JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Noztradamus]

Were there two other words you were thinking of that would provide evidence of a conspiracy? Those two don't do it.

There are still some other outstanding questions which you've not answered. Do you anticipate ever having the ability to answer those?

I only answer single questions,

The first is clearly a rhetorical question to highlight the "Those two don't do it." statement that your two words are, for reasons others have explained, not the smoking gun that makes Oswald a patsy rather than lone assassin.

As a rhetorical question, no answer was needed.

So you had only one question. Is there any evidence that you answer single questions? (Single as in asked once, not repeated many times until you deign to notice it)

 

[TheRedWorm]

I was thinking about it the other day, and came up with what I think (and please, correct me if I'm off, here) is a plausible chain of events behind each of the three shots:

Shot 1: LHO missed and couldn't find where his shot went (we can't know what he was aiming at, but given shot 3, we can assume JFK's head) so:

Shot 2: LHO aims roughly center of mass, pulls the trigger, and sees JFK react, but not slump as from a instantly mortal wound, so:

Shot 3: Since LHO knows roughly where he was aiming when he took shot 2, and also roughly where shot 2 struck, he takes a little more time to line up his shot, squeezes the trigger, and sees a very obvious mortal wound.

Can any conspiracy peddler do the same?

Guess not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You hadn't answered a single one of mine.


No, that doesn't prove your bare assertion that the Warren Commission Report is a whitewash. Try again.

OK. Here's another (there are so many):

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Nov. 25, 1963
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

Sound like an open minded search for the truth?

No, that doesn't prove the Warren Commission Report was a whitewash. I asked you for your single best piece of evidence. If those are two of your single best piece of evidence then you have none.

What is your single best piece of evidence for a bullet from the grassy knoll?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll be patient with you and try to spell it out. Under the conspiracy law if more than one person even contemplates a crime together, that is conspiracy. IN the Odio incident, the parties connected Kennedy, Assassination and Oswald, with Oswald, or someone impersonating Oswald, before the crime was ever committed. That is evidence of Conspiracy.

Well, no, not really. As far as I understand it, the two Cubans visiting Odio commented to her that the man with them was prepared to kill the President, and had thought of doing it. This, though, is not a conspiracy. Look at your own cite:

18 U.S.C. 371 "makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

So, you see, a conspiracy must involve agreeing to carry out a criminal act, rather than being aware that someone else is considering carrying out a criminal act, or even discussing carrying out a criminal act. All we know is that two Cubans believed that a man who may or may not have been Oswald was capable of, and interested in, killing the President. This is evidence neither of a conspiracy, nor very specifically of a conspiracy involving Oswald; we do not know for certain that the man in question was Oswald.

But the biggest problem is that it has nothing to do with the claim that:

JFK was killed by a bullet or bullets fired to his head, at least one of which came from the Grassy Knoll. I'll get into the evidence for this conclusion in a few days time after these other discussions diminish.

This is a classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy: that evidence in favour of any conspiracy theory is therefore evidence in favour of any other conspiracy theory, whether related, unrelated or even contradictory. Odio's evidence, at best, indicates that two other people knew Oswald was contemplating killing the President, which could well make them accessories to the crime. It doesn't imply that they were part of any agreement to take a role in this crime, and therefore is not evidence of conspiracy; but, more obviously, it says nothing about who fired what shots from where.

So the most we can possibly read into the Odio incident is that two people who were, in a very minor way, accessories to the crime, may still have been at large afterwards. If you want to argue that specifically, then you have a case to argue, but that's as far as it'll take you.

Dave

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, no, not really. As far as I understand it, the two Cubans visiting Odio commented to her that the man with them was prepared to kill the President, and had thought of doing it. This, though, is not a conspiracy. Look at your own cite:



So, you see, a conspiracy must involve agreeing to carry out a criminal act, rather than being aware that someone else is considering carrying out a criminal act, or even discussing carrying out a criminal act. All we know is that two Cubans believed that a man who may or may not have been Oswald was capable of, and interested in, killing the President. This is evidence neither of a conspiracy, nor very specifically of a conspiracy involving Oswald; we do not know for certain that the man in question was Oswald.

But the biggest problem is that it has nothing to do with the claim that:



This is a classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy: that evidence in favour of any conspiracy theory is therefore evidence in favour of any other conspiracy theory, whether related, unrelated or even contradictory. Odio's evidence, at best, indicates that two other people knew Oswald was contemplating killing the President, which could well make them accessories to the crime. It doesn't imply that they were part of any agreement to take a role in this crime, and therefore is not evidence of conspiracy; but, more obviously, it says nothing about who fired what shots from where.

So the most we can possibly read into the Odio incident is that two people who were, in a very minor way, accessories to the crime, may still have been at large afterwards. If you want to argue that specifically, then you have a case to argue, but that's as far as it'll take you.

Dave

Exactly my point. No evidence connects what Odio said to a conspiracy. The more it is "spelled out" the more blatant the difference between the legal term "conspiracy" and the apparent "evidence". But apparently RP refuses to see that. Never mind.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, that doesn't prove the Warren Commission Report was a whitewash. I asked you for your single best piece of evidence. If those are two of your single best piece of evidence then you have none.

What is your single best piece of evidence for a bullet from the grassy knoll?

I do believe if I showed you a Warren Report literally covered with real whitewash you would deny it.

Nuff said. On your way.

 

[Walter Ego]

So the most we can possibly read into the Odio incident is that two people who were, in a very minor way, accessories to the crime, may still have been at large afterwards.

Actually, the Odio incident doesn't prove even that.

I began to see how similar [Oswald's] encounters with Bringuier and Odio were. Oswald had approached each of them as an eager volunteer. ... The age-old role of the provocateur is to encourage acts of violence that will discredit the group he has infiltrated. ... In other words, the mysterious Odio incident was another of Oswald's attempts to infiltrate the anti-Castro underground. The intended victim of this enterprise was not Lee Harvey Oswald, but Sylvia Odio and the Cuban exiles. Oswald was plotting against the exiles, not the other way around. Unlike the explanations offered by the Warren Commission and its critics, this solution FITS THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT OSWALD. And it makes better sense, after all, that Oswald went to see Odio for some reason of his own, than that he was impersonated or duped by his enemies."

Jean Davison, Oswalds Game (Norton 1988)-- Pages 195-196

Carlos Bringuier was the New Orleans delegate of Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, the Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE), an anti-Castro group in New Orleans. In August 1963, Oswald, posing as a friend of the Cuban exiles, approached Bringuier offering to join this group to fight against Castro.

In his "Revolutionary Resumé" Oswald wrote.

[In New Orleans] I infiltrated the Cuban Student directorate and harassed them with information I gained...

This "resumé" was among the documents Oswald took to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City to convince them that he should be admitted to Cuba as a "friend of the revolution".

So, in Davison's view, Oswald's actions at the Odio apartment were consistent with his previous "revolutionary" activities in New Orleans and another attempt to boost his revolutionary "creds" with the Cuban government.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I do believe if I showed you a Warren Report literally covered with real whitewash you would deny it.

Your beliefs are not evidence and are of no moment. What is your best single piece of evidence that the Warren Commission Report is a whitewash?

Nuff said. On your way.

Ah, you have none. Off you go then.

Perhpas since you've given up that bit of silliness, you could now focus on providing your single best piece of evidence for a bullet coming from the grassy knoll.

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK. Here's another (there are so many):

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Nov. 25, 1963
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

Sound like an open minded search for the truth?

Let's look at the whole memo, shall we?

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.
1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.
2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.
I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to inconsistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.
I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Katzenbach is clearly saying here that the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, and that the facts should be released in full so as to end speculation when the true identity of the sole assassin is already known. It only looks like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there was a conspiracy; discard that starting assumption, and it's simply a classic example of the mistaken belief that people who start conspiracy theories are capable of responding to reasoned rebuttal of those theories, a belief that few people seem to retain any more.

And, of course, one might wonder what this has to do with the Warren Commission, given that it was written before the Warren Commission existed by someone who wasn't a member of the Warren Commission.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, the Odio incident doesn't prove even that.

Agreed; I was simply trying to offer the most pro-conspiracist interpretation that appeared reasonable.

Dave

 

[Walter Ego]

I only answer single questions...

I'll get into the evidence for this conclusion in a few days time after these other discussions diminish.

Nuff said. On your way.

Arrogant, isn't he?

Robert, you do realize, don't you, that this is a discussion group and that there is a certain amount of give and take in these conversations. You cannot set the terms of the discussion or give orders.

And why do we always have to wait for your astounding revelations (which, as you can't have failed to notice, have so far impressed no one)? Do you not own a computer and must find one to use or are you just a slow researcher?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Arrogant, isn't he?

He's been so inept at it I just figured that it was his first time and was cutting him some slack.

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's look at the whole memo, shall we?



Katzenbach is clearly saying here that the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, and that the facts should be released in full so as to end speculation when the true identity of the sole assassin is already known. It only looks like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there was a conspiracy; discard that starting assumption, and it's simply a classic example of the mistaken belief that people who start conspiracy theories are capable of responding to reasoned rebuttal of those theories, a belief that few people seem to retain any more.

And, of course, one might wonder what this has to do with the Warren Commission, given that it was written before the Warren Commission existed by someone who wasn't a member of the Warren Commission.

Dave

So the facts do not support a conspiracy even before the investigation? Are you speaking of the United States of America or Alice in Wonderland?

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, no, not really. As far as I understand it, the two Cubans visiting Odio commented to her that the man with them was prepared to kill the President, and had thought of doing it. This, though, is not a conspiracy. Look at your own cite:



So, you see, a conspiracy must involve agreeing to carry out a criminal act, rather than being aware that someone else is considering carrying out a criminal act, or even discussing carrying out a criminal act. All we know is that two Cubans believed that a man who may or may not have been Oswald was capable of, and interested in, killing the President. This is evidence neither of a conspiracy, nor very specifically of a conspiracy involving Oswald; we do not know for certain that the man in question was Oswald.

But the biggest problem is that it has nothing to do with the claim that:



This is a classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy: that evidence in favour of any conspiracy theory is therefore evidence in favour of any other conspiracy theory, whether related, unrelated or even contradictory. Odio's evidence, at best, indicates that two other people knew Oswald was contemplating killing the President, which could well make them accessories to the crime. It doesn't imply that they were part of any agreement to take a role in this crime, and therefore is not evidence of conspiracy; but, more obviously, it says nothing about who fired what shots from where.

So the most we can possibly read into the Odio incident is that two people who were, in a very minor way, accessories to the crime, may still have been at large afterwards. If you want to argue that specifically, then you have a case to argue, but that's as far as it'll take you.

Dave

What is a "minor accessory" to the Crime of the Century? Was this a conspiracy under the law? Depends if there was an agreement or not. But it is reasonable to suppose that there may have been given that the crime was comitted. And since the crime was committed by an alleged suspect named Oswald it is reasonable to assert that the Odio incident qualifies as a reasonable Suspicion of Conspiracy. In Gaeton Fonzi's words it "cries out Conspiracy."

 

[Walter Ego]

So the facts do not support a conspiracy even before the investigation? Are you speaking of the United States of America or Alice in Wonderland?

No, Robert, it was Katzenbach's opinion that the facts did not support a conspiracy. Other people, then and now, obviously had a different opinion.

Do you know the difference between facts and opinions? It is your opinion that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. To support this opinion you must produce some facts (i.e., evidence) in favor of a conspiracy. So far you have not done so.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So the facts do not support a conspiracy even before the investigation? Are you speaking of the United States of America or Alice in Wonderland?

He was talking about a source you quoted. Your source. Are you now denying your own evidence is valid?

 

[Tomtomkent]

What is a "minor accessory" to the Crime of the Century? Was this a conspiracy under the law? Depends if there was an agreement or not.

Yes, it does depend if there was an agreement. So hadn't you better prove one or drop the argument? Or are you seriously suggesting that knowing a local whacko thinks he can and will one day shoot the president makes you a party to that beyond "minor accessory"? So. They should be charged with treason for knowing a guys groundless fantasy?

I want to slap prince Charles. One the arse. You are now a full accessory and conspiritor in my future assualt. Enjoy your jail time..

 

[tsig]

I do believe if I showed you a Warren Report literally covered with real whitewash you would deny it.

Nuff said. On your way.

Deny what? That you had a big book covered in whitewash or that that meant anything of significance?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So the facts do not support a conspiracy even before the investigation? Are you speaking of the United States of America or Alice in Wonderland?

The Warren Commission was formed to examine the evidence, not to investigate the crime. A common mistake, but one conspiracy theorists like to perpetuate. The police and the FBI carry out investigations; political commissions scrutinise the conclusions of those investigations.

And let me reiterate the point you've carefully ignored: you cited a statement made by someone who was not a member of the Warren Commission before the Warren Commission existed as evidence that the Warren Commission was a whitewash. Your argument violates causality.

Dave

 

[tsig]

So the facts do not support a conspiracy even before the investigation? Are you speaking of the United States of America or Alice in Wonderland?

The USA is down the rabbit-hole?