Jump to content
The Education Forum

Five most important reasons there was a conspiracy


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought it would be interesting for members to post (in order) in their opinion the five most significant facts that tend to establish a conspiracy to kill JFK. Could then be used in arguments to persuade the dozen, two dozen people who still believe the lone nut scenario.

I'm not yet ready to prioritize mine but one I think is the Odio incident (together with similar incidents of Oswald impersonators). HSCA found Odio credible and unless it really was LHO at her door, it certainly seems someone was setting LHO up.

Another possibility could be the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City but someone has posited that this could have been a separate intelligence operation unrelated to the assassination.

Final thought: why not list the reasons, then list the strongest LN reason to counter the argument (maybe from Posner opr MacAdams) and show the weakness of the counter-argument.

We should end up with a nice, well-articulated list of the best pro-conspiracy arguments.

I think it should be an interesting thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good call Tim Gratz! I had thought about is myself. Here goes...

Top 5 reasons:

1.) It was impossible to cause the damage suffered by JFK and Connaly with the Carcano rifle and scope as specified by Warren Commission and LN theorists.

2.) The Single (ridiculous) Bullet Theory does not hold water and is a preposterous notion to begin with. Why? Look at the ballistic evidence, trace the bullet holes from the two victims and anyone with an IQ above 50 will see it doesn't quite add up.

3.) Lee Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City: a) a taped telephone call exists which clearly is not Lee Oswald's voice nor does the spoken language represent Lee Oswald's Russian languange skills. :ph34r: There are photos of Lee Oswald visiting the Russian and or Cuban Embassies in Mexico City. The man photographed and claimed to have been Lee Oswald, is clearly not Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of killing JFK.

4.) No one would keep such an amount of incriminating evidence in someone elses garage or house or anywhere else for that matter. This includes the "back yard photos", the letter which purportedly told Marina what to do in case Lee would have been arrested after trying to shoot at Gen. Walker.

5.) No reasonable motives have been presented.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) It was a conspiracy because the American Government has concluded that it was a conspiracy. This was the result of an investigation (HSCA) later than the Warren Copmmission. That's actually the strangest paradox: A new investigation designed to supercede and override the Warren Report (why else do another investigation?) results in an opposite conclusion, yet the goverment still clings to the origanal one: Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone nut. That in itself is an intrinsic admission of government complicty.

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) It was a conspiracy because the American Government has concluded that it was a conspiracy.  This was the result of an investigation (HSCA)  later than the Warren Copmmission.  That's actually the strangest paradox: A new investigation designed to supercede and override the Warren Report (why else do another investigation?)  results in an opposite conclusion, yet the goverment still clings to the origanal one: Lee Harvey Oswald,  the lone nut.  That in itself is an intrinsic admission of government complicty.

Wim

Wim, Keep in mind that HSCA feel very short on investigating any intelligence leads, passing that off instead to the Justice Dept. Then Reagan was elected and his Justice Dept did nothing. I remember calling and obtaining the name of the JD atty. who was allegedly "in charge of that". Cubbage was his name. I called every year on or about 11/22 to see if anything was being done. Of course nothing was.

Proof of conspriacy: God where does one begin? Let's start with the Warren Commission. What was it's job? To find the truth of the assassination? No, but to "disspel the rumors" and prove to the public that one man was responsible.

Any first year investigator/police officer knows that is how not to conduct a murder "investigation", but is how to construct a cover-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The large exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s head, as seen by witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda, clear evidence of a frontal shot.

2. At least one shot heard, with accompanying smoke seen, from the grassy knoll.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald (take your pick of reasons here, e.g. could not have pulled off the shooting feat ascribed to him, could not have gotten to where Baker found him on the second floor in time, denied killing Kennedy though he presumably did it to be somebody, had obvious U.S. intelligence connections through the nature of his defection to Russia and return, etc.) .

4. A sham autopsy (inexperienced prosectors assigned to the duty, two brains used per the ARRB’s Doug Horne, faked photos, evidence of pre-autopsy body alteration).

5. The Warren Commission whitewash; there should have been nothing to hide, omit, or ignore if Oswald did it as claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Destruction of Evidence. Windshield, Hosty Note, Autopsy Notes, President's Brain.

2) Nature of Oswald's life, defection, counter-defection, relationship to DeMorenschild, Cuban groups, altered photos, Walker incident, etc.

3) Secret Service failures, detour, slow crawl, lack of running boards, drinking party, overpass, slow response.

4) Witnesses murdered.

5) Ballistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) The evidence found in the Texas School Book Depository and on Oswald that suggested that he was the gunman (shells, rifle, identity card, photographs, etc.). A clear case of someone being set up as a “patsy”.

(2) The Warren Report (a clear case of a cover-up).

(3) The confessions of John Martino and Tony Cuesta.

(4) The LBJ telephone tapes.

(5) Will for the moment have to remain a secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) The evidence found in the Texas School Book Depository and on Oswald that suggested that he was the gunman (shells, rifle, identity card, photographs, etc.). A clear case of someone being set up as a “patsy”.

(2) The Warren Report (a clear case of a cover-up).

(3) The confessions of John Martino and Tony Cuesta.

(4) The LBJ telephone tapes.

(5) Will for the moment have to remain a secret.

Curious how the telephone tapes prove a conspiracy. There is, of course, a reference in the telephone tapes to an Oswald impersonator in Mexico City. (LBJ's first reported phone conference with J. Edgar Hoover.) And I agree that a LHO imposter in Mexico is strong evidence of a "set-up" although one could conceive a scenario that an unrelated intelligence operation was being carried out. My reading of the telephone tapes is they tend to exculpate LBJ (unless he was a darn good actor).

Re "CIA did it" scenario: it seems to me somewhat inconsistent that CIA did it and used as a patsy a CIA "asset". One could posit a "rogue element" or actor in CIA did it, assuming that LHO's ties to CIA would assure a CIA cover-up. An alternative scenario would say CIA or part of CIA did it but LHO not connected to CIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious how the telephone tapes prove a conspiracy.  There is, of course, a reference in the telephone tapes to an Oswald impersonator in Mexico City.  (LBJ's first reported phone conference with J. Edgar Hoover.)  And I agree that a LHO imposter in Mexico is strong evidence of a "set-up" although one could conceive a scenario that an unrelated intelligence operation was  being carried out. My reading of the telephone tapes is they tend to exculpate LBJ (unless he was a darn good actor).

I will try and explain this in my online seminar "Lyndon Johnson and the Assassination of JFK".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious how the telephone tapes prove a conspiracy.  There is, of course, a reference in the telephone tapes to an Oswald impersonator in Mexico City.  (LBJ's first reported phone conference with J. Edgar Hoover.)   And I agree that a LHO imposter in Mexico is strong evidence of a "set-up" although one could conceive a scenario that an unrelated intelligence operation was  being carried out. My reading of the telephone tapes is they tend to exculpate LBJ (unless he was a darn good actor).

I will try and explain this in my online seminar "Lyndon Johnson and the Assassination of JFK".

Looking forward to it.

I was an avid follower of current events/politics even as a freshman in high school and I remember the developing Bobby Baker scandal but did not remember how close the investigation was coming to LBJ until the info developed on your forum.

One point I would raise with respect to LBJ, though (and I was never a LBJ admirer) is that LBJ and Connally were very close (as the tapes also demonstrate). Somewhat hard to believe LBJ would orchestrate an assassination which would put his friend's life at risk. If LBJ had wanted to do it, couldn't he have found an opportunity other than the Dallas motorcade? And, didn't LBJ have enough info re JFK's sex life that it would have removed JFK from the ticket had it been released? As I recall, it was Baker who had introduced JFK to Ellen Rometsch.

Looking forward to your paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey John,

Why don't you have a problem with the confession of Tony Cuesta, who was just a convict in jail. What is different for James Files? :o

Jim Marrs : During that time, during the time of the Bay of Pigs, while you were training and moving around in the Caribbean, No Name Key and all that, did you ever hear the name George Herbert Walker Bush?

James Files: Oh Yeah!

Jim Marrs: What was his role?

James Files: George Herbert Walker Bush. I don't know if, I think a lot of people are not going to believe this, but he worked for the CIA back as early as 1961 that I know of.

Jim Marrs : How did he work? What did he do?

James Files : I don't know all he did, but he did a lot of recruiting work. I know he was there at the beginning for what we called Group 40, a special operations group, Group 40. If you wonder what Group 40 was, an assassination group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 08:51 AM

  QUOTE(John Simkin @ Nov 19 2004, 09:37 AM)

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Nov 19 2004, 07:46 AM)

Curious how the telephone tapes prove a conspiracy.  There is, of course, a reference in the telephone tapes to an Oswald impersonator in Mexico City.  (LBJ's first reported phone conference with J. Edgar Hoover.)  And I agree that a LHO imposter in Mexico is strong evidence of a "set-up" although one could conceive a scenario that an unrelated intelligence operation was  being carried out. My reading of the telephone tapes is they tend to exculpate LBJ (unless he was a darn good actor).

I will try and explain this in my online seminar "Lyndon Johnson and the Assassination of JFK".

Looking forward to it.

I was an avid follower of current events/politics even as a freshman in high school and I remember the developing Bobby Baker scandal but did not remember how close the investigation was coming to LBJ until the info developed on your forum.

One point I would raise with respect to LBJ, though (and I was never a LBJ admirer) is that LBJ and Connally were very close (as the tapes also demonstrate). Somewhat hard to believe LBJ would orchestrate an assassination which would put his friend's life at risk. If LBJ had wanted to do it, couldn't he have found an opportunity other than the Dallas motorcade? And, didn't LBJ have enough info re JFK's sex life that it would have removed JFK from the ticket had it been released? As I recall, it was Baker who had introduced JFK to Ellen Rometsch.

Looking forward to your paper.

Tim; I don't have any evidence to prove LBJ was behind JFK's assasination in any way.

However, there apparently was a heated discussion regarding seating arrangements regarding the Presidential limousine in Dallas. As I recall LBJ and JFK took part in it, LBJ wanted Senator Yarborough to sit with the President instead of Gov. Connally and his wife. This discussion/argument was heard and reported by someone close to Kennedy. I may be mistaken, but I believe it might have been Kenny O'Donnell. Someone wrote about this in a book.

Furthermore, as we know LBJ was friendly with Connally and not so with Sen. Ralph Yarborough.

Why Dallas, and why when Connally was next to the President, in the line of fire? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 08:51 AM

  QUOTE(John Simkin @ Nov 19 2004, 09:37 AM)

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Nov 19 2004, 07:46 AM)

Curious how the telephone tapes prove a conspiracy.  There is, of course, a reference in the telephone tapes to an Oswald impersonator in Mexico City.  (LBJ's first reported phone conference with J. Edgar Hoover.)  And I agree that a LHO imposter in Mexico is strong evidence of a "set-up" although one could conceive a scenario that an unrelated intelligence operation was  being carried out. My reading of the telephone tapes is they tend to exculpate LBJ (unless he was a darn good actor).

I will try and explain this in my online seminar "Lyndon Johnson and the Assassination of JFK".

Looking forward to it.

I was an avid follower of current events/politics even as a freshman in high school and I remember the developing Bobby Baker scandal but did not remember how close the investigation was coming to LBJ until the info developed on your forum.

One point I would raise with respect to LBJ, though (and I was never a LBJ admirer) is that LBJ and Connally were very close (as the tapes also demonstrate). Somewhat hard to believe LBJ would orchestrate an assassination which would put his friend's life at risk. If LBJ had wanted to do it, couldn't he have found an opportunity other than the Dallas motorcade? And, didn't LBJ have enough info re JFK's sex life that it would have removed JFK from the ticket had it been released? As I recall, it was Baker who had introduced JFK to Ellen Rometsch.

Looking forward to your paper.

Tim; I don't have any evidence to prove LBJ was behind JFK's assasination in any way.

However, there apparently was a heated discussion regarding seating arrangements regarding the Presidential limousine in Dallas. As I recall LBJ and JFK took part in it, LBJ wanted Senator Yarborough to sit with the President instead of Gov. Connally and his wife. This discussion/argument was heard and reported by someone close to Kennedy. I may be mistaken, but I believe it might have been Kenny O'Donnell. Someone wrote about this in a book.

Furthermore, as we know LBJ was friendly with Connally and not so with Sen. Ralph Yarborough.

Why Dallas, and why when Connally was next to the President, in the line of fire? I don't know.

I recall reading about the argument as well. There was a bitter dispute within the Texas Democtrat Party between Connally and Yarborough and supposedly one reasaon for the JFK Texas trip was to try to get the party together so the split would not jeopardize his re-election.

But: if LBJ was behind it, what if JFK had insisted that LBJ ride with him? Seems like LBJ was taking a terrific chance to have the shooting in a motorcade in which he was a participant.

In addition, I recall reading that LBJ was so afraid he was next on the list that he was hiding in a bathroom.

He certainly benefited from JFK's death, of course, and there is the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint issue.

Back to original topic of reasons for conspiracy: How about the accoustic evidence of more than three shots? What is the current status of the debate over the accoustic evidence? It seems additional shots fired would demonstrate two shooters beyond a reasonable doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Oswald's alibi of being in the domino room is supported by Fritz's notes, and the testimony of Holmes, and two or three TSBD employees.

That's all that's needed really. Strong, corroborated evidence that Oswald could not have been a shooter.

But I'll add four more just for the hell of it:

2) No mention of Hidell until Saturday... including in any of the reports of the officers who travelled back to City Hall with him.

3) Ruby's movement's/behaviour over that weekend.

4) Baker in his first statement describing an encounter with a suspect on the 3rd or 4th floor who matched the description of one seen by Rowland rather that of Oswald - despite the fact that Oswald was sitting in te same room as he made that statement. He also failed to mention in the statement that the suspect was the same person now being questioned.

5) Pre-assassination statements by Milteer, Dinkin and others predicting with some precision, the Dealey Plaza ambush.

Could probably come up with 50 of these, and between us, we may well do just that.

As for counter-arguments... I wouldn't bother with Posner or McAdams. We all should be able to come up with our own counter-arguments to test the validity of the evidence/thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...