From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:44:52 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <92351.053256U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>Different scenarios can be entertained
>without going outside the bounds of reasonable conjecture.

Of course they can.  But I'd like to hear one.  Consider, for example, the
problems with the notion of "patsy."  OK, The Conspiracy had to have a patsy to
distract attention from itself and serve as "fall guy."

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?

Or suppose Oswald was part of the conspiracy.  Why have *lots* of people
shooting at JFK, when having lots of gunmen vastly increases the probability
that one of the "wrong" gunmen (not Oswald) will be seen, identified, and
probably captured.  And if Oswald is part of the conspiracy, why *not* have him
shooting at JFK?  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.

>You keep using the terms "conspiracy theorists" or "The Conspiracy".  It would
>be more instructive if you would identify just who you are talking about.
>Myriad people have proposed all kinds and forms of conspiracy, scenarios
>which differ greatly from each other.  Since the implication in your
>questions is to pin us anti-WC advocates down in our own details, could
>you perhaps be more detailed in you accusations?  Just whose conspiracy
>theory are you talking about, John?  Which detailed theory have you read
>about?

Wait just a minute.  *I* don't have to say who The Conspiracy was.  *You* have
to say who The Conspiracy was.  I don't believe in The Conspiracy.  I'm happy
to talk about any hypothetical conspiracy, just for the purpose of argument. 
So you talk about who *you* think The Conspiracy was, and we'll discuss whether
it was capable of doing what you think it did, or would rationally have acted
in the way you thought it acted.

>The concept of "spilling the beans" is more complex than you pose.  So far,
>many different scenarios in these postings have been aired.  Among them,
>LHO has different levels of knowledge, from total innocense to total
>knowledge of the conspiracy.  "Spilling the beans" could mean anything from
>merely mentioning people he thought he was innocently involved with to
>naming the gunman.  Could you be more specific?

I don't need to be more specific, since *any* sort of "spilling the beans" that
would have revealed information about The Conspiracy would have been something
The Conspiracy would have wanted to avoid.  I simply can't imagine how any
rational conspiracy would have wanted Oswald in custody.

>  It is a fact that it was known well ahead of time that JFK had to come to
>Dallas to bolster his campaign. What's the problem here, John?

Was this "well known?"  Was Dallas more of a political problem for JFK than any
of a dozen other cities?  It's true that if you set up an assassination in any
particular large American city you'll eventually get a shot at the president. 
But after how many months or years?

>  If the problem is picturing multiple people involved in a conspiracy, I
>would direct your reading to the Lincoln conspiracy where several killers
>were running around Washington trying to kill multiple members of Lincoln's
>admin.  Or are you still under the grade school impression that Booth was
>the only one doing any attempted killing that day?

I have no problem picturing multiple people involved in a conspiracy.  I have a
problem picturing multiple people involved (particularly the rather unstable 
people who make the appropriate "patsies") and still keeping things
secret.  I direct your attention to the Lincoln conspiracy.

>Knowing that JFK was
>threatened and had some form of attempts on his life in Atlanta and Duluth,
>Minn. would suggest to you possible forms that the conspiracy might take.

I don't follow this. Are you saying that The Conspiracy had setups in Atlanta
and Duluth also?

>Again, I suggest reading a little first before preconceiving something
>definite in your mind.

I'm not going to believe any conspiracy existed until somebody comes up with a
*definite* scenario that doesn't violate the rules of logic and evidence.  If
you'll tell me what you think *happened* we can discuss it.  But you can't
answer an objection to one theory by saying "it wasn't really *that* way, it
was *this* way" and then, when somebody points out a fatal flaw in the latter
theory, reply "well maybe it was done *that* way after all.

You just can't have it both ways.  Or (as your message admitted about
conspiracy theorists) fifteen different ways.

.John