reasonable to believe they ALL conspired for 60+ years to hide the Dark Truth and perpetuate the LN Myth?
2. Likewise, how many prominent investigative journalists and media figures have there been since 1963? How many of them have broken massive stories that were highly embarrassing to the government? How many of them would absolutely love to be the one who breaks the JFKA? Is it reasonable they have all conspired for 60+ years to hide the Dark Truth and perpetuate the LN Myth or been intimidated into doing so?
3. Likewise, how many professional historians have passed through the halls of academia since 1963? Is it plausible that they would all have conspired or been intimated into hiding the Dark Truth and perpetuating the LN Myth?
The reality is, 60+ years of conspiracy theorizing have not dented the LN narrative and likely never will, barring some gigantic and unequivocal revelation. The LN narrative likely will be the verdict of history 60+ years from now just as it has been since 1964. Conspiracy theorizing will always continue to be a fringe activity for the proverbial "buffs."
I used to make the same point in the UFO field, where "the government" has supposedly been hiding the Alien Truth since 1947. How would that work??? All I can think of is some secret cabal that has existed since 1947, with the members carefully hiding the secrets from anyone else and passing them on to generation after generation of their own children and grandchildren. Really?
Explain to us, if you can, how this hiding of the Dark Truth, perpetuation of the LN Myth, and manipulation/intimidation of journalists and historians over a period of 60+ years actually would have worked in the real world.
-
The absolute minimal conspiracy: Someone in a high place of authority , found out that Oswald was a defector , a Marxist who had gone looney tune, who had ordered an MC rifle and a revolver using a fake ID, and that he had taken a shot at Walker. The conspirator found out that Oswald had a job in the TSBD.
The conspirator found a CIA psychological profile of Oswald that indicated he was a volatile unstable personality with delusions of grandeur.
The conspirator figures all he has do is to ask that the JFK motorcade route be slightly altered so that it would go past the TSBD building owned by his good friend, Harold Byrd. Probably some story given that Byrd really admired JFK and that it would be an honor for his working class employees to be able to see and wave at JFK up close.
Then the conspirator rides in the motorcade because he reasons that if he does not participate , his absence will be suspect when JFK gets shot. So the conspirator rides in a car just far enough behind the JFK car not to be an immediate target, but close enough to be able to see the TSBD windows when the JFK limo
turns on Elm st. At that point the conspirator ducks down in his seat just to be safe, as he waits to see if the Oswald Kook that the CIA profile predicts will likely act will assassinate the conspirators no.1 most hated political rival: JFK.
Afterwards when the conspirator becomes the President of the USA, he will use the same method to dispose of Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK.
-
The Seymour Hersh/Oliver Stone fight (from Hersh's memoirs "A Reporter"):
In Stone's defense (this is pro bono work), what else could he say? Hersh was an idiot? Or I, Oliver Stone, am wrong and you Seymour Hersh are right? In order to remove his conspiracy cognitive dissonance he has to dismiss Hersh as corrupt. The alternative, the "Hersh is right" response requires completely rejecting a long held belief that was a key part of his public life.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9946555071/Keyrqamd29v80uc/Hersh Stone.JPG)
-
I'm not interested in who did it. I only know it happened the way it did, that Kennedy was murdered not by a single "lone nut" as everyone calls him, but by multiple shooters and there was a fall guy who took the blame. After all, it wouldn't be a conspiracy if that's not the way it happened.
-
I'm not interested in who did it. I only know it happened the way it did, that Kennedy was murdered not by a single "lone nut" as everyone calls him, but by multiple shooters and there was a fall guy who took the blame. After all, it wouldn't be a conspiracy if that's not the way it happened.
It's obvious that, due to your being zombified by 60-plus years of KGB* JFKA disinformation, it's what you need to believe.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Counter argument:
Michael, didn't the coloured guys on the 5th floor actually see the rifle barrel sticking out of the window above them and heard the cartridges hit the floor?
They didn't see a barrel. Only one claimed to hear something hitting the floor.
-
They didn't see a barrel. Only one claimed to hear something hitting the floor.
Didn't one of them say that he saw what he thought was a pipe coming out of the window above?
-
Didn't one of them say that he saw what he thought was a pipe coming out of the window above?
No.
-
Didn't one of them say that he saw what he thought was a pipe coming out of the window above?
That was 14-year-old Amos Euins.
-
That was 14-year-old Amos Euins.
Ah yes. Thanks. This report says he was 16 years old (wrong?)
New York Times - November 24, 1964, Page 32
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 (UPI)
At about 12:20 P.M. on Nov. 22, 1963, 16‐year‐old Amos Lee Euins was standing near the corner of Elm and Houston Streets in Dallas, watching President Kennedy's motorcade go by.
As he later recalled in sworn testimony before the Warren Commission, he was across the street from the, Texas School Book Depository building and “looking dead at the building.”
“I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window,” he said. “I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window and he shot again ... I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger.”
Young Euins was one of three eyewitnesses who actually saw, the assassin firing the fatal bullets from a sixth‐story window. Their testimony was made public today as part of the 26‐volume transcript of the Warren Commission's hearing.
The youth was unable to furnish any physical description of the assassin beyond the fact that “he had a bald spot on his head.”
However, Howard Leslie Brennan, a 45‐year‐old steamfitter, got a good look at the man in the window. Said Mr. Brennan:
‘“He was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with the gun shouldered to. his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim. ... He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.”
Mr. Brennan described the assassin as a “neat, slender” white man in his early 30's, about 5 feet 10 inches tall, weighing from 160 to 170 pounds and dressed in light‐colored clothes.
Mr. Brennan picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a police lineup as a man “closely resembling” the one he saw, but he declined in his first interviews with police and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to make a positive identification.
He told the Warren Commission later that he actually was fairly certain all along that Oswald was the man, but hesitated to identify him positively because he thought the assassination was part of a Communist plot. He said he feared that “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I . . . might not be safe.”
The third eyewitness was James Richard Worrell Jr., 20, an unemployed laborer. He testified that he looked up at the sixth‐story window after hearing the first shot and saw the rifle aimed at Kennedy.
There was no doubt in Mr. Worrell's mind that the rifle was actually fired. He saw “a little flame and smoke” spit from the barrel on the second and third shots, but he couldn't see the rifleman.
-
Ah yes. Thanks. This report says he was 16 years old (wrong?)
New York Times - November 24, 1964, Page 32
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 (UPI)—At about 12:20 P.M. on Nov. 22, 1963, 16‐year‐old Amos Lee Euins was standing near the corner of Elm and Houston Streets in Dallas, watching President Kennedy's motorcade go by.
As he later recalled in sworn testimony before the Warren Commission, he was across the street from the, Texas School Book Depository building and “looking dead at the building.”
“I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window,” he said. “I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window and he shot again ... I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger.”
Young Euins was one of three eyewitnesses who actually saw, the assassin firing the fatal bullets from a sixth‐story window. Their testimony was made public today as part of the 26‐volume transcript of the Warren Commission's hearing.
The youth was unable to furnish any physical description of the assassin beyond the fact that “he had a bald spot on his head.” However, Howard Leslie Brennan, a 45‐year‐old steamfitter, got a good look at the man in the window.
Said Mr. Brennan:
‘“He was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with the gun shouldered to. his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim. ... He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.”
Mr. Brennan described the assassin as a “neat, slender” white man in his early 30's, about 5 feet 10 inches tall, weighing from 160 to 170 pounds and dressed in light‐colored clothes.
Mr. Brennan picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a police lineup as a man “closely resembling” the one he saw, but he declined in his first interviews with police and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to make a positive identification.
He told the Warren Commission later that he actually was fairly certain all along that Oswald was the man, but hesitated to identify him positively because he thought the assassination was part of a Communist plot. He said he feared that “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I . . . might not be safe.”
The third eyewitness was James Richard Worrell Jr., 20, an unemployed laborer. He testified that he looked up at the sixth‐story window after hearing the first shot and saw the rifle aimed at Kennedy.
There was no doubt in Mr. Worrell's mind that the rifle was actually fired. He saw “a little flame and smoke” spit from the barrel on the second and third shots, but he couldn't see the rifleman.
Wrong.
Yet another anomaly in the anomaly-replete JFKA which the KGB* took advantage of from Day One to make cynical, paranoiac and apathetic our body politic so that it could eventually install someone like The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx) as our "President" in 2017 and 2025.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Although not interested in who did it, I will say this - KGB had nothing to do with it. Nor did Cuba. It was totally and completely an inside job. Neither of these places could have controlled the narrative the way it eventually was controlled via the media and the Warren Report.
Also, neither entity could have had so much access to get Ruby in place to murder Oswald. Again, another inside job.
I'm surprised people have a hard time realizing this. It's very, very obvious.
-
Although not interested in who did it, I will say this - KGB had nothing to do with it. Nor did Cuba. It was totally and completely an inside job. Neither of these places could have controlled the narrative the way it eventually was controlled via the media and the Warren Report.
Also, neither entity could have had so much access to get Ruby in place to murder Oswald. Again, another inside job.
I'm surprised people have a hard time realizing this. It's very, very obvious.
I didn't say the KGB* or Cuba had something to do with it, John Boy.
What you and Simpich, et al., need to realize is that neither did the evil, evil, evil CIA, the evil, evil, evil FBI, the evil, evil, evil Secret Service, the evil, evil, evil DPD, nor the evil, evil, evil [fill in the blank].
What I did say is that the KGB* has "made hay" out of the anomaly-replete JFKA from Day One, and that their doing so helped to make our body politic so cynical, paranoiac and apathetic that "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin was able to install his "useful idiot" (or worse), Donald J. Trump, as our "President" in 2017 and 2025.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Although not interested in who did it, I will say this - KGB had nothing to do with it. Nor did Cuba. It was totally and completely an inside job. Neither of these places could have controlled the narrative the way it eventually was controlled via the media and the Warren Report.
I feel that the huge "inside job" was only about the control of the aftermath of the assassination. The political necessity to pin the thing on a lone nut.
I remain unconvinced that the plot to kill Kennedy was implemented by that same entity.
-
I feel that the huge "inside job" was only about the control of the aftermath of the assassination. The political necessity to pin the thing on a lone nut.
I remain unconvinced that the plot to kill Kennedy was implemented by that same entity.
The cover-up to pin the JFKA on a Lone Nut doesn't mean a Lone Nut didn't do it. I happen to believe there was an effort to sell the LN narrative because of legitimate concern that Russia, Cuba and even LBJ would seem like obvious suspects to the public ... but I also believe Oswald did it. There was a secondary cover-up by the agencies with egg on their face for failing to have kept tabs on Oswald.
-
I feel that the huge "inside job" was only about the control of the aftermath of the assassination. The political necessity to pin the thing on a lone nut.
I remain unconvinced that the plot to kill Kennedy was implemented by that same entity.
So they knew who really killed JFK and covered up for them? Them being? The Soviets? Castro? Rogue CIA? For political necessity at that time? And then the HSCA continued with this necessary coverup? The Church Committee? The news media?
You start with a plausible argument for the original coverup/suppression but then it all falls apart when you have to explain the subsequent coverups. By people who weren't even alive or very young at the time of the original crimes?
It's been a 60 plus year series of necessary coverups?
-
In 1993, the PBS investigatory/documentary program "Frontline" devoted five years and millions of dollars investigating the assassination. The reporters and editors traveled around the world during the investigation. It culminated in the show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?": https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/
Conclusion: It was Oswald. Did they cover up what happened too? At some point don't you have to ask yourself, "Gosh, all of these people couldn't have been part of the coverup?"
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.7b97c4bf90aab8cc476036f0e77c03ae?rik=mdJ1pjJFatwKOQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fimg.youtube.com%2fvi%2fPYI4PqtIyE0%2f0.jpg&ehk=V1ZyOV0cChMHtDCbvM6J4xv4CVdE2GqYWV%2f2zCJnBWg%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
So they knew who really killed JFK and covered up for them? Them being? The Soviets? Castro? Rogue CIA? For political necessity at that time? And then the HSCA continued with this necessary coverup? The Church Committee? The news media?
You start with a plausible argument for the original coverup/suppression but then it all falls apart when you have to explain the subsequent coverups. By people who weren't even alive or very young at the time of the original crimes?
It's been a 60 plus year series of necessary coverups?
No. Gerald Ford said (to the President of France) that they knew that there was a conspiracy but they didn't know who was behind it. This couldn't go before the American public and the rest of the world so i all had to point to the lone nut at all cost.
-
Glad you mentioned Ford's statement. Right on the money. And let us not forget, too, Ford scratched out "neck" when reviewing the final draft of the Warren report. I mean, if that isn't a classic and perfect example of toeing the line to what they wanted all along, I don't know what is.
And here is that " Trump is who he is" that you can only find in a foreign news outlet. How many American outlets have said anything about this, something that's blatantly obvious if you simply watch his current behavior toward everyone EXCEPT Russia.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1k17h1s/readingrussia_moscow_seems_pleased_one_paper/
-
In 1993, the PBS investigatory/documentary program "Frontline" devoted five years and millions of dollars investigating the assassination. The reporters and editors traveled around the world during the investigation. It culminated in the show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?": https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/oswald/
Conclusion: It was Oswald. Did they cover up what happened too? At some point don't you have to ask yourself, "Gosh, all of these people couldn't have been part of the coverup?"
Well, if it says so on TV then it must be true.
::)
-
Well, if it says so on TV then it must be true.
Iacoletti,
How many evil, evil bad guys and/or really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-
Now if we could just get BW.Frazier to agree that he did not see one end of the bag in the cupped hand of Oswald and the other end under Oswald’s armpit and therefore his 2ft +/- couple inches estimate of the bag length is wrong.
If only BW.Frazier could have been convinced by Dan Rather, that Frazier just missed seeing that 8” of bag above Oswalds shoulder line because the top of the bag was twisted around the barrel.
If only somebody could demonstrate how to carry the bag with the top of the bag under the
armpit and the other end of the 35” length bag extending past the cupped hand about 12” downwards and then convince BWF that he simply missed seeing that 12” extension of the bag past the cupped hand.
What really should be done is to hypnotize Frazier to disbelieve what he saw and convince him he must be mistaken.
What should be demonstrated is how Linnie May Randel saw a 35” bag carried by Oswald with one hand gripping the top of the bag, swinging it along just a few inches off the ground if Oswalds forearm was not perpendicular to the ground.
Or maybe there is a way to carry the bag in the middle with just one hand so that only 18” of bag extends downward from the hand thus allowing the 5’9” Oswald to carry the bag with his forearm down and hand with thumb pointed down. And somehow LMR mistakenly thought that looked like Oswald was gripping the bag at the top.