From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:00:38 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec19.023239.128@u.washington.edu>, twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>
>>But suppose Oswald had called in sick that day?  Suppose Oswald had been
>>standing in clear sight of a half-dozen fellow employees when the shots rang
>>out?  Would any rational conspiracy bet the whole store on Oswald *not* having
>>an airtight alibi?
>
>Good point. That's why it would be better to use a patsy that was part of
>the operation, at least in some small way.
>

OK, your position is that Oswald was a "not so innocent" patsy.

>
>I don't know that there were more than two gunmen firing, but I expect there
>were more than two gunmen ready to fire. True, it adds to the risk of
>being seen, but not by much. I think the Grassy Knoll shooter was purely
>backup, in case the rear shooter didn't get the job done.
>

So you *don't* think that shots came from the Grassy Knoll?  You think all your
fellow conspiratorialists who believe that are wrong?

Or do you believe that the Grassy Knoll gunman knew that the rear shooter
hadn't done the job, and then opened fire?

Having gunmen who have to decide, within the framework of a few seconds,
whether to open fire is most implausible.  It's a terribly tough call amid
noise and confusion, and even gunmen who haven't opened fire run the risk of
being discovered.  Especially if they are stationed on the Grassy Knoll!

>
>>After all, his sniper's perch in the School Book Depository is
>>by far the best shooting position in Dealy Plaza, if you're shooting at someone
>>driving Kennedy's route.
>
>Wrong. It's a very bad position, unless you mean for shooting as the car
>approaches on Houston, which didn't happen. There are many better places
>for shooting at a car on Elm, such as Bruce's favorite, the Dal-Tex building,
>and the fence along the grassy knoll.
>

You're simply dead wrong on this.  A shot against a target moving left to right
is quite difficult.  A shot against a target moving directly away from you is
pretty easy.  

>>I simply can't imagine how any
>>rational conspiracy would have wanted Oswald in custody.
>
>Yes, evidently someone was a bit perturbed about that situation.
>

So, are you saying that all the theorists who claim that The Conspiracy sent
the police to get Oswald are wrong?  And if he was a "patsy" wasn't he
*supposed* to fall into police hands?  What's the purpose of having a "patsy"
who doesn't fall into police hands?

Actually, probably better to have a patsy who gets shot resisting arrest.  But
then why didn't that happen?  If the fix was really in with the Dallas Police
why wasn't he shot in that theater?  For that matter, why didn't Tippet shot
him?  But if the fix wasn't in, why would The Conspiracy want him in police
hands, where he might sing like a bird.

>Even if Oswald was working for someone in the conspiracy, I doubt he knew much
>about the overall operation. If you had been working for a CIA agent, for
>instance, do you think you could convince anyone of it? 

Either he knew enough to threaten The Conspiracy, or he didn't.  If he did, why
did The Conspiracy allow him to fall into police hands?  But if he didn't, why
have Jack Ruby kill him?  If there is nothing he can say to implicate The
Conspiracy, and if the evidence clearly points to his guilt, why not just let
him play out the role by being convicted and executed?

Further, you have Ruby kill him and you've just exchanged one person in custody
for another.  What if Ruby talks?  Remember if he isn't an "innocent patsy"
then he most certainly has information The Conspiracy would regard as
dangerous.

.John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk