A Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

Well now, this goes to explain a lot, The United Fruit Co., well what do you know, Lorenzo Dow Baker.   Thanks for this, as it opens up some new doors.  Actually, Baker was involved in the early history of the company in the 1800's, before it was called United Fruit.

Lance, I've taken quite a bit of time researching your background over the past 8 months, but I still can't see where you went to High School.   You live in a highly Mormon area of Arizona, but I don't think you're a Mormon with that remark you made about Missionarys visiting you.  (I don't believe your comment, btw.)

In your avatar, you state you're involved in 'Christian theology', so I don't think you're Roman Catholic, as Catholics refer to themselves as Catholics, and not Christians, (usually).   However, you did make a comment about 'holy water', so maybe you are a Catholic.   Can you clear it up for me Lance, are you Roman Catholic?

 

Hey, research away - I welcome it, if you're actually that interested.  I went to Rincon High School in Tucson, class of 1968, to clear that up for you.  If you turn up anything interesting about Lorenzo Dow Baker, be sure to let me know.  All I know is that my father used to say "Your grandfather brought the first bananas to America."  When I got around to researching it all just a few years ago, I could not connect Lorenzo Dow Baker to my maternal grandmother as her father (i.e., I couldn't establish that he was my grandfather, and I really tried).  But much of the Baker family history (including my grandmother's) is in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, so it's very hard to research.

Don't let me dissuade you, but you're going to be extremely disappointed if you're looking for anything juicy about me.  It's truly Dullsville, but give it your best shot if you have the time and interest.

I became a "born again" Christian in college, was active in Campus Crusade and the Southern Baptist Church, and attended Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, CA (see how helpful I am!).  I flushed all that at about the age of 30 and since then have been deeply enmeshed in independent theological studies.  Theology, apologetics and philosophy of religion are certainly my main interests - but my beliefs don't fit tidily into any established niche, which is why I seldom go to church anymore.  I have never even been inside a Catholic or Mormon church.  If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to pick a church, it would probably be Eastern Orthodox.

As I said, Dullsville.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Jim Harwood said:

You believe in after life for animals and you're not embarrassed so why worry about me? I understand you were on the prosecutors side but that makes it worse. If you were so great why did the drug trade flourish in subsequent years? Cause dumb dumb Lance goes after the small fry dealers and leaves the bigger fish to remain in business untouched. In other words like your resume it's all BS. 

If I was so great?  My entire career had absolutely nothing to do with drug enforcement or any form of criminal prosecution other than the occasional misdemeanor zoning violation case.  I received the Prosecutor of the Year award for work I submitted to the USDOJ for the purpose of having our county designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.  I thought the award was an absolute joke and was embarrassed to accept it in front of 500 real prosecutors, but it does look good on the resume.  Last post to you from me - this is all too far in the ozone for me to keep up the dialogue.

[Jim Harwood]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

If I was so great?  My entire career had absolutely nothing to do with drug enforcement or any form of criminal prosecution other than the occasional misdemeanor zoning violation case.  I received the Prosecutor of the Year award for work I submitted to the USDOJ for the purpose of having our county designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.  I thought the award was an absolute joke and was embarrassed to accept it in front of 500 real prosecutors, but it does look good on the resume.  Last post to you from me - this is all too far in the ozone for me to keep up the dialogue.

Learn to read,  that is what I wrote-- your award, it's fake. In case you and your prosecutors ever get serious about stopping drugs.

in 2012, Carl Levin, who was a Democratic Senator,
he was head of the Senate Permanent Investigative Committee, and
they did an investigation of the money laundering that was done
across the U.S.-Mexico border from Mexico.  And according to
that, we had a representative who was at the press conference
where he gave the results of this -- according to that, they
discovered that 60-70% of the drug money that was being laundered
from Mexico into the United States, was done by HSBC.  HSBC,
which most people don't realize is actually short for Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corp., which was founded in 1865, in order
to profit from and to organize the sale of opium into China.  And
it was recalled to me, recently, that the Chinese estimate that
in the course of the two Opium Wars, 100 million Chinese lost
their lives.  This is one of the most evil policies that the
British Empire enacted in that time period.
    The point is, that that continues, and you have to, if you
have not -- you've {got} to read {Dope, Inc.}  This book made an
enormous impact on me when I read it, because it's like a
reference book, it's exceedingly well documented:  That the
British banks, on behalf of the Empire, have persisted in
everything that they were doing, in the 1800s, they just created
a second set of books.  And that second set of books was
discovered by Carl Levin.
    And what happened?  If there were any justice in that kind
of government policy at that time, then what would have happened
is that HSBC would have been kicked out of the country, they
would have had their charter revoked, and the people who ran the
company who were responsible for these decisions would have been
put in prison.  Instead, I believe this is under Eric Holder
[Obama's Attorney General], and Loretta Lynch was involved from
the standpoint of her position in Brooklyn (I don't remember all
of the details), but instead HSBC received a deferred
prosecution, which meant that they did not have to admit of
wrongdoing, other than paying a fine.  And they paid a large
fine, but {tiny} compared to the amount of money that was
laundered, and so this was the cost of doing business.  And I
would remind you, that [Obama's FBI director] Jim Comey was on
the board of HSBC.  I don't know what years he was on the board,
but it was either overlapping or very near to this time period.
The Jim Comey who is in the media today.

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Jim Harwood

[Robert Card]

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

I became a "born again" Christian in college, was active in Campus Crusade and the Southern Baptist Church, and attended Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, CA (see how helpful I am!).  I flushed all that at about the age of 30 and since then have been deeply enmeshed in independent theological studies.  Theology, apologetics and philosophy of religion are certainly my main interests - but my beliefs don't fit tidily into any established niche, which is why I seldom go to church anymore.  I have never even been inside a Catholic or Mormon church.  If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to pick a church, it would probably be Eastern Orthodox.

As I said, Dullsville.

No, I was only looking to see if you're Catholic, and nothing else.  Being that you're so helpful in your comment, I should have just asked you last year instead of spending way too much time on my own.

I don't want to slight you with this investigation, your work and school life can only be described as impressive.   So was Bugs, and I disagree with him, too.

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, John Butler said:

What?  People are bored?  Why is anyone talking to this fellow?  I think he has run afoul of that rule about intelligent people always believing they are right.

To an extent, I have to agree with you.  When I posted my original post, I truly expected it would receive close to zero responses and quickly die on the vine.  It was indeed much too long for a forum such as this, but as I have said it was prepared for a different purpose and I decided to float it here.  When I logged on at 5 a.m. today, simply to copy it since I hadn't saved it in a Word document, I was very surprised to see that it was quite an active thread.  I really expected people to say "It's too long and, besides, it's just Lance - ignore him and he'll go away."  But I guess maybe they are bored, or perhaps they just couldn't resist.

No, I don't always believe I'm right.  The Lone Assassin explanation isn't me, for Pete's sake.  I didn't think it up.  I simply believe it is by far the most plausible explanation.  If there was anything resembling a conspiracy, I believe it was a very small-scale affair arising out of Oswald's trip to Mexico City and wouldn't rise to the level of anything the enthusiasts here would even recognize as a conspiracy.  If I'm proven wrong, so be it.  My point to the Conspiracy Game enthusiasts is not "I'm right and you're wrong" but more like "What you are doing is not the route to historical truth.  It's almost entirely misguided silliness."

Today has been fun in its own way, but surely any discerning reader can see that there has literally not been a single substantive response to anything set forth in my original post.  It has been almost entirely ad hominem attacks, some of them quite scurrilous and some of them almost insane.  And so it goes in the Conspiracy Game.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

No, I was only looking to see if you're Catholic, and nothing else.  Being that you're so helpful in your comment, I should have just asked you last year instead of spending way too much time on my own.

I don't want to slight you with this investigation, your work and school life can only be described as impressive.   So was Bugs, and I disagree with him, too.

 

Oh, OK.  That being said, I have been a serious student of Marian apparitions and the Shroud of Turin!  The apparitions at Fatima (Portugal) in 1917 and Zeitoun (Egypt) in 1968 were truly weird, while the Shroud is a mystery in a class by itself.  Anyone who wants to see what completely obsessive but highly scholarly work in a field of weirdness looks like should visit www.shroud.com.  It's literally mind-boggling.  Shroud research certainly has its own lunatic fringe, but there is a vast body of serious and impressive work.

