From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:51:28 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec20.044626.9936@u.washington.edu>, twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>
>>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?
>
>I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't believe. In fact, nothing
>interests me less. And I say it again, there are an infinite number of
>possible conspiracy scenarios, only fraction of which have a flaw that rules
>them out as possibilities.
>

OK, how about suggesting a scenario that doesn't have a flaw that rules it out
as a possibility.

>>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."
>
>I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not in court. To use your analogy, I'm plenty
>willing to argue that the pot may never have been borrowed if I don't know
>whether or not the pot was borrowed, plenty willing to argue that the pot
>may have already been cracked when it was borrowed if I don't know the
>condition of the pot before it was borrowed (if it was borrowed), and plenty
>willing to argue that the pot may have been returned in perfect condition if
>I don't know the condition of the pot when it was returned (if it was
>borrowed in the first place). I'm not trying to prove to you what did or
>did not happen, I'm simply discussing the possibilities as I see them.
>

OK, then how about considering Oswald as the lone assassin as one of the
possibilities?  If it has fewer logical problems than the other theories, it is
the one we should prefer.

>>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)?
>
>No, but then, I don't know of any group of human beings that has ever
>acted as uniformly logically toward a single common set of goals as you
>seem to demand of "The Conspiracy."
>

Acting uniformly logically toward a single common set of goals would be
required of a conspiracy effective enough to bring this off.

Remember, more ordinary conspirators (like those involved in Watergate or
Iran/contra) have had their identies revealed, and their exploits splashed all
over the media.

>>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.
>
>Again, there are countless possibilities, and I can't even say that I have
>ever even considered enough possibilities to be sure that any I've considered
>is the actual true history or even very close to it. I don't see any benefit
>in deciding, without knowing all the important facts, that from now on I'm
>going to be the proponent of possiblity 1378904-X or whatever.  
>

Of course there are countless possibilities.  Again, can you outline any *one*
that doesn't have a severe flaw?

.John

P.S.  I'll be off Internet for a couple of weeks.  If you want to reply to me,
I'm sure lurkers will be interested in what you have to say.  I won't be
ignoring you if I don't reply.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk