Everybody loves a conspiracy

[Jools Gallagher]

Before I get inundated with with posts from irate historians and researchers, utterly aghast that I could be suggesting that there was no conspiracy surrounding the assassination of JFK, let me first point out that I am a great player of devils advocate and will quite often argue the other side of topic even though I agree with the people I am arguing with. It makes for a more interesting and healthy debate.

Being a relative newcomer to this topic, I cannot possibly compete with the wealth of knowledge that exists between the members of this forum, nor will I attempt to. I will however mention that as an open minded and objective participant in the study of the JFK assassination, I have tried to read as much as I can on both sides of the argument. I have watched on various web sites and indeed on this forum as members dispute minute details with each other, paraphrase testimonies and voice opinions as to why their theories are more valid than others.

Whilst we all know there is simply too much evidence pointing towards a conspiracy for it not to be taken extremely seriously, could it also be that some people are taking things a bit too far. From reasonable and logical theories to some more far fetched and unlikely theories. The grassy knoll, the south knoll, the underpass, the curbside sewer, the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Cubans, the Oil conglomerates, George Bush, Ronald McDonald and so on.

I'm not discrediting any of these theories, (ok maybe Ronald McDonnald), but could it be that it is simply more interesting for there to be a complicated, highly covert, multi-layered, inter-woven tangled web of conspiracy? And that a simple answer or one of relative simplicity would never satisfy the appetites of theorists and people who enjoy researching and studying topics from infinite angles?

I wonder if we were still not to yet know the explanation of a more recent assassination of a prominent figure like for example say, John Lennon, how many different and complicated multi-faceted theories would have been born surrounding his death?

This is just a topic - not an opinion.... But can we be looking too deeply into things to find things that aren't really there?

[Ron Ecker]

One should follow where the evidence leads and use Occam's Razor. The argument that we try to look too deep gets into the Peter Jennings school of thought that we are mental weaklings with a psychological need for conspiracy. So the more complicated the better.

As for Lennon, I don't know all the details, but as I recall he was shot by a bullet or bullets fired from the opposite side of where they went in him, and the doorman who talked with the accused assassin before the shooting was an anti-Castro Cuban from the Bay of Pigs days. Sounds to me right off like a government hit, but I'm only recalling from memory of what I've read.

[Tim Carroll]

deleted for space

Edited November 5, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[John Simkin]

Whilst we all know there is simply too much evidence pointing towards a conspiracy for it not to be taken extremely seriously, could it also be that some people are taking things a bit too far.  From reasonable and logical theories to some more far fetched and unlikely theories.  The grassy knoll, the south knoll, the underpass, the curbside sewer, the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Cubans, the Oil conglomerates, George Bush, Ronald McDonald and so on.

I'm not discrediting any of these theories, (ok maybe Ronald McDonnald), but could it be that it is simply more interesting for there to be a complicated, highly covert, multi-layered, inter-woven tangled web of conspiracy?  And that a simple answer or one of relative simplicity would never satisfy the appetites of theorists and people who enjoy researching and studying topics from infinite angles?

Welcome to the JFK Forum. Although most of us believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, we very much disagree about who was responsible. This is in itself one of the problems. The people who planned the assassination also planted a lot of false evidence that pointed people in so many directions.

The strategy of the authorities has been to portray those who refused the official story as being unhinged. This strategy has been fairly successful. Most historians refuse to explore the assassination, fearing a decline in their reputation. Several of my friends warned me of this when I began to take a close interest in the case. However, I rejected this advice (maybe because I did not have much of a reputation to lose).

Before embarking on my study of the JFK assassination I had been mainly interested in UK political history. During my research I discovered that the state had been involved in hiding the truth about important political issues since the late 18th century. In fact, it became essential if a fully democratic society was to be prevented. This involved setting up reformers for crimes they did not commit. This has been going on throughout the 20th century. Only today official documents were released concerning how the 76 year old Tom Mann was arrested and imprisoned on false charges in 1932 in an effort to frighten off the people organising hunger marches. What is interesting about these documents is that the show the prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, tried very hard to get Mann released. His efforts were unsuccessful. It was probably at this time that he realised that his power was severely limited.

If we are ever the discover our past we need to examine our “secret history”. This will inevitably lead to you being called paranoid or a conspiracy nut. However, I think it is our duty to continue with the struggle. Until this battle is won, we will not be able to experience a fully democratic political system.

[Shanet Clark]

Welcome aboard.....

Be critical, hold us to good evidence, and you might be swayed.

A british barrister, Fenton Bresler, wrote "WHO KILLED JOHN LENNON(st. Martins 1989)"

Briefly, Mark David Chapman was involved in the YMCA's international refugee camps, volunteered to go to camps in Lebanon, was influenced by an agent of operation PHEONIX who ran the YMCA int'l refugee program. Chapman's whereabouts before the murder in NYC are unknown and the whole "catcher in the rye" angle and the fact that chapman did not flee point to sinister influences.

Read Bresler's book.

In the upcoming online conference I hope to present a simplifying theory, loyal to OCCAM"S RAZOR (or the LAW of Parsimony)......

Shanet

Whilst we all know there is simply too much evidence pointing towards a conspiracy for it not to be taken extremely seriously, could it also be that some people are taking things a bit too far.  From reasonable and logical theories to some more far fetched and unlikely theories.  The grassy knoll, the south knoll, the underpass, the curbside sewer, the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Cubans, the Oil conglomerates, George Bush, Ronald McDonald and so on.

I'm not discrediting any of these theories, (ok maybe Ronald McDonnald), but could it be that it is simply more interesting for there to be a complicated, highly covert, multi-layered, inter-woven tangled web of conspiracy?  And that a simple answer or one of relative simplicity would never satisfy the appetites of theorists and people who enjoy researching and studying topics from infinite angles?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to the JFK Forum. Although most of us believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, we very much disagree about who was responsible. This is in itself one of the problems. The people who planned the assassination also planted a lot of false evidence that pointed people in so many directions.

If we are ever the discover our past we need to examine our “secret history”. This will inevitably lead to you being called paranoid or a conspiracy nut. However, I think it is our duty to continue with the struggle. Until this battle is won, we will not be able to experience a fully democratic political system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited October 20, 2004 by Shanet Clark

[Jools Gallagher]

Thank you all for your interesting comments. John made a point :

"Although most of us believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, we very much disagree about who was responsible".

Being a novice and seeking the experience of the many knowledgeable contributors to this forum, it would help me greatly if one of the more experienced members who has read all of the different theories and ideas would be able to list in bullet points, the "key elements" of the assassination itself and the cover up that are universally, (within the researchers in this forum), agreed upon.

Thanks

Jools

[John Simkin]

Being a novice and seeking the experience of the many knowledgeable contributors to this forum, it would help me greatly if one of the more experienced members who has read all of the different theories and ideas would be able to list in bullet points, the "key elements" of the assassination itself and the cover up that are universally, (within the researchers in this forum), agreed upon.

Jools, it might be worth looking at this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1037

I suggest you then ask questions of the individual posters on this thread.

[Shanet Clark]

(....working for Dulles....I can understand that, as a theme)

The militant reactionary political opposition to John Kennedy,

powerfully placed individuals, working under wartime pretexts;

i.e. the military industrial complex's own self-appointed 'technicians'.....

working with Alan Dulles and Douglass Dillon.

That's what researchers call a supernumerative variable-

"the government"

Jools

read the 25th amendment,

it was written in 1965,

and it is germane to the Warren Commission

shanet

[Jools Gallagher]

Again forgive my ignorance if this question has been asked before, and again it is devils advocate...

In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination, it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death.

Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation.

Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro). As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?

[John Simkin]

In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination,  it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death.

Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation.

Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro).  As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?

Very good question.

In his book, The Last Investigation, Gaeton Fonzi describes a meeting with Vincent Salandria. Immediately after the publication of the Warren Commission Report, Salandria wrote a powerful critique of it for The Legal Intelligencer. This article had a deep impact on Fonzi. However, although Fonzi continued to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Salandria seemed to lose interest in the case.

When Fonzi met Salandria he asked him why he lost his passion to discover who was behind the assassination of JFK. Salandria replied:

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

I believe this statement contains a profound truth – the people behind the assassination wanted the American public to believe there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy: As Salandria points out: “The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message."

Salandria implies that he eventually gave up the struggle because he realized he was powerless. It also raises the issue of why other important JFK researchers eventually fell silent or changed their mind that it was a conspiracy: Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein, Robert J. Groden, Henry Hurt, Joachim Joesten, Michael Kurtz, Gary Mack, Jim Marrs, Richard H. Popkin, Stephen Rivele, Dick Russell, David E. Scheim, Richard E. Sprague, Josiah Thompson, William Turner, Noel Twyman, etc. I know some of these people are dead, but they went quiet long before that happened. Even Gaeton Fonzi appears to be reluctant to talk about the case now.

Did they give up out of frustration? Did they sell out? Were they scared off the case? Or did they realize that the people in control of America would never allow the true story to be told?

See the following for a debate on this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1734

[Antti Hynonen]

Jools Gallagher Posted Today, 07:26 AM

  In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination, it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death.

Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation.

Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro). As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?

In my opinion:

The conspirators took a huge risk in this operation. It succeeded because there must have been a number of key individuals both in Dallas and Washington who had foreknowledge of the events which were taking place. The cover-up was successful for many years.

Many of the people involved in the planning eliminated key figures behind the shooting, the getaway, witnesses etc. Starting with Lee H. Oswald.

Sure it was a difficult and risky assassination, however, the true perpetrators have not been detained, nor has a proper investigation been conducted (one main excuse for not investigating being National Security).

[Jools Gallagher]

Thank you for your responses. I still don't feel satisfied though.

If the conspirators or "the forces of power" wanted to make a public statement, to send out a message saying - we have the power, connections and audacity to publicly execute the president of the United States and we can get away with it! Who was this message to? The public, the government, rival organisations? If it is the public - then remaining anonymous and not claiming the murder would not serve much purpose. Usually an act of terrorism if it is pre-meditated and carried out by a group - will be claimed, sending a message to everyone that they are serious and they can get to you - a boost for their cause whatever. Covering up the event so that no-one knows who is responsible, what message does this send?

If it was a message to the government, a - we can get to you - situation, then why wouldn’t the government have made more effort to find and expel these conspirators and protect their seat of power?

Gangland or organised crime messages are common also - let your rivals know you mean business - send out the message.

So saying the "forces of power were sending out a message" of course is true in many respects, it was a horrific murder, a public execution - it disposed of a president. But to take such a terrific risk, the headshot was not a sure thing, there was so much scope for it to backfire, why choose the assassination this way?

The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.'

Who was this message being sent to? - And how can they benefit from this message if the "we" remain anonymous?

The many political/Cuba/Mafia/Cold War motives for the assassination would surely be achieved by the removal of Kennedy, but a subtler, slicker, more calculated assassination with less scope for error would have achieved this also. Why take the risk??????

Forgive me if I am being naive here. I'm young and inexperienced!

[Jim Root]

Since you enjoy playing "devils advocate" perhaps I can stimulate your mind with a different train of thought:

Suppose there was not a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy as many now think of conspiracies. Now suppose Oswald was involved in the assassination, implicated and a need to eliminate him in order to cover-up his involvements in covert activities was necessary. Could those same involvements have prompted Oswald to participate in the assassination?

For example:

We know Oswald wanted Jonathan Abt to act as his attorney. Abt had acted as a defense lawyer in Smith Act cases. Oswald was aware of this and requested Abt repeatedly while in custody. The Smith Act had been used to prosecute communists for conspiring to overthrow the government. Would a person who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time know exactly who they wanted for a lawyer? Would that same person refuse legal representation when offered if they found themselves in the type of situation Oswald found himself in?

Undisputed infromation we have about Oswald shows that he was a Marine radar operator (U-2 spy planes at Astugi) that defected to the Soviet Union who then returns to the United States with family in tow. It is easy to speculate, with this one line of known information, that Oswald could be tied to the intellegence community therefore it is easy to speculate that he was involved in a conspiracy. If Oswald acted alone and if the above speculation has any merit whatsoever you could conceive of a problem for the American intellegence community. If Oswald had any connection whatsoever to the intellegence community and it was made public, the ligitamacy of the Johnson administration would be compromised as would, perhaps, the whole American system of govenment.

A difficult problem that creates a fascinating puzzle for thought that may have led to the Warren Commission and to us here today (with the US Government still being questioned but still in being).