[David Andrews]

Come Retribution (1988), by Tidwell. et al., is a convincing examination of the Confederate secret service's role in funding the Lincoln kidnap and assassination plots.

https://www.amazon.com/Come-Retribution-Confederate-Service-Assassination/dp/0878053484

Shades of Cuba, Confederates in both the South and hiding in Canada were furious at the failed Dahlgren raid on Richmond of March, 1864.  The Union commander's body was found with a memorandum directing his party to hang Jefferson Davis and Confederate government members.  Without direct attribution, Lincoln was blamed.

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

To an extent, I have to agree with you.  When I posted my original post, I truly expected it would receive close to zero responses and quickly die on the vine.  It was indeed much too long for a forum such as this, but as I have said it was prepared for a different purpose and I decided to float it here.  When I logged on at 5 a.m. today, simply to copy it since I hadn't saved it in a Word document, I was very surprised to see that it was quite an active thread.  I really expected people to say "It's too long and, besides, it's just Lance - ignore him and he'll go away."  But I guess maybe they are bored, or perhaps they just couldn't resist.

No, I don't always believe I'm right.  The Lone Assassin explanation isn't me, for Pete's sake.  I didn't think it up.  I simply believe it is by far the most plausible explanation.  If there was anything resembling a conspiracy, I believe it was a very small-scale affair arising out of Oswald's trip to Mexico City and wouldn't rise to the level of anything the enthusiasts here would even recognize as a conspiracy.  If I'm proven wrong, so be it.  My point to the Conspiracy Game enthusiasts is not "I'm right and you're wrong" but more like "What you are doing is not the route to historical truth.  It's almost entirely misguided silliness."

Today has been fun in its own way, but surely any discerning reader can see that there has literally not been a single substantive response to anything set forth in my original post.  It has been almost entirely ad hominem attacks, some of them quite scurrilous and some of them almost insane.  And so it goes in the Conspiracy Game.

So do you  allow for the possibility that LHO acted as am agent of a larger conspiracy.

[W. Niederhut]

54 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Oh, OK.  That being said, I have been a serious student of Marian apparitions and the Shroud of Turin!  The apparitions at Fatima (Portugal) in 1917 and Zeitoun (Egypt) in 1968 were truly weird, while the Shroud is a mystery in a class by itself.  Anyone who wants to see what completely obsessive but highly scholarly work in a field of weirdness looks like should visit www.shroud.com.  It's literally mind-boggling.  Shroud research certainly has its own lunatic fringe, but there is a vast body of serious and impressive work.

I have been interested in the scientific and historical research on the Shroud of Turin for the past 25 years, after visiting former Air Force Academy physicist John Jackson, who headed the Shroud of Turin University Research Project (STURP) in 1978.

It's a truly fascinating scientific, forensic, and historical subject that is poorly understood by the general public, (and the mainstream media) based on a priori positivistic assumptions.

Though far off topic for this forum, I should mention Ian Wilson's outstanding books about the Shroud -- The Blood on the Shroud, and Holy Faces, Secret Places.

One thing that the Shroud has in common with research on the JFK assassination and 9/11 is that people have to understand the nature of bona fide scientific, forensic, and historical evidence to see through a priori assumptions and the veneer of socially-constructed,  false reality "explaining" all three phenomena to correctly understand them.

 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So do you  allow for the possibility that LHO acted as am agent of a larger conspiracy.

Of course, why would I not "allow for the possibility"?  This isn't my religion.  I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK.  As I've said repeatedly, a massive conspiracy to assassinate JFK would be right down my alley:  weirdness of the first magnitude.  Even in respect to my actual religion, I always make clear that the Mormons, Young Earth Creationists or most extreme Bible-thumping Fundamentalists theoretically could be right (as could the atheists or Muslim jihadists, for that matter).

All I can do in any field is apply my intelligence and analytical abilities as diligently as possible and arrive at what I believe to be the best explanation on the basis of the best evidence.  Having done that, I am satisfied that the Lone Assassin explanation stands head and shoulders above any other.  I allow a moderate possibility that Oswald may have had contacts in Mexico City that might satisfy the technical definition of a conspiracy, but such a conspiracy would not amount to a hill of beans.

