Coup D'etat in 1963

[Joe Mannix]

I don't know what is more bizarre: the belief that all of these powerful groups run the world or the belief that all of these powerful groups had to kill JFK because he somehow threatened their power to rule the world.

They control the world but the only way to stop JFK was to kill him?

JFK was a moderate centrist on domestic issues and a believer that communism posed an existential threat to the West. Hardly the type of person these powerful groups would be worried about.

The killing of JFK was to be blamed on Castro, justifying an invasion of Cuba.

[Walt Cakebread]

The killing of JFK was to be blamed on Castro, justifying an invasion of Cuba.

Yes, that was what the CIA renegades thought they could instigate.    Hoover knew what was going on and sanctioned the plot. ( He had also aided a plot that failed in Chicago by sitting on his hands)

But when the missiles in Cuba were spotted by U-2 surveillance .....  LBJ nixed the plan to invade Cuba.

The killing of JFK was to be blamed on Castro, ......That's the reason Lee Oswald was sent to Mexico City....To sheep dip him and make it appear that he was working for Castro.   Lee went along with the plot that was being played on two stages,  by convincing himself that it would be his ticket to Castro's fortress.

On one stage the actual assassination was being set up.....and on the stage Lee was on a hoax attempted assassination was being presented.

[John Iacoletti]

Cool rebuttal, bro.

[John Anderson]

Cool rebuttal, bro.

What you would rather I tried to educate the poster by explaining how Darby compared an ink print with a poor quality photo copy of a print, how he claimed to find way less similarities than the poster claims, and how Darby somehow failed to recognise more differences than similarities. After explaining all this to the poster I could then supply links for him to read, contemplate, then possibly alter his position regarding the credibility of finger print evidence belonging to 'known hit man' Malcolm Wallace.

I could indeed do all that but judging by the posters apparent desire to believe fantasy, as evidenced in this very thread, I reckon he wouldn't be interested so I'd rather just do this instead....

[Lee Wotton]

Great post John!!

Also what were the odds of all those key witnesses (that didn't support the WC or FBI explanation) dying in such a short time frame again? Oh yes over 1 trillion to one!!

[Bill Chapman]

Great post John!!

Also what were the odds of all those key witnesses (that didn't support the WC or FBI explanation) dying in such a short time frame again? Oh yes over 1 trillion to one!!

Umpteen Trillion to One Odds?
Cite: MacAdams

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these [assassination] witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one."

The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

"The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.
Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition ? the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have ? had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied ? correctly ? that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter ? hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material."

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)

[Lee Wotton]

Umpteen Trillion to One Odds?
Cite: MacAdams

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these [assassination] witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one."

The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

"The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.
Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition ? the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have ? had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied ? correctly ? that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter ? hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material."

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)

Much lower than a hundred thousand trillion to one is still a huge number!!!  It doesn't dent the point made

[John Iacoletti]

What you would rather I tried to educate the poster by explaining how Darby compared an ink print with a poor quality photo copy of a print, how he claimed to find way less similarities than the poster claims, and how Darby somehow failed to recognise more differences than similarities. After explaining all this to the poster I could then supply links for him to read, contemplate, then possibly alter his position regarding the credibility of finger print evidence belonging to 'known hit man' Malcolm Wallace.

Yes, I would have preferred that.