From: ccasm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:49:56 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <009670AD.4DCC82E0@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
> In article <46760002@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM>, brian@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Brian Wood) writes:
>>John McAdams writes:
>>>Why don't you just *think* about how implausible all this is.  Put yourself
>>>in the shoes of conspirators wanting to kill Kennedy, and ask how you would
>>>do it.
>>
>>OK, but I'm not a killer.  It's a little hard to think like one.
>>
>>>You would obviously want to do it with a lone gunman.  You would do it that

Why? What if he got sick, locked out, went to the John, gun jammed.....


>>>way since your only reasonable hope of concealing the conspiracy would be
>>>to have only one man doing the shooting.  Having a whold squad of gunmen,
>>>plus additional squads of people all set to cover everything up, is just 
>>>too Rube Goldbergish.

HUH?
is this the only other alternative? What about two gunmen, or three..
What is your definition of "a whole squad" and why is it the only other way?

>>
>>Actually, it has been established (Prouty, et al) that at least one
>>discussion (Ferrie, etc) centered around "triangulation of crossfire".
>>So just because YOU would hire a lone gunman doesn't mean everyone would.
>>Yes, there would certainly be dimishing returns with too many gunmen
>>(they could actually wind up in each other's line of fire), but two or
>>three might be just the ticket.
>>
> 
> No, if it were vitally important to keep the conspiracy a secret, you would
> hire a lone gunman.

And you would get another person to be the patsy! Hence a mininimum of two!!

> 
>>I am not a "massive conspiracy" theorist, preferring to believe that well-
>>intentioned people did things that look suspicious in retrospect in order
>>to spare the country some turmoil.  However, the environment of the early
>>sixties was rife with involvement by the CIA in all sorts of things, Cubans
>>were a big problem, the Cold War was pretty hot, and there was a lot of
>>hate floating around.  Kennedy did represent a threat to the establishment,
>>and it is not hard to see that one of the many conspiracies that existed
>>at the time may have succeeded.  I suspect that had Kennedy not been killed
>>in Dallas in 1963, someone else would have gotten him another time.
>>
> 
> The problem is that only a "massive conspiracy" can explain the extent of the
> coverup that assassination theorists believe had to have happened.

Bullshit. Why are you only a two-dimensional person?
Is it because you have no arguments against a small conspiracy?

> 
> Do you believe all the evidence against Oswald was faked?  Do you believe Jack
> Ruby worked for The Conspiracy?  Do you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays
> were faked?  Do you believe Kennedy's body was altered before the autopsy?
> 
> If so you have to believe in a massive conspiracy.  If not, you have to believe
> that Oswald really did it.
Bullshit again!
What a closed mind.
John claims: "BTW I am a political scientist, not an historian" at Marquettt
University. Based on his analyses and this statement are we to beliecve he is
an employee? For me political science is based on history.
Perhaps John is only an undergraduate in p.s.


> 
> .John


Big Al.

BTW wasn't a pristine single bullet the "calling card" of the Mafia sometime in
the recent past? That is, couldn't the bullet on the stretcher have been a
deliberate plant to either warn others or to show how pervasive the mafia was.
Or any other reason I cant think of right now. Perhaps "thumbing their noses"
at those who were behind the politics of mafia suppression.
What does political science or history have to say about this?