The sort of grand and elaborate conspiracies favored at sites such as this I regard as essentially impossible - not utterly impossible, but impossible in the same way that I regard Young Earth Creationism as essentially impossible.  For any of them to be true, the best evidence we now have would virtually have to be discarded, Oswald would have to be someone entirely different from what his life history suggests and what those who knew him best thought he was, and what now appears to be the wildest sort of speculation would have to be established with solid evidence.  If and when that happens, I'll cheerfully say "I'll be damned."

My point is that the Conspiracy Game, which to one degree or another characterizes almost every thread I've seen on this site, is a cartoon caricature, a pathetic imitation, of genuine historical research.  The Conspiracy Game is simply the wrong methodology for arriving at the truth of the JFK assassination.  I stand completely behind the description of the Conspiracy Game as set forth in my original post.  What I should have made clearer is that the "Conspiracy Game" does not mean "everyone who thinks there was or may have been a conspiracy."  The Conspiracy Game describes the methodology of those who "analyze" and "explain" historical events in the way I describe - and that includes a very large percentage of what takes place here.

What this thread has demonstrated once again - no breaking news here, folks - is that Conspiracy Game enthusiasts are utterly unwilling to look at themselves in the mirror even for an instant and immediately resort to the lowest form of ad hominem attacks when an infidel appears in their midst - because ad hominem attacks are all they really have.  I have at least now been inspired to post exactly the same thing on a couple of non-JFK conspiracy enthusiast sites and confirm that the response will be essentially identical.

[Robert Card]

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

All I can do in any field is apply my intelligence and analytical abilities as diligently as possible and arrive at what I believe to be the best explanation on the basis of the best evidence.  Having done that, I am satisfied that the Lone Assassin explanation stands head and shoulders above any other.  I allow a moderate possibility that Oswald may have had contacts in Mexico City that might satisfy the technical definition of a conspiracy, but such a conspiracy would not amount to a hill of beans.

 

Lance............This is he problem I have with a lot of LNer's.   Best evidence?   What evidence?

I've studied J Edgar "Mafia Doesn't Exist" Hoover since the 80's.   In my view, Hoover was criminally insane, with multiple Congressional efforts to remove his name from the FBI building.  I'm always finding new evidence of his misdeeds and crimes.   Just yesterday, I found that Hoover went on a vendetta against Jesse Curry which was probably a prime factor in his resignation due to stress.

The burglary at the Media, PA FBI office clearly shows that there were two FBI's, one the good guys, and the other a criminal thug organization.   Agent Provocateurs, like in the 16th St Baptist Church bombing.  Wiretapping Congressmen.   There's really too much too list.

I can even show you an example of FBI criminality right here in Colombia.  I want to report the crime of this federal officer, but I'm told the FBI will do everythng they can to harass me.  So I've decided to pull a Howard Brennan, and keep my mouth shut to protect my famlly.

Being that Hoover was running the federal investigation, why would you call the WC report evidence?   I get into trouble with the CTer's too, as a lot of them like the FBI.  

Why would you call anything the FBI touched, Dallas PD touched, the CIA touched, Dallas Sheriffs Dept touched, evidence??

There is no evidence, and the case should be re-opened.  

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Robert Card

[Karl Hilliard]

51 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

  I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK.

My point is that the Conspiracy Game, which to one degree or another characterizes almost every thread I've seen on this site, is a cartoon caricature, a pathetic imitation, of genuine historical research.

 " I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK."

Then why are you here? Or is it just to be sensibly shallow? "Conspiracy game" and "cartoon" doesn't reflect a very serious position but from many, that is to be expected. I have no theories. I have a few ideas about what happened and BTW I saw that motorcade in Dallas just minutes before the ambush in 1963.

It doesn't take much research to see that the authorities... from the police department on up and from LBJ/Hoover on down...using the media as a footstool---lied? ---That is no theory.

 The Warren Commission claimed that truth was their only client but in honesty it actually existed to show the public that Oswald was the only assassin... so stated by their own documents.

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Robert Card said:

Best evidence?   What evidence?

 

 

 

It's a murder case. 

Look for the physical evidence found with the body, properly prepared contemporaneous official documents, contemporaneous written (or mental) notes by witnesses in a position of authority, consensus witness statements.

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. 

Burkley's death certificate, Boswell's autopsy face sheet, and the FBI report on the autopsy put the back wound  T3. 

2 Parkland doctors wrote contemporaneous notes describing the throat wound as an entrance. 

2 FBI special agents and 2 Secret Service agents made contemporaneous notes locating the back wound consistent with the holes in the clothes. 

A total of 15 eye-witness statements describe the throat wound as an entrance, another 15 eye witnesses describe the back wound as consistent with T3, the location of the holes in the clothes.

There was a wound of entrance in JFK's back at T3, no exit, no round found at the autopsy.  &A wound of entrance in his throat, no exit, no round found during the autopsy.

Those are the root facts of the case.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

" I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK."

Then why are you here? Or is it just to be sensibly shallow?

Ah, the "Why are you here?" gambit!  I realize now that I'm going to have to do an update to my outline with a section on "What to expect if you choose to interact with Conspiracy Game enthusiasts."  So this thread has been valuable to me in at least a couple of respects, which is what I'd hoped for when I used it as a beta-test.

I have many interests in the areas of weirdness, each of which has consumed hundreds or thousands of hours in the course of my 69.6 years, quite literally beginning when I was about 8:  Religion, UFOs, Near Death Experiences, Shroud of Turin, reincarnation, all areas of psychical research (and there are many), and so on and so forth.

Within each of those subject fields, I make my rounds, fulfilling my humble mission - which, in all such fields, has crystalized over the past 25 years into "attempting to introduce some critical thinking into fields that are sadly lacking in it."  So that would be the answer to "Why are you here?"  I am pretty much despised in all such fields, but that's the price we missionaries are willing to pay.  I try to have fun with it:  "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" (Elvis Costello).

There are really only two ways for a non-enthusiast to interact with Conspiracy Game enthusiasts:  You can closely examine some nugget of Conspiracy Gospel and demonstrate that it does not withstand scrutiny.  I have done this for a number of such nuggets, but it is tedious, extremely time-consuming and ultimately frustrating for the reasons set forth in my original post.  Or you can approach the Conspiracy Game from the 30,000-foot level and attempt to show enthusiasts the fundamental flaws in their methodology.  I don't really expect to dent the armor of a full-tilt enthusiast, but surely there are some visitors to this site who will realize "Yeah, that is what they are doing!"

No, I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK.  It's simply a historical question.  I have no emotional attachment to whether it was Lee Harvey Oswald or a team of Army Intelligence snipers or five Mafia hit men.  I "care" only in the same sense that I care about the other subjects in which I am interested.

I must add another section to my outline, which I am increasingly convinced will make a worthwhile book:  Conspiracy Game enthusiasts have a litany of incantations that are intended to rally the Brotherhood and ward off evil:  "Warren Commission," "Posner," "Bugliosi," etc., etc., as though everything in the WC report were simply beyond the pale and Bugliosi were a complete charlatan ("He was!!!" screams the chorus).

I don't care anything about the WC per se.  I care about the evidence, of which the WC materials are a veritable goldmine.  Instead of incanting "Warren Commission," try actually reading all 552 testimonies and tell me these are nothing but carefully coached dissemblers (except for the handful that mesh with the conspiracy narrative, who are truth-telling saints).  It's simply insanity.  I'm sorry, it is.  Ruth Paine as a CIA operative?????  Roger Craig as the voice of truth?????

Just in case anyone doesn't know, the entire WC Report, all appendices, and all 552 witness testimonies are available for Kindle, which means they are easily searchable, for a mere $1.99: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TX4SW5K/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o00?ie=UTF8&psc=1. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Robert Card said:

Lance............This is he problem I have with a lot of LNer's.   Best evidence?   What evidence?

I've studied J Edgar "Mafia Doesn't Exist" Hoover since the 80's.   In my view, Hoover was criminally insane, with multiple Congressional efforts to remove his name from the FBI building.  I'm always finding new evidence of his misdeeds and crimes.   Just yesterday, I found that Hoover went on a vendetta against Jesse Curry which was probably a prime factor in his resignation due to stress.

The burglary at the Media, PA FBI office clearly shows that there were two FBI's, one the good guys, and the other a criminal thug organization.   Agent Provocateurs, like in the 16th St Baptist Church bombing.  Wiretapping Congressmen.   There's really too much too list.

I can even show you an example of FBI criminality right here in Colombia.  I want to report the crime of this federal officer, but I'm told the FBI will do everythng they can to harass me.  So I've decided to pull a Howard Brennan, and keep my mouth shut to protect my famlly.

Being that Hoover was running the federal investigation, why would you call the WC report evidence?   I get into trouble with the CTer's too, as a lot of them like the FBI.  

Why would you call anything the FBI touched, Dallas PD touched, the CIA touched, Dallas Sheriffs Dept touched, evidence??

There is no evidence, and the case should be re-opened.  

OK, let’s consider old Jedgar just for illustrative purposes.

I’m no Hoover scholar, but let’s say for the sake of argument that he was essentially the founder of the FBI and had headed the operation (including the predecessor agency) for 39 years at the time of the assassination; he was fiercely, almost obsessively, protective of his own image and that of the FBI; under his leadership, such as it was, the FBI became a widely admired crime-fighting organization and Hoover himself a venerated public figure, almost bigger than life; he had extremely strong and antiquated ideas of the way America “ought to be” in regard to things like civil rights; he was sincerely patriotic and virulently anti-Communist; he was quite a weird guy with his own skeletons in the closet; he accumulated enough dirt on public officials to sink a fleet of battleships (including JFK, a simple task); he would have stopped at pretty much nothing to protect his own image and that of the FBI; he was hell-bent to preserve and expand the FBI’s jurisdiction and influence, even to the extent of bending or violating the law; he thoroughly despised RFK (not entirely without reason) and the fact that RFK had unprecedented influence with JFK since he was his brother; at the time of the assassination, he was an old man facing mandatory retirement, which he would have perceived as an ignominious end to his career and as allowing RFK to run roughshod over his reputation and his beloved FBI.

Is that close enough for argument?  A deeply flawed character, but by no means a wholly flawed one.  Someone who may well have shed nothing but crocodile tears over the assassination of JFK – or who may have been genuinely distressed that his beloved country had come to this.

If I were to dive into this, I would spend at least a couple of weeks with the most serious mainstream biographies of Hoover and such other mainstream historical sources as I could find.  No conspiracy literature at this point, thank you.  I would arrive at the best real-world understanding of the man and his life that I could.  Perhaps you have done this and have indeed discovered shocking things.

I would then formulate some sort of tentative hypothesis:

1.  Is it believable that this man would knowingly participate in, or at least tacitly approve, the assassination of the President of the United States and all the risks to his legacy and the legacy of the FBI that this would entail?  Would his motives have been that strong?  Would his underlings have lived in such fear of him that they would play along in both pre-assassination and post-assassination skullduggery rather than incur his wrath?

2.  Or is it more believable that following an assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald, a known defector engaged in pro-Communist activities who had definitely been on the radar of the FBI in the past as well as in recent weeks,  this man would have filled his britches (figuratively speaking) and done everything in his power to preserve the image and reputation of himself and his agency and conceal everything that made them look like the Keystone Cops?

When I look at the record as a whole – the types of “mistakes” and “fudging” in the FBI reports, Hosty’s destruction of Oswald’s note at the direction of his supervisor, the Wrath of Hoover that many FBI employees did indeed suffer, the testimony of the FBI employees – it pretty much screams to me “Number 2 is the more believable hypothesis.”  Some of the skullduggery may well have been at the direction of Hoover, but I suspect that most of it was because the FBI employees well-understood “Oh, Jesus, the Old Man is going to go completely ballistic over this.”

Armed with my tentative hypothesis, I would then dive into the conspiracy literature.  I have done this to a limited extent with Hoover and the FBI, and what I see is the Conspiracy Game.

If and when something surfaces that actually ties Hoover into the assassination in any convincing way, shape or form, I will cheerfully concede as much.  But what I mostly see now is “Hoover” as one of those Conspiracy Game mantras that I described, often chanted by those who really know nothing about the man except what they have read in the conspiracy literature (which is, for the reasons set forth in my original post, the functional equivalent of knowing nothing about the man).

I'm not casting aspersions at you.  You surely know far more about Hoover than I do, and perhaps your suspicions are well-founded.  If you can convincingly tie him into the assassination with something more than speculation, innuendo and cui bono, go for it.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Guest