From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 19 Dec 1992 21:16:49 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec19.025552.765@u.washington.edu>, twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>
>>So tell me, do you think Oswald was an innocent patsy or a "not so innocent"
>>patsy?
>
>Probably a "not so innocent" patsy, although I do not believe he brought the
>gun with him to the TSBD that day.
>
>I don't, however, think he knew a great deal about who he was working for,
>or what, until it was over with. His "need to know" would have been very
>limited.

OK, a "not so innocent" patsy.

Then did The Conspiracy want him arrested?  Or did that happen in spite of The
Conspiracy?  Did he know enough to be dangerous if he talked, or not?  If he
knew enough to be dangerous, then why did The Conspiracy allow him to fall into
police hands?  But if he didn't know enough to be dangerous, why have him
killed?

Or maybe you *don't* believe that his killing was at the behest of The
Conspiracy?  Do you?

>I have to say, though, John, you're approaching this in a very strange way.
>Basically, you seem to think that you can prove that Oswald is the lone killer
>by process of elimination. In other words, by running through all the possible
>conspiracy scenarios and finding some or another flaw in each one. Since the
>possibilities are essentially infinite given the known, agreed upon facts,
>well, good luck to you, and I hope you don't have any other life to distract
>you from your impossible quest. Meanwhile, I and many others will continue
>to consider the various possibilities given the facts as we understand
>them. Sorry if our reluctance to be pinned down to one exact conspiracy
>when we don't have all the facts is making your quest even more difficult,
>but that's the way rational people deal with situations where important
>facts are not known.
>

Wait a minute!  Have I blundered into some mirror-image universe where roles
are reversed?

You're telling me I should believe in a conspiracy, even when nobody can come
up with a conspiracy theory that doesn't have some fundamental flaw of evidence
or logic?

You don't want to be "pinned down to one exact conspiracy?"  Do you mean you
are like the lawyer whose client was accused of borrowing a pot and returning
it cracked?  You remember the story: he addresses the jury and says "Ladies and
Gentlemen, my client is innocent.  He never borrowed that pot.  Further, it was
already cracked when he borrowed it.  Finally, ladies and gentlement, I intend
to prove to you that my client returned it in perfect condition."

So you feel free to argue at one point that Oswald knew nothing that would
threaten The Conspiracy (thus he could be arrested as a "fall guy") and at
another that The Conspiracy was threatened by having him in custody (thus it
had him killed)?

If there was a conspiracy, it was "one exact conspiracy."  If you can't produce
a plausible theory about how it operated and what it did, then you shouldn't
expect to convince anyone who's thinking rationally.

.John

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk