HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: simpson@teecs.UUCP (Libby Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Part 30,  PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kenenedy
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:50:27 GMT
Organization: Litton Systems, Toronto ONT

John:  your words have echoed all that's in my heart.  Never
I have ever read words that describe the destruction from 
our martyr John F. Kennedy to all the people who have been
killed to silence them so that the truth will never be known
about JFK.  My brother served in Viet Nam, he came back a
total different individual, we had to get to know this person
all over again, he was and remains an extremely nervous person,
his temper is quick and even though he has a family now, he
his character remains very different[A[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C  [B[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D.  He is also an alcoholic
and finally his family has made him realize that, and he is
trying to quit, alone, does not want to go to a doctor or AA.
He is a victim of the Viet Nam war too.....    I wonder how
many of them are there?    The war still goes on... the pain
of having been there still with them...  all the destruction
not just in human lives, vietnamese and americans... it has
taken a toll in their peace of mind.   
We are also Panamanian born.  I am Canadian.  I have worked
for 20 years in the defense industry.  If I have to loose 
my job, so that peace will come to the world, then I gladly
will do so.  War has to stop, big corporations have to stop
making their money on other peoples blood.  Governments of
the world have to work towards peace, don't they feel the pain
of the people suffering in the 6 o'clock news?  Or is it that
they have no conscience left?  Or because they are so lucky
to have been born (or parents emigrated) in north america, 
they feel that war will never affect them?  Let their sons or
daughters go to war... feel the pain... Do you think that then,
they will work towards world peace?
God! I hope so.
From: kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Greg Kilcup)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:19:40 GMT
	<0096732E.C465E3A0@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Organization: Ohio State University; Physics Department

To reply to just a couple of points from 
6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) ...

>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.
I don't see how we can expect to explain the whole conspiracy
given our limited information.  But if you insist on at least
a plausible scenerio, try this on for size:  Oswald knew *something*
(perhaps even an assasination) was afoot, and was ordered by the
"small conspiracy" to stay out of sight.  Or perhaps he was a lookout
stationed on the first floor to keep people from wandering up to
the 6th floor and surprising the real shooters.  But Oswald can't
resist the temptation to peek outside and see the event itself,
and sticks his head out the door for just a few seconds as Kennedy
drives by.

>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.
Sorry, I don't see the problem here.  Police departments or DA offices
have framed and do frame people all the time, especially when they "know"
the guy is guilty, or at least he might as well be.  To take another
famous case from Texas, how about the one in the film *The Thin Blue Line*?
In the Tippett case, I would classify the testimony of Helen Markum (sp?)
as blatant piece of frame-up.  Her account of the shooting was manifestly
inaccurate (e.g. claiming that Tippett lived long enough to talk, or that
someone was leaning through a closed car window), yet she was offered as a
star witness.  Or to take another case, how about the assassination of RFK,
where the LAPD essentially framed Sirhan Sirhan, who plainly did not
fire the fatal shot.  None of this requires any pre-knowledge on the
part of the Dallas or LA District Attorney, just a desire to make the
facts fit their theory of what happened.
In any event, I am quite willing to believe that Oswald may have
shot Tippett.  There seems to be some connection there, if only
because of (1) the testimony of Oswald's landlady that a police
cruiser paused in front of the house and honked while Oswald was
inside, presumably getting his gun, and (2) police logs which show
that Tippett's was the only car in the area at the time.  I am also
willing to believe that Tippett was shot by other elements of
the "small conspiracy" for reasons unknown, or that he was even
shot by a jealous husband, as has also been alleged.  The one
scenerio I cannot believe is the WC version, which demands that
Oswald sprinted at record breaking speed to the murder scene.

  -- Greg Kilcup
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:59:47 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan26.201746.23402@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Danny Smith) writes:

>>Because he was a nobody, and a failure, and he wanted to be a somebody.  A
>>perverted way of thinking, but the way in which some people demonstrably
>>think.
>>
>
> Okay. Basic psychology. If a nobody or a failure wants to become somebody
> by killing somebody famous, HE TAKES CREDIT FOR THE KILLING! Mark Chapman
> was this kind of person so he killed John Lennon to "acquire his fame".
> He recently did the interview on 20/20 and went through every detail of
> his crime and how he would acquire Lennon's fame by killing. He, of course
> takes full credit for his crime.
>
> Oswald, from the second he was under custody, was stating that he hadn't
> killed anyone. He also said "I'm just a patsy". If you want to become
> somebody by killing, saying your just a patsy is giving someone else credit
> for what is supposed to be your crime. Wanting to become somebody could not
> have been a motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy, based on his actions after
> the crime.
>

Good argument.  Except that he may have simply wanted to "become somebody" in
his own eyes by performing some "heroic" act.

And maybe, for reasons ideological or merely ideosyncratic, he thought it was
very important that Kennedy die.

I don't really have a strong opinion on "why" Oswald did it, but I think that
the "reasons" wouldn't have seemed sensible or coherent to you or I.

.John
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Conspiracy
Date: 23 Jan 1993 19:46:24 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <93020.071957U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I totally concur.  Pointing out that entire organizations cannot
>successfully carry out dire actions and keep them secret over time
>I will agree with him on but that the mechanics of how this came
>about does not have to be so over encompassing nor empty  of
>multiple levels of motivation and viewpoint is lost on him.
>He is just as simple minded as the "The CIA did it" group which he
>rails against.  It never occurs to him that the event can have
>any deeper levels of complexity which might hide vertical slivers of
>ploters who kept their actions tightly covered and who were of so small
>a number that it was easy enough to keep everyone quiet over time.
>

What exactly does this MEAN?  What are deeper levels of complexity?  Who are
the "vertical slivers of plotters?"

I can easily conceive that a "coalition" of people with disparate motives can
join together in a common enterprise.  I have trouble believing they could
bring off a successful conspiracy.  A successful conspiracy requires having
very few people, and requires their being extremely cohesive.  Disparate
motives radically increases the probability that somebody will "spill the
beans."

>>In the case of Oswald's complicity, they point out all the problems with
>>this or that aspect of a conspiracy theory, and then fall back to the
>>"Lone Maladjusted Assassin" as if that is some kind of low-energy state.
>
>Yes.  Again simple minded logic.  If there are problems with some of
>the scenarios claiming conspiracy, that must mean there are no
>problems with the official story.  My judgement is that after looking
>at and rejecting many versions of conspiracy, I still find some form
>of conspiracy has less problems than the fairy tale the WC gave us.
>

OK, *what* form of conspiracy?

.John
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:21:26 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: JFK and J. Edgar Hoover

In article <11542@prijat.cs.uofs.edu>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) says:
>J. Edgar Hoover??  Is there anyone here who thinks Hoover was above
>getting rid of anyone who got in his way or posed a threat to his
>empire?
I have often played with this scenario.  It is tempting because of the
convenience, to have Hoover be the one pulling the strings.  The main
problem with this is that if you look at Hoover's history, in detail,
he was a powerful demagogue because he never really had to kill anyone
off (at least, as far as we know).  His pattern was intimidation and
blackmail.  Even if we take your backdoor scene as true, you have to
focus on the fact that Hoover was never removed from office while JFK
was in power and when he did confront JFK, JFK backed down such as with
Exner.  This historical record can be attacked with the argument that
Hoover was going to be booted out at his mandatory retirement and that
JFK was going to uphold it.  Though this can not be ignored, it doesn't
take into account that Hoover could have intimidated members of
Congress to extend his stay and go around JFK.
  All this does not stand strongly against a scenario, slightly different
that would propose that Hoover had found out about an upcoming
assassination and did his best to make it prosper.  Then using his
power to cover it up afterwards.  Such a scenario is painted best by
Mark North in his Act of Treason.

>Knowing how many people in influential positions he had files on, does
>anyone think that manipulating a cover-up after the fact was beyond his
>means??  Does anyone believe that if he ordered it, his men would have
>refused to do the deed??
>
I would believe that Hoover had enough loyal followers to do the deed.
but what he also had was internal enemies, ones that had great
likelihood of "spilling the beans" later.  None have so far, not even
Sullivan his arch enemie from within.
  You also have to take into account that JKF/RFK was grooming and
mentoring high officials within the FBI who were expelled later.
If they had info on nefarious moves by Hoover, they haven't shared
them with us through all these years.
   Nothings impossible but you have to consider all these factors.

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.*
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:13:02 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: conspiracy
 <1993Jan24.183111.10663@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>,

In article <00967262.2C7624A0@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
McAdams) says:
>
>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.  If
>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.

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
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Ruby
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:44:11 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan26.193758.14554@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels) writes:

>>
>>We do know that Jack Ruby was at Western Union wiring money to a stripper about
>>an hour *after* Oswald was supposed to be brought out of the police department. 
>>He then walked over about 11:20 and walked right down a ramp into the basement
>>where Oswald was brought.  If he had been *assigned* to kill Oswald, or had a
>>well-formed intention to kill Oswald, he would have been waiting on Oswald.
>
>Or the police in charge of moving Oswald were waiting for Ruby to show up.
>>

This really implies an efficient, on-the-ball conspiracy, doesn't it?  Ruby the
killer fooled around and was an hour and 20 minutes late to the assassination,
in spite of the fact that he was the designated assassin!

And while he was killing time (rather than killing Oswald), he just dropped by
Western Union to wire some money to a stripper.  Not like he had any
*important* business to take care of.

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Jeff Young writes:

>The name of this book is "J.F.K." It is probably the clearest insight to the
>machinations on the government level of this mans demise.
>THIS BOOK IS ESSENTIAL READING.

Well, I suppose.  I'm almost done with it, but I must say, it is not very
well written.  It is repetitious, many sections are largely irrelevant and
tedious, and it isn't really about JFK.  I find myself skimming, rather
than reading, as I near the end.  It's not without merit, but it's way too
long for the message it purports to convey.  A better title would be
"A History of the Vietnam War".

Brian

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:34:58 GMT

In article <0096725D.DADDEAA0@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>In article <schuck.727851258@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>
>>Please explain to me how a bullet travelling at 2100 feet per second
>>can impact the back of JFK's head from the right rear, and then go on
>>to dent the chrome and crack the windshield *without* leaving an exit
>>wound in JFK's face???????
>>
>>JFK's face, according to the autopsy, was unmarked!!!!
>>
>>How did the bullet fragments hit the windshield? Osmosis?????
>>
>
>They had to leave an exit wound in his head, but not necessarily in his face.

Really???? The 6th floor TSBD is to the right rear of JFK.
According to the WC and HSCA the bullet hit about 1 inch to the right
of the midline of the back of his head. JFK was facing to the left,
but nowhere near enough for anything but his face to be between the
TSBD and the impact points on the chrome and glass.

SO...in the light of the above, where is this exit wound "not
necessarily in his face" ???

>
>But let me ask you:  if they weren't caused by the bullet that hit Kennedy,
>what *did* cause them?
>
>Neither hit was that of a bullet from a high powered rifle at full velocity.  A
>bullet (or bullets) had obviously already hit something, broken info fragments,
>and slowed down.
>
>Where *do* you think these strikes came from?
>

Possibility 1: I think someone was shooting low from the Dal-Tex.
If this shooter hit JFK in the back between the shoulder blades, such
a bullet could create an exit wound in JFK's windpipe with fragments
hitting the windshield and chrome.

Of course, such a bullet didn't wound Connally.

Possibility 2: Fragments from the wrist wound on Connally if the wrist
wound had nothing to do with his chest wound, and occurred after
Connally was on his back. Less likely.

Possiblity 3: There was a wound in JFK's face, but it was covered up.

Etc.




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:56:48 GMT

In article <00967333.A6194A40@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.193758.14554@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels) writes:
> 
>>>
>>>We do know that Jack Ruby was at Western Union wiring money to a stripper about
>>>an hour *after* Oswald was supposed to be brought out of the police department. 
>>>He then walked over about 11:20 and walked right down a ramp into the basement
>>>where Oswald was brought.  If he had been *assigned* to kill Oswald, or had a
>>>well-formed intention to kill Oswald, he would have been waiting on Oswald.
>>
>>Or the police in charge of moving Oswald were waiting for Ruby to show up.
> 
> OK, you think the Dallas Police were in on The Conspiracy.
> 
> Then why did they bother to arrest Oswald at all?  Why not kill him while he is
> "resisting arrest."
> 
> But why did I put "resisting arrest" in quotes?  Oswald did resist arrest,
> drawing his gun when confronted in the Texas Theater.  That would have been a
> *great* time to kill him, if the Dallas Police had wanted him dead.
> 
>>>
>>>Given Ruby's personality, it is both difficult to believe conspirators would
>>>trust him with such an important assignment, and easy to believe he would do it
>>>on the spur of the moment.
>>>
>>Given Ruby's history as a strong-arm hood since his youth, and given his
>>financial problems at the time, it's quite possible that he was sent on
>>assignment to try to get Oswald -- and if caught was a better risk than
>>Oswald to keep his mouth shut, or be treated as expendable.
>>
> 
> Why was Ruby a better risk that Oswald?
> 
> "Strong-arm hood" is misleading, since it implies a steely-eyed, highly
> disciplined killer.  Ruby was highly undisciplined, and was a blabbermouth to
> boot.
> 
> .John


Being one of the original conspirators, Ruby would not have been judged by
others as being a risk or not. It was simply his job to silence the patsy.
Tippet didn't do it for him so he had to do it himself.

If Ruby couldn't trust himself to be a better rislk than LHO he couldn't trust
anyone, could he John?



From: brian@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Brian Wood)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 16:31:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Film Proves JFK shot from behind, scientist says
Organization: HP Mfg. Test Div., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

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
>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.

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.

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.

Brian
From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: conspiracy
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:33:53 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

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.  If
>>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.

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

.John