From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:18:18 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <93026.035603U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I don't have the time right now to cover each of McAdams's points.  Let me
>just say that he consistently ignores the possibility, in fact, considering
>each case that he brings up, that the small conspiracy was not interested
>in hiding the fact that there were more than one shooter in DP.  It was the
>WC/FBI/High gov. officials who were so frantically stuck on convincing the
>public that there was only one shooter.  To be fair to McAdams, the anti-WC
>sensationalist authors lead their readers to believe that a massive
>conspiracy involving every third person in the country had engineered it
>to look like one shooter.  

>  It is with this and other ponderings that I come to the conclusion that
>the core plot and the massive coverup were not coordinated; and perhaps
>not even connected in planning and motivation.

Well, Alan, I must congratulate you on your ingenuity. This "two conspiracy"
theory is a new one, so far as I'm aware.

I also appreciate that you feel at least somewhat constrained by basic logical
principles:  you don't believe that a really massive conspiracy is plausible
since somebody would have long since "spilled the beans."

I still disagree, however.  It seems that, to cover up the small conspiracy
that actually did the shooting, a massive conspiracy involving "every third
person in the country" would have been necessary.  Remember how much damning
evidence had to be faked: bullets, autopsy x-rays and photos, photos of Oswald
with the gun.  Think how much evidence had to be willfully overlooked, by the
Warren Commission, by the HSCA, and so on.

Then there is the question of the "small conspiracy."  Key point: did it
include Oswald?  If not, then there is the massive problem of how The Small
Conspiracy could have possibly *depended* on Oswald to be out of sight the
moment the shots began to ring out.  How they could have *depended* on him to
leave the TSBD and go shoot Tippett.

Of course, if you don't believe that Oswald really did shoot Tippett, then you
have a problem, since your Small Conspiracy isn't so small anymore.  It has to
include key members of the Dallas Police Department, who were all primed to
"frame" Oswald for the Tippett murder.

But if this "frameup" was in place, suppose Oswald had refused to cooperate,
and simply hung around the TSBD?  The Small Conspiracy might assume that nobody
was going to do any work after Kennedy was shot.  But they might also assume
that the police would seal off the building and not let people leave.

If we assume that Oswald *was* part of the Small Conspiracy,  that solves a lot
of problems.  We can easily see why he acted guilty, since he *was* guilty.  We
could see how he could be easily framed, since he was taking orders.

But then the question arises of how he was so perfectly positioned to shoot
JFK?  He had been an employee of the TSBD for several months.  Were there lots
of Oswalds all over the country, put in place under the assumption that
eventually Kennedy would drive right in front of one of them?  Doesn't seem
plausible to me.

The only conspiracy that makes any sense to me is one that hired or persuaded
Oswald to do it, and then simply let him do it.  But even then, I would expect
them to have a plan to extract him without letting him fall into custody, or a
plan to kill him, before he fell into custody, in a way that would not raise 
suspicions.  They clearly had neither.

.John