So how many conspirators have we narrowed it down to after 44 years?

[Guest David Guyatt]

Thomas,

Thanks for the info re Tosh and the Hopsicker picture (at least I think we're speaking of the same picture that Danny Hopsicker published?). I will take a peep.

David

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas,

Thanks for the info re Tosh and the Hopsicker picture (at least I think we're speaking of the same picture that Danny Hopsicker published?). I will take a peep.

David

_______________________________

Yes David, we are indeed talking about the same picture....

--Thomas

_______________________________

[Tim Carroll]

Hello David. Yes, there are very many "strange" possible connections. I however have been prone to maintain that many possible connections have been purposely implanted into this case, by agents of the conspiracy, to muddy up the water. I feel that the continued success of this cover however relates back to the very simplicity of its basics.

I will agin briefly repeat what I think those basics are / were.

1) only a handful at the very top who were essential to the COVER (not the shooting) had to be in place. These few did not even know the specifics of the "kill"!

2) Below them was "the" planner coordinator.

3) Then degrees of the typical intelligence agency multi layering, that insured that those involved knew no more than "their own" particular role.

4) Persons with the ability to terminate threats...these persons would have no idea of the "WHY" of their hits.

This is why I am one of the few who believe that the introduction of Mafia and Anti Castros was only a clever and successful tactic to misdirect thinking and investigation.

There was nothing that the Mafia or the Anti Castros could provide that couldn't have been better and more surely handled by trusted government assets. The "TONGUES" of the mobsters and Cubans was too hard to control. They were bragging about the hit while not even having anything to do with it. All that they knew is what was purposely trickled down to them to satisfy them that "the thing" was going to happen. The total "brilliance and continued success" of this Coup was a result of its "Simplicity". The research community has self destructed as a result of not believing this pure simplicity ! This of course is just "my speculation"! Charlie Black

I agree that the massively extensive roster of possible conspirators has significantly contributed to the general ridicule of conspiracy theorists. While I generally agree with the above points numbered 1-4, the exception is the complexity of the sheepdipping performed on Oswald. The representation of Oswald as a disgruntled, sexually-inadequate stock clerk just doesn't hold water. As if the production by the CIA of the misidentified Mexico City Saul photos wasn't enough, how about the invoice, initialed by Hoover ("JEH") while Oswald was in Russia, naming Oswald as the buyer in Florida of a number of trucks on behalf of an anti-Castro organization?

Tim

Edited May 21, 2007 by Tim Carroll

[Myra Bronstein]

Hello David. Yes, there are very many "strange" possible connections. I however have been prone to maintain that many possible connections have been purposely implanted into this case, by agents of the conspiracy, to muddy up the water. I feel that the continued success of this cover however relates back to the very simplicity of its basics.

I will agin briefly repeat what I think those basics are / were.

1) only a handful at the very top who were essential to the COVER (not the shooting) had to be in place. These few did not even know the specifics of the "kill"!

2) Below them was "the" planner coordinator.

3) Then degrees of the typical intelligence agency multi layering, that insured that those involved knew no more than "their own" particular role.

4) Persons with the ability to terminate threats...these persons would have no idea of the "WHY" of their hits.

This is why I am one of the few who believe that the introduction of Mafia and Anti Castros was only a clever and successful tactic to misdirect thinking and investigation.

There was nothing that the Mafia or the Anti Castros could provide that couldn't have been better and more surely handled by trusted government assets. The "TONGUES" of the mobsters and Cubans was too hard to control. They were bragging about the hit while not even having anything to do with it. All that they knew is what was purposely trickled down to them to satisfy them that "the thing" was going to happen. The total "brilliance and continued success" of this Coup was a result of its "Simplicity". The research community has self destructed as a result of not believing this pure simplicity ! This of course is just "my speculation"! Charlie Black

I agree that the massively extensive roster of possible conspirators has significantly contributed to the general ridicule of conspiracy theorists. While I generally agree with the above points numbered 1-4, the exception is the complexity of the sheepdipping performed on Oswald. The representation of Oswald as a disgruntled, sexually-inadequate stock clerk just doesn't hold water. As if the production by the CIA of the misidentified Mexico City Saul photos wasn't enough, how about the invoice, initialed by Hoover ("JEH") while Oswald was in Russia, naming Oswald as the buyer in Florida of a number of trucks on behalf of an anti-Castro organization?

Tim

Tim,

I'm sorry but I was unable to find your JFK essay on your myspace.

Could you please point me to it?

I'd like to read it.

Thx.

Myra

[Thomas Graves]

Hello David. Yes, there are very many "strange" possible connections. I however have been prone to maintain that many possible connections have been purposely implanted into this case, by agents of the conspiracy, to muddy up the water. I feel that the continued success of this cover however relates back to the very simplicity of its basics.

I will agin briefly repeat what I think those basics are / were.

1) only a handful at the very top who were essential to the COVER (not the shooting) had to be in place. These few did not even know the specifics of the "kill"!

2) Below them was "the" planner coordinator.

3) Then degrees of the typical intelligence agency multi layering, that insured that those involved knew no more than "their own" particular role.

4) Persons with the ability to terminate threats...these persons would have no idea of the "WHY" of their hits.

This is why I am one of the few who believe that the introduction of Mafia and Anti Castros was only a clever and successful tactic to misdirect thinking and investigation.

There was nothing that the Mafia or the Anti Castros could provide that couldn't have been better and more surely handled by trusted government assets. The "TONGUES" of the mobsters and Cubans was too hard to control. They were bragging about the hit while not even having anything to do with it. All that they knew is what was purposely trickled down to them to satisfy them that "the thing" was going to happen. The total "brilliance and continued success" of this Coup was a result of its "Simplicity". The research community has self destructed as a result of not believing this pure simplicity ! This of course is just "my speculation"! Charlie Black

I agree that the massively extensive roster of possible conspirators has significantly contributed to the general ridicule of conspiracy theorists. While I generally agree with the above points numbered 1-4, the exception is the complexity of the sheepdipping performed on Oswald. The representation of Oswald as a disgruntled, sexually-inadequate stock clerk just doesn't hold water. As if the production by the CIA of the misidentified Mexico City Saul photos wasn't enough, how about the invoice, initialed by Hoover ("JEH") while Oswald was in Russia, naming Oswald as the buyer in Florida of a number of trucks on behalf of an anti-Castro organization?

Tim

__________________________________

Hey Tim,

Good to hear from you again.

Hang in there buddy.

--Thomas

P.S. I agree with you that Oswald's sheepdipping is the key to the enigma wrapped inside the riddle wrapped inside the.....

__________________________________

[Thomas Graves]

What a joke........

Maybe we get out of it what we put into it.

______________________

Yeah My-rah, absolutely....

So, what have you "gotten out of it" so far, other than the fact that you now think William "Tosh" Plumlee was one of the conspirators and that the CIA is a nasty, nasty organization and that you really really hate this 'n that 'n tuther thang 'bout 'Merika........?

--Thomas

______________________

I'm satisfied with what I've gotten out of it so far and don't feel obliged to report to anyone on demand.

I will say that the classic equation "garbage in=garbage out" might explain why you're disappointed with your results.

_____________________________

Probably....

_____________________________

[

Edited August 11, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

What a joke........

___________________

[....] LOL

___________________

Edited August 19, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Peter McGuire]

So how many conspirators have we narrowed it down to after 44 years?, 500 plus or minus 1000?

Wouldn't it be easier to list "who didn't do it?

Exactly. Or narrow the list down to ONE. hint: ( a collective noun and not Pierre Salinger and the Cabinet)

When JFK was assassinated, Salinger was on a plane flying with six Cabinet members going to Tokyo. Salinger's visit was to have been for an economic conference, and to start working on a visit JFK was going to take in February 1964 as the first American president to visit Japan since World War II.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Peter McGuire

[Thomas Graves]

So how many conspirators have we narrowed it down to after 44 years?, 500 plus or minus 1000?

Wouldn't it be easier to list "who didn't do it?

Exactly. Or narrow the list down to ONE. hint: ( a collective noun and not the people in this picture )

_____________________

"I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?,'

and after all, it was you and me..."

--Sympathy For The Devil by the Rolling Stones

(is that "collective" enough?)

--Thomas

_____________________

Edited August 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Peter McGuire]

So how many conspirators have we narrowed it down to after 44 years?, 500 plus or minus 1000?

Wouldn't it be easier to list "who didn't do it?

Exactly. Or narrow the list down to ONE. hint: ( a collective noun and not the people in this picture )

_____________________

"I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?,'

and after all, it was you and me..."

--Sympathy For The Devil by the Rolling Stones

(is that "collective" enough?)

--Thomas

_____________________

Great answer , Thomas.

The word ( collective noun) I was looking for was the Republic.

Mick Jagger said - "We shouted out who killed the Kennedy's but after all, it was you and me".

In our democracy, our government does things for us, as our representatives, not as our overlords. WE THE PEOPLE do the governing by proxy.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Peter McGuire

[Thomas Graves]

So how many conspirators have we narrowed it down to after 44 years?, 500 plus or minus 1000?

Wouldn't it be easier to list "who didn't do it?

Exactly. Or narrow the list down to ONE. hint: ( a collective noun and not the people in this picture )

_____________________

"I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?,'

and after all, it was you and me..."

--Sympathy For The Devil by the Rolling Stones

(is that "collective" enough?)

--Thomas

_____________________

[...]

Mick Jagger said - "We shouted out who killed the Kennedy's but after all, it was you and me".

[...]

___________________________

Peter,

Get it straight. Jagger says, "I shouted out..." (Google "'sympathy for the devil' and 'lyrics'" at the same time, or just listen to the song again.)

Since the lyrics are mostly a litany of horrible things that man has done to his fellow man throughout history, Jagger's "Devil" was probably intended to symbolize the manifestation of all of the evil/bad/stupid/short-sighted things we human beans are capable of doing, like electing bad presidents, senators and representatives, for example.... (lol)

--Thomas

___________________________

Edited August 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves