From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: Conspiracy
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:45:48 GMT

In article <0096732E.C465E3A0@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> But if this "frameup" was in place, suppose Oswald had refused to cooperate,
> and simply hung around the TSBD?  The Small Conspiracy might assume that nobody
> was going to do any work after Kennedy was shot.  But they might also assume
> that the police would seal off the building and not let people leave.
> 
> If we assume that Oswald *was* part of the Small Conspiracy,  that solves a lot
> of problems.  We can easily see why he acted guilty, since he *was* guilty.  We
> could see how he could be easily framed, since he was taking orders.
> 
> But then the question arises of how he was so perfectly positioned to shoot
> JFK?  He had been an employee of the TSBD for several months.  Were there lots
> of Oswalds all over the country, put in place under the assumption that
> eventually Kennedy would drive right in front of one of them?  Doesn't seem
> plausible to me.
> 
> The only conspiracy that makes any sense to me is one that hired or persuaded
> Oswald to do it, and then simply let him do it.  But even then, I would expect
> them to have a plan to extract him without letting him fall into custody, or a
> plan to kill him, before he fell into custody, in a way that would not raise 
> suspicions.  They clearly had neither.
> 
> .John

WRONG!  The plan to kill the patsy involved only one DPD officer. If he could
not do it in the TSBD, he would do it later at the arrest. If he could not do
it at arrest time, he could do it in the DPD lockup. Only one person was needed
and this represents one of about only 10 people involved in the conspiracy.

Of course Oswald was in on part of it. And he knew the DPD officer, but he did
not know that he was to die or even that he was to be the patsy. 

Who was this oficer?  Why Tippet of course, but by the time Tippet found Oswald
near his home Oswald was realising that he was in trouble. That is why he had
gone to his home and retreived his handgun. As Tippet went to shoot Oswald, LHO
shot him first.

Thus the plan went wrong. The patsy was not dead, and therefore still a threat.
It was still the plan that LHO die, and so Ruby had to do it. After all Ruby
had been one of the main planners of the small conspiracy. 

The rest was a coverup, not a conspiracy. The public would not be satisfied
until it was all resolved. A war had to be diverted. The regard for JFK had to
be maintained (on the surface). The authorities had to convey strenght and
control.

Who were the other 8 or so members of the conspiracy?
Well thats what this newsgroup is about................stay tuned.....