From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 21 Dec 1992 02:07:27 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec20.220150.10788@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rdaniels@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert E. Daniels) writes:

>OK, let's say 2 or 3 shooters, one of which is behind the fence on the GK.
>Each shooter is accompanied by a spotter.  The spotters have walkie talkie
>receivers (or more probably 2 way equipment).  The guy calling the shots
>is at some distance using a telescopic lens, or is standing close by in
>Dealey Plaza (Jim Hicks? as discussed in High Treason, etc.).  But since a
>radio link is vulnerable to malfunction, interference, or whatever, you
>also have a couple guys standing right by the sidewalk in the middle of
>the potential fire zone.  One guy has an umbrella that is up until JFK is
>"down," a second guy actually steps of the curb and waves to JFK (to get
>his attention and turn his head, to draw attention away from the umbrella
>or something else, to also signal that JFK is still "up"?).  Both of those
>signals would be clearly visible to spotters without the aid of
>binoculars.  All they have to say is "up" or "down," "shoot" or "hold your
>fire."  The shooter on the GK tracks JFK as best he can through the
>obstructed view (Stimmon's sign, etc.) until he has a clear shot.  Since
>the last command was "up" he fires -- one or twice.  At which point the
>results are obvious to him and everyone else.  if all this sounds
>fantastic, I would suggest taking a close look at the second half of
>Robert Cutler's _76 Seconds in Dealey Plaza_.  No, I don't
>think you have to buy the flechette theory.  And yes, Louis Steven Witt's
>self-identification as the innocent man with the umbrella has already been
>thrashed through in this newsgroup, and in Marr's _Crossfire_ (pp. 32-33). 
> 

Boy is this getting complicated.  Several shooters, each with a spotter, and a
couple of people right down where the motorcade is (right in the crossfire).

But how could a conspiracy shooting from several different angles possibly hope
to avoid detection?  It happens that all the bullets and fragments actually
found are consistent with a lone gunman from behind.  But no conspiracy,
planning this, could count on this result.  There would likely be bullets or
fragments obviously *not* from Oswald's rifle.  It would be likely that the
*total* number of bullets fired would exceed what Oswald could have fired in
the required time frame.

BTW, what is the *total* number of bullets you think was fired at Kennedy? 
(Obviously, the plan you have outlined would allow for 6 or 8, unless The
Conspiracy was absurdly efficient at stopping the firing).

Do you think Oswald was one of the people shooting, or not?

>>
>>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.
>>
>
>This has also been discussed at length by several authors.  They are
>scarcely equivalent persons in terms of predictability, perhaps knowledge
>of what went down, motivation and vulnerability to manipulation, the 
>nature of the crime they were charged with (in terms of public opinion)
>etc.  If Ruby had been sent to silence Oswald, then his success in doing
>so meant that his controllers managed to replace a critical problem with a
>minor one. 
>

Reasonable argument, but it still doesn't deal with the question of how Oswald
fell into police hands to begin with, if this conspiracy was otherwise so
efficient.

.John