Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:21:07 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Conspiracy

In article <0096725D.E25BF240@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John
McAdams) says:
>
>In article <93023.191536U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>>The problem is that only a "massive conspiracy" can explain the extent of
>the
>>>coverup that assassination theorists believe had to have happened.
>>>
>>Absolute rubbish!!!!!
>>The coverup by gov. agencies can be explained by a multitude of motivations,
>>the strongest and most prevalent being that they wanted to keep a stable
>>situtation within the U.S. and a low key situation within the cold war.
>>These reasons derive from absolutely no connection with any smaller
>>conspiracy to kill JFK.  This scenario does not completely dismiss any
>>connection with my "clandestine vertical slivers" but the vast majority of
>>officials would believe that they were doing the country a service.
>>By withholding any true investigation into conspiracy, the traces of the
>>smaller conspiracy evaporated.
>>
>
>OIC. What we have is a "two conspiracy theory."  One small one to kill JFK,
>and
>another larger one to cover up the first.  The latter was acting from good
>motives.
>

What's the exact problem with that scenario, John?  I wouldn't
characterize the massive coverup afterwards as a "conspiracy"; I would
call it a reaction and its parameters do not go against any thing
about the history of gov. actions that I am aware of.  In each case,
of a dire or revealing and embarrasing fact being made public, the
automatic reaction of the gov. has been to cover it up.  Tell me of
an instance where this was not true.  The army giving LSD to
unknowing victims, Watergate, our training of torturing police
squads in S. America, point to any of the debacles where the gov.
didn't try to cover it up as a first reaction.

>>>Do you believe all the evidence against Oswald was faked?
>>
>>Not all.  But great amounts of them rest upon biased interpretation and
>>selective choice.  Some few show indicative signs of fakery.
>>My scenario judges that LHO had guilty knowledge.  Whether he was the
>>shooter or not, I cannot judge at this time.
>>
>
>OK.  Oswald worked for the Small Conspiracy.  This gets around the problem of
>believing that the photos with him and the rifle were faked, of believing that
>the didn't shoot Tippet, of believing that a conspiracy had set him up as a
>patsy and was betting the whole enterprise of the hope that Oswald wouldn't be
>sitting talking with a half dozen other Depository employees as the shots rang
>out.
>
>>>Do you believe Jack Ruby worked for The Conspiracy?
>>
>>I believe that JR was connected to the Mafia and the DPD much more
>>complexly than the WC admitted.  Since I find your concept of "The
>Conspiracy"
>>which I take is derived from some form of conspiracy monger accusation,
>>in the realm of looney tunes, I guess the bottom line answer to your
>>question is no.  If you want to recast this question as "Do you believe
>>that JR was part of a smaller conspiracy that comprised elements of the
>>Mafia?", then I would answer that I suspect that this is true.  No one
>>has found the definitive evidence.
>>
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
Your belief in all of these factors including your great insight into
Ruby's personality all rest upon faith in what has been told to you.
Many of these items have great problems when looked at closer but I
would waste my time trying to point out the problems of each, if you
are someone not interested in looking closer into these matters and
are comforted by TV pablum and biased book writers.
What do you expect Belin to tell you, that Oswald was an alien from
space?  Belin has no more credibility than the worst sensationalist
JFK writers.  If you were truly interested in an unbiased manner,
you would find that he is very judicious in what he presents his
readers.  Much worse than any conspiracy shouter.

>>>Do you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays were faked?
>>
>>A possibility.  My scenario does not need this to be true but does not
>>disqualify it as impossible.   Actually, the photos and x-rays have not
>>been officially released.  All that there is in the public arena are
>>a few photos and x-rays of the many that should exist behind orders of
>>suppression, that have been obtained through unofficial means.
>>Fakery under these conditions is not so incredible, allowing the officials
>>to deny these items as being part of their official body of evidence.
>>
>
>The Ramsey Clark panel got a look at them, and the HSCA got a look at them,
>and
>the scientists commissioned by Nova got a look at them.  They all said that
>the
>material indicated that Kennedy had been shot twice from behind.
>
These were all official bodies or paid experts.  I don't have great
faith in hired guns or people deep in the beauacracy of telling me
the unvarnished truth, especially in such a crucial case.

>>>Do you believe Kennedy's body was altered before the autopsy?
>>
>>A possibility again;  and again not necessary for my scenario of conspiracy.
>>If you're referring to Lifton's thesis, I have questions of Lifton before
>>I can judge whether I will accept his scenario.  They are mainly of time
>>factors needed to do what he is proposing.
>>Could altering have occurred that does not follow along with Lifton?
>>Yes, but again it is not necessary in my thesis for the body to be
>>altered.
>>
>>>
>>>If so you have to believe in a massive conspiracy.  If not, you have to
>>>believe that Oswald really did it.
>>
No. If alteration did happen, it can be attributed to the reactionary
coverup and does not need a massive conspiracy to have taken place.
At least one in which the core plotters had control over this aspect.
You're overreaching.  Even if the autopsy was 100% correct, it still
does not mandate that the rifle was in the hands of LHO.

>>This is such a simple minded statement that it could be seen as a joke.
>
>Either there were other people shooting a JFK, or they weren't.  Either JFK
>was hit from in front, or he wasn't.
>
What you are driving at is not clear to me.  Since you have finally
expressed that you have only been exposed to a small amount of what
has been said on the subject, perhaps you are unaware that just
proving that JFK was shot from behind does not put the gun in LHO's
hand nor specifically in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.
Other possibilities such as the Dal-Tex building are not ruled out yet.
Your either/or logic here doesn't take in enough to get it out of
Kerkegaard's realm into the realm of the facts.

>Do you believe there was clear evidence of a gunman on the Grassy Knoll?  If
>so, then the whole Warren Commission (and staff) had to be covering it up.
>
There is no one area of this event that is perfectly or even nearly
perfectly clear.  And that goes for all writers on both sides.
The only clear contention in all this is that the offical body of
evidence was not investigated properly and has great areas of
suspicious material in it.  The official reaction in the WC to
evidence of a GK shooter was primarily to ignore or explain it away.
Neither action can be satisfying to anyone who doesn't have great
faith in official gov. pronunciamentos.  As others who have answered
this propostion of yours, I state that the actions of the WC can be
quite complex if they had a belief that if they found evidence of
conspiracy, their superiors would not be pleased.  Beauracracies
exist by being filled with personel who go along to get along.
Halfway through the WC investigation, when Staff member Griffin started
to find very suspicious things about Ruby and his friends, Rankin
told him, "We are interested in closing doors at this point, not
opening them."  Griffin has through the years been quite vocal about
how unsatisfied he was and is today.  Of course, you won't find this
in a book by Belin.

>If there *wasn't* such clear evidence, then no coverup was necessary.
>

I have already pointed out to you what the probable motivation behind
the coverup reaction was and your if/then rests upon the view that
a GK shooter is the only evidence of a smaller conspiracy.  YOu have
to become more knowledgable about the evidence before you can use
such tight-assed logic on it.  Excuse me.  Your logic would be OK
if it took into account enough facts.  It doesn't.

>Some people on this newsgroup believe that agents of The Conspiracy were
>swarming all over Dealey Plaze right after the assassination, confiscating
>film.  Do you believe this was true?  If not, how about saying so.  If you do,
>you've positing a very large conspiracy.
>
Witness testimony can be used in a court case to win but in the realm
of strict ascertaining of the truth, it can't be used to prove
anything.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that there were
more than just the few intelligence agents on the plaza that have
clear testimony to.  (I bet you didn't even know that those agents
testified to the fact of not only being in the plaza but being in
the TSBD).  Actually, many people had their cameras and film
confiscated by all manner of official persons that day.  Most have had
their film returned to them.  If what you are pointing to is the fact
that some of them said that their film was altered or never returned
then I don't see where this points to a massive conspiracy.  Again,
the official reactionary coverup is adequate to explain these incidents
if they ever happened.   the confiscation aspect was totally
understandable and would be suspicious if not done by officials.
If any of these tales of film not being returned are true, this is
understandable in the light of officials deciding that the truth
was not the best public stance to take and does not mandate that it
had to have been strictly connected to the smaller conspiracy.
An afterthought within a controlled panick within official corridors.

>Do you believe Oswald killed Tippett, or not?  If he did, that's a very strong
>indication he killed Kennedy too.
Well, at least you back off into "strong indication" instead of Belin's
ludicrous "rosetta stone".  What can I say?  If it's not obvious to
you that if LHO killed Tippit, it only lends suspicion to the fact that
he tended to be a killer.  It in no way proves that he killed JFK.
there are so many problems with the Tippit murder that I have put off
making a judgement on this until I get the time to properly study it.
In the mean time, LHO could have killed Tippit after Tippit tried to
kill him, or someone with LHO could have killed Tippit or LHO could
have killed Tippit for reasons other than what the official version
rests upon.

>In sum, the evidence against Oswald is so massive that you either believe that
>a *lot* of people had a hand in framing him, or you believe that he was
>actually guilty.
>
The massive evidence you speak of is only in your mind after being
influenced by those who want you to believe their version; in the exact
same manner as those who read a critics book and come away with
believing in a massive conspiracy.  You have not an iota of difference
to distinguish you from them.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But there is a difference between those who look past the headlines
and public pablum and those who don't.
To frame him may have been the expedient action by a panicky gov.
It doesn't have to have a connection to the core plotters.

I notice that you have a distinct problem with numbers.  I ask you to
read one book and you say you don't have time to read every book
on the assassination.  I suggest scenarios that only require a small
amount of personel and you start talking about "lots".  Lets get try
to straighten out this aspect.  I say that the core conspiracy could
have been accomplished with between 4 and 30 people.  Is 30 "lots"
to you?  It's not to me.  Tightly controlled, 30 people with
knowledgable and clever planners can be counted on to stay quiet or
can be weeded of turncoats within a short amount of time, especially
if the plotters are laughing at their good luck in having the
gov. erase or ignore their traces and focus on the patsy.

>You've said you think he had "guilty knowledge."  Do you think he actually
>shot
>Kennedy?
>
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again?
I stated quite clearly that I am still on the fence as to whether
LHO actually fired the rifle.  "Guilty knowledge" means that LHO's
actions are unfathomable without accepting that he knew something
dire had happened or would happen.  Whether this included knowing
before hand that an assassination would happen is not clear.  That
afterwards, if LHO had not, at least, surmised that a plot was
happening around him, his subsequent actions cannot be explained.
He should have remained at the TSBD.  Of course, if he was the shooter,
then I would expect him to have a more planned or a more determined
endeavor to escape.  He had neither. Perhaps you like that TV cop
and robbers scenario of the official version.  It doesn't satisfy me.
It doesn't hold up to close inspection.

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.*