From: U54778@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:18:48 GMT
 <1993Jan24.183111.10663@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>,,<93026.061302U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <00967330.F1BB3240@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <00967330.F1BB3240@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
McAdams) says:
>
>In article <93026.061302U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>>
>>>OK, but this entirely contradicts the notion that The Conspiracy wanted the
>>>assassination blamed on a "lone nut."  This line of logic suggests that they
>>>wanted investigators to go running off looking for a left wing conspiracy.  f
>I
>>>I were The Conspiracy, I wouldn't want them looking for any sort of
>>>conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>>Again this is an example of too simple logic.  In any adversarial game, the
>>best strategy is to anticipate different options that the opponent might
>>take.  One covers as many as one can.  If the opponent does this, you cover
>>with this.  If he does that, you cover with that.  the core plotters
>>could easily have set it up so if the gov. took one road they would have
>>ended up with a connection to Castro.  If they took another road they
>>would end up with a lone nut.  Another road would lead them to the Mafia.
>>Another, the CIA or FBI.  It is not pushing the scenario too far by posing
>>intelligent plotters.  This was the killing of a president.  If the plotters
>>were not clever then it would have been a Ripley's item.
>>
>
>No, I think in an adversarial game like this, you present the investigators
>with a nice, pat, simple solution, supported by lots of evidence, and expect
>them of accept it.
>
Well, its a big world and you're entitled to your opinion but I would
say that finding a gun with hundreds of fingerprints on it is a
better cover than finding no fingerprints.  Man, would I like to play
a game of chess or poker with you.  If you think like this, you must
be a real sucker for finese plays.  If the army only planned for
one thing that the enemy was most likely to do and ignored the
many possibilites, I can see us losing war after war.  Geez, this is
basic strategy 101, John.  If you play poker and only bet when you
have a good hand, you're gonna get creamed.  The other side always
has to consider a bluff, if you show that you will sometimes bet on
nothing.  And this is only a two factor decision.  In chess, the
complexity is vast and needs to be adequately covered.
A good plotter would give several clue lines to throw off the hunter.
And even better, lay entire whole layers which when pealed off
point to an entirely different direction.

>Remember, the investigation can't be assumed to simply take "a road."

My point exactly.

>Investigators were going to be doing a lot of looking around.  Finding some
>evidence of *one* "connection" and some evidence of *another* connection is
>likely to cause investigators to redouble their efforts to "get to the bottom"
>of the matter.

Redouble???  How about divide, with some going one way and others
insisting that the real evidence lead elsewhere.  Ever hear of
divide and conquer, John.  Your statements also ignore again that
the investigation/coverup was stifled by hidden agendas on high with
more important goals.

>If you're The Conspiracy, you don't want them redoubling their
>efforts.  If they do, they might really *get* to the bottom of the matter.
>
>Rather, you want things in a nice neat package.

No. It's the hunters who after tiring of running around chasing
disparate directions who would start to dream about "a nice neat
package".  And the lone nut assassin was that neat package.

On this line of thought, I could not agree with you less.

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