From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:39:38 GMT
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec20.041839.9586@u.washington.edu>, twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
>>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 didn't say that.
>

Well why *didn't* you say that?  If you admit the difficulty of using an
entirely innocent patsy (who may just happen to have an air-tight alibi) then
it seems you have to have 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?
>
>The latter.
>
>>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,
>
>I believe the gunmen were radio signalled.
>

Boy, is this conspiracy getting elaborate!  As all the controversy about when
Connoly was hit, and when he reacted, makes clear, knowing whether the "rear
gunman" had done the job isn't an easy call.  Not within a second or two.  It
seems that your "conspirator on the radio" would have as tough a time as the
grassy knoll gunman making the call.

[I'll omit here the business about the grassy knoll and SBD as places from
which to shoot, except to say that I think you're simply wrong.]

>>>>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?
>
>No, I'm saying that Jack Ruby was sent to shoot Oswald because someone didn't
>want Oswald alive in custody. Either because they didn't want Oswald to talk
>or because they didn't want Oswald to go to trial.
>
>Just because someone didn't want Oswald alive in custody doesn't rule out the
>possibility that someone in "The Conspiracy" put the police onto Oswald in the
>first place. Unless you believe the conspirators were all some kind of cyborgs
>that all thought perfectly logically and alike. Which perhaps is what you
>intend to signify with your use of capitals; I don't know.
>
>
>>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?
>
>No, once they found his rifle and traced it to his post office box, they
>would have had their suspect. It wasn't necessary that he be picked up for
>murder of a police officer, although that certainly did help seal his guilt
>in the eyes of the public.
>
>>Actually, probably better to have a patsy who gets shot resisting arrest.
>
>Yes.
>
>>But then why didn't that happen?
>
>Perhaps the conspirators didn't think of it, or didn't have anyone who could
>arrange for it. Or perhaps this is what Tippit planned to do, but failed.
>
>>If the fix was really in with the Dallas Police
>>why wasn't he shot in that theater?
>
>For conspirators to have friends in the Dallas Police, and Jack Ruby had many,
>does not translate into absolute and complete control over every single thing
>every single member of the Dallas Police ever does. If there was a Dallas
>policeman or two actually directly working for Ruby or someone else in the
>conspiracy, they would have been one or two of many at the theater and not
>necessarily in a position to just up and shoot Oswald in front of so many
>co-workers. Not that I think any of the policemen at the theater were
>taking directions from a conspirator, I don't.
>
>>For that matter, why didn't Tippet shot him?
>
>Maybe he wasn't working for anyone but the Dallas police, and just stopped
>Oswald because he jumped when he saw a police car coming. Maybe he meant to
>shoot Oswald but didn't realize he had a revolver.
>
>>But if the fix wasn't in, why would The Conspiracy want him in police
>>hands, where he might sing like a bird.
>
>Maybe they didn't, but he got himself in police hands anyway. Second
>guessing how "The Conspiracy" planned things to happen is pretty
>pointless if you don't think things happened as planned.
>
>>>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.
>
>Right.
>
>>If he did, why did The Conspiracy allow him to fall into police hands?
>
>By mistake, probably. Or possibly one part of the conspiracy didn't mind him
>in police hands, but the mafia thought they would be the ones left holding
>the cookie jar if Oswald said what little he knew.
>

Now note what you're doing.  You're positing a conspiracy that has *some*
members who want Oswald in custody, and some who don't.  And a Dallas Police
Department, *some* of whose members are in the employ of The Conspiracy, and
some of which aren't.

It's a game of "heads I win, tails you loose."  The Conspiracy can do
*anything*, even *contradictor* things, and you fit it into your theory.

Now it's perfectly true that real-world organizations (every government
bureaucracy, for example) *do* have people who want contradictory things, and
do engage in some actions that are inconsistent with other actions.

However, such organizations aren't capable of pulling off an effective
conspiracy.  No real-world organization I know about is capable of the
coordination, singleness of purpose, and efficiency that this conspiracy would
have required.  Any real-world organization that I know about, if it tried such
a thing, would have long since been revealed.

Look, you're positing an organization that couldn't keep Oswald out of custody
(if that's what it wanted), or have him shot resisting arrest (if *that's* what
it wanted).  But this same Conspiracy is supposed to have been able to doctor
all sorts of evidence.  It's supposed to have included the members and staff of
the Warren Commission.  It's supposed to have successfully concealed it's exact
identity from us up to this day.

It doesn't seem to me that it can be so terribly catch-as-catch can (when it
fits your theory) and so nearly omnipotent (when an omnipotent conspiracy is
necessary).

.John

P.S.  I'm going on vacation, and won't be able to access Internet for a couple
of weeks.  So if I ignore any reply you post, it's not that I'm ignoring you.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk