The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Joe Elliott]

Do you guys not get it? all these conspiracies are uniquely American, by that I mean, they are so steadfastly lingering and and profoundly unbelievable [to some] because you guys claim to stand for so much. But yet, your nation is just as crooked, thoroughly rotten -- as any nation you've been projecting upon for nearly the last century.

It's very hilarious watching Joe and Richard Smith pick and choose their conspiracy theories to line up behind. We are witnessing the extremely well predicted collapse of American society. I've been listening to JFK assassination researcher Mae Brussell's old recordings, she was just so right -- she predicted all this chaos USA is facing. No nation can survive whilst covering up and denying the truth. JFK, RFK, MLK, all of them were assassinated by orders of the same people that furthered the Vietnam until no more money could be sucked from war. Not until 9/11 happened, and they got another shot at bleeding the tax payers dry to fund the invasions that made trillions for the corporate and military Leviathan.


@Joe Elliot, are you really saying you don't know how the CIA gets around finances for its employees? I mean it's hardly a secret. Every single transaction has deniability built into it. I seem to remember James B Wilcott, the CIA accountant at Atsugi airbase testifying the agent would be assigned names/cryptonyms ... even double cryptonyms -- allegedly for Oswald. Then after 3 months, or maybe 6 months, the payments made through the CIA accounts to agents are audited and destroyed. Nothing remains open for investigation, just in case everything went tits up. It isn't so hard to imagine why we know so little about Oswald's finances. I mean, Biden is refusing RIGHT NOW in 2021 to release all the files. Get a clue

But what is the evidence for this in the case of Oswald. If it was true, wouldn’t we expect:

* Oswald owning a house that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Or renting a place that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Providing health care for family that he shouldn’t have been able to afford.

If any of this is true, what was Oswald spending the money on?

It would appear that this alleged income for Oswald was completely imaginary. Do you agree or disagree with this?

[John Iacoletti]

If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence.

Bull.  False dichotomy.  Maybe the unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order coupon was just wrong.

[John Iacoletti]

But what is the evidence for this in the case of Oswald. If it was true, wouldn’t we expect:

* Oswald owning a house that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Or renting a place that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Providing health care for family that he shouldn’t have been able to afford.

Not unless he was a really incompetent undercover agent.  Isn't the idea to not be conspicuous?

[Jon Banks]

Not everyone who works WITH the CIA works FOR the CIA.

Oswald likely wasn't working for the CIA but he associated with several people who were working for the CIA. He was in a position to be wittingly or unwittingly used by the CIA.

[Martin Weidmann]

Both, of course. Someone who planned or participated in the assassination, of course, should be counted. Someone who made or planted CE-399 should be counted. Someone who helped modify the Zapruder film should be counted.

It is clear his family were economically poor. Much poorer than I would expect of a CIA agent.

Like if you think CE-399 was planted. Like if you think the Zapruder film was faked. Like you think the autopsy report was modified to support only shots from the back.

If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.

I think my intent is quite clear. You’re just pretending, perhaps even to yourself, that you don’t understand.


You’re just giving me the same kind of run-around a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” would be giving me.

“What do I mean “fake votes”? Real votes summitted by the same person multiple times? Or not real votes, they just modified the vote totals”.

I could not get any straight answers from a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” conspiracy theory, correct?


My intent is to find out basic information. Do you believe the JