Was there a Larger Purpose of the Conspiracy?

[Jon Banks]

So you believe these very powerful forces (FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Justice) that murdered JFK - and framed Oswald and then covered their tracks - didn't have the ability and resources to frame JFK for something?  Their only course was to shoot him in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded street and then frame someone for it? Then cover all of this up?

This is what is odd about the conspiracy claims: these forces can do anything but yet are quite limited at the same time.

BTW: LBJ "escalated" US involvement because the North's attacks on the South increased. The South, after Diem's death, was increasingly incapable of defending itself from the North's increased activity. LBJ was faced with the problem of either abandoning the South to the North or trying to prevent that by increasing the US role. The South simply couldn't do it by themselves.

Easier said than done.

What could they have Framed Kennedy with? Something illegal? A Sex Scandal?

I doubt they would've been able to get Kennedy to unwittingly commit a crime. Plus his brother was the Attorney General. Good luck with that.

A sex scandal? Not in the 60s. The Press was different back then. The News media greatly ignored the womanizing and sexual escapades of Presidents in that time. Kennedy and Johnson did stuff in the White House that would make Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal look Rated PG.

I don't think using violence to remove politicians and heads of state is Easy relative to other options but in the 50s and 60s a number of politicians and heads of state were violently removed from office. People viewed assassinaton as an effective way to accomplish regime change.

I'm not endorsing the idea that Kennedy's murder was an inside job. Just saying if you really think about it, removing a popular head of state from office via non-violent conspiracies or elections is very difficult...

[Bill Chapman]

Easier said than done.

What could they have Framed Kennedy with? Something illegal? A Sex Scandal?

I doubt they would've been able to get Kennedy to unwittingly commit a crime. Plus his brother was the Attorney General. Good luck with that.

A sex scandal? Not in the 60s. The Press was different back then. The News media greatly ignored the womanizing and sexual escapades of Presidents in that time. Kennedy and Johnson did stuff in the White House that would make Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal look Rated PG.

I don't think using violence to remove politicians and heads of state is Easy relative to other options but in the 50s and 60s a number of politicians and heads of state were violently removed from office. People viewed assassinaton as an effective way to accomplish regime change.

I'm not endorsing the idea that Kennedy's murder was an inside job. Just saying if you really think about it, removing a popular head of state from office via non-violent conspiracies or elections is very difficult...

Tell us what would be the sense of framing Dirty Harvey, who was apparently (according to CTer brainiacs) a lousy shot, have him fire at Kennedy from behind (meanwhile claiming post-shots frontal wounds) supplied with an apparently crappy weapon and crappy ammo, and then expect the public to swallow that little gem?

A sniper with a proven kill record, with the best gear, would be a more plausible patsy. But no hitman would take that assignment from that location: Snipers choose locations which include escape routes that don't rely on luck.

And, arguably, Oswald was likely resigned to being shot or captured, despite certain CT 'ring-a-ding' piecemeal protestations hereabouts.

[Jon Banks]

Tell us what would be the sense of framing Oswald who was apparently (according to CTer brainiacs) a lousy shot, have him fire at Kennedy from behind, supplied with an apparently crappy weapon and crappy ammo, and then expect the public to swallow that little gem?

Oswald was a "Commie" who spoke Russian and had a Russian wife. The perfect Patsy at the peak of the Cold War.

The details of the assassination wouldn't have mattered if a) the Warren Report wasn't so flawed and b) the Zapruder film had never been shown to the Public.

[Nicholas Turner]

Oswald was a "Commie" who spoke Russian and had a Russian wife. The perfect Patsy at the peak of the Cold War.

The details of the assassination wouldn't have mattered if a) the Warren Report wasn't so flawed and b) the Zapruder film had never been shown to the Public.

To achieve what? World War 3?

[Jon Banks]

To achieve what? World War 3?

Some wanted an escalation in Vietnam. Some wanted a confrontation with the Soviets. Some wanted an invasion of Cuba.

All those things were on the table but ultimately, Johnson only escalated US intervention in Vietnam despite his suspicions about a Communist conspiracy in Kennedy's assassiantion.

[Nicholas Turner]

Some wanted an escalation in Vietnam. Some wanted a confrontation with the Soviets. Some wanted an invasion of Cuba.

All those things were on the table but ultimately, Johnson only escalated US intervention in Vietnam despite his suspicions about a Communist conspiracy in Kennedy's assassiantion.

So if that was the purpose of a conspiracy it failed, so how was Oswald the perfect patsy? His unstable background made the conclusion that he was an unstable character and a lone nut the most likely one surely. An unexplained assassination with leaked evidence of Russian involvement would seem a better approach to me.

[Jon Banks]

So if that was the purpose of a conspiracy it failed, so how was Oswald the perfect patsy?

Sometimes good plans fail.

The conventional wisdom was probably that Johnson would retaliate against Cuba or the Soviets if Oswald was linked to the Communists.

It was Johnson who used the possibility of war with the Soviets to convince Earl Warren to join his Commission.

Johnson and Hoover did the unexpected by suppressing conspiratorial loose ends and declaring before all evidence could be analyzed that Oswald acted alone.

His unstable background made the conclusion that he was an unstable character and a lone nut the most likely one surely. An unexplained assassination with leaked evidence of Russian involvement would seem a better approach to me.

You need a fall guy to keep the investigation from taking unexpected turns.

[Nicholas Turner]

Sometimes good plans fail.

The conventional wisdom was probably that Johnson would retaliate against Cuba or the Soviets if Oswald was linked to the Communists.

It was Johnson who used the possibility of war with the Soviets to convince Earl Warren to join his Commission.

Johnson and Hoover did the unexpected by suppressing conspiratorial loose ends and declaring before all evidence could be analyzed that Oswald acted alone.


You need a fall guy to keep the investigation from taking unexpected turns.

Makes no sense to me. Oswald as a lone gunman makes a lot more sense.