From: U54778@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:57:23 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
References:
 <0096725D.D4094260@vms.csd.mu.edu>,<93026.035603U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <0096732E.C465E3A0@vms.csd.mu.edu>

In article <0096732E.C465E3A0@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
McAdams) says:
>
>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.

Gee, thanks, John.  Actually I was going to write a book on it but
felt it wouldn't sell, too logical.  Even though I know your congrats
are not heart felt,  I must say that the evidence for what I propose
is all there in the record.  It's just a different interpretation.

>
>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.
>

Well, if you would read a little further into the case, you would find
all that you reject here.  Or the distinct possibilities thereof.
What you are not considering from your stand point is just how this
reactionary coverup would manifest.  Lets try one micro scenario.
  Dallas is a media pandemonium.  Reporters are coming up with all
kind of stories that have dark hints of conspiracy.  The head of CBS
calls up LBJ and says "What the hell is going on here?"  LBJ stalls
but finally calls in the captains and owners of this country's
media industry.  In a quiet, secret meeting, he tells them he has a
real problem on his hands.  He circulates FBI and CIA reports that
deal with LHO's visit to the Cuban and Russian Embasseys in Mexico
City.  Some state that LHO met with the director of black ops in
this hemisphere, Kostigan.  LBJ tells them that the USSR is now in
red alert nuclear status and so are we.  LBJ reminds them of how
close we came a couple of years ago with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
LBJ then states that for the good of the country and the future of
the planet, he has decided to convene a commission that will calm
the public and ease up the situation with the Soviets.  But he can't
do this alone.  IF they continue to fan the flames of loose talk,
then his hands are tied.
  With crisp visions of their families ending up as nuclear ash,
they to a man consent to take up his direction and help the country
avoid disaster.
  I can give you a lot of quotes that point to a scenario very close
to this one in different areas of concern.
  Take a moment and imagine yourself in this scenario.  What would you
decide to do, John?
There are those, mostly from the HSCA study, that endorse this general
scenario of what actually happened.  To be fair, they then go on to
state that no conspiracy was found and that these measures were not
necessary.  I don't agree.  As a student of the body of evidence,
a lot of what (HSCA) they came up with doesn't guell my earlier
findings of conspiratorial hints in the record.

>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.
>

Well, I guess we have to go through this round again.  Now that it is
clear in your mind that my proposal is different than the ones you
rail against in anti-Wc authors.  Let me take you further.
In another post which you may have read after posting this reply, I
I bring up numbers and what constitutes "lots" of conspirators.
  A) the plot doesn't appear to have depended upon outsiders
     knowing that there was only one shooter.
  B) All these dependencies on LHO that you bring up such as whether
     he was sick that day, can be nullified by posing that LHO was
       not the only one that could be used as a patsy.  Danny Arce or
     Molina are both prime fodder for pinning the shooting on, both
     having problem lives to point to.
  C) If LHO was an unwilling participant,  the fact that his wife
     and child were not immune to planned accidents could be
     pointed out to him.  Same goes for Ruby in connection with
     his sister.  This can also be used for just what he was
     to keep quiet about if caught and covers your problems
     with the conspirators fearing his "spilling the beans."
  D) If the scenario of Dallas was judged by the conspirators to
     be not working out, then they, without a lot of trouble,
     packup the tent and go for another campaign city such as
     Chicago, LA or elsewhere.  Research on this very line of
     speculation turns up possible other "patsys" that may have
     been planned out before hand.
I support you when you have rejected a massive conspiracy to kill
the President.  But now, we are on a different plateau.  I have given
you reasons for a massive coverup due to gov. reaction.  lets keep
that separate.  How many people are needed to implement what I have
posed in A,B,C and D?  Not that many.  When you reject the whole or
almost whole CIA as the core plotter because of the amount of people
needed to know, we are talking about at least thousands.  I pose that
my scenario of the above needed no more than 30 people.  I don't
find that constitutes "lots".  Since the type of person that would
be involved in this would be persons that have histories of being
immersed in such activities such as Mafia hit men, CIA assassins, Cuban
freedom fighters, they would already be disposed to keep their mouth
shut.  If any of them were seen as weak links, they would disappear.
Finally, the pressure was off with the gov. going in the lone nut
direction.
Within those 30 or under people, it would be necessary to have some of
them be in critical positions such as a Captain of the DPD Intelligence
group but you don't have to fill any of the crucial bodies to get
results.

>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.
>
Well I'm not posing a teeny-weeny,tiny, eensy-weensie,smaller than a
bread box, ant-like, miniscule, infinitisimally small conspiracy.
Just a small conspiracy.  You know, small.  Less than the numbers of
NSA directorate.  Less than an army division.  You know, small.
What's small to you?  Do you also have problems with small
conspiracies from a logic basis too?????
How many people do you think were needed to keep their mouth shut
about poisoning Napoleon?  And look how successful that was?

ALAN ROGERS  **** U54778@UICVM.UIC.EDU * I speak only for myself as a *
VMKRAFT INC.  708-675-8615             * citizen of the UNIVERSE, not *
                                       * as an employee of Vmkraft nor*
                                       * as a user of U of I Services.*
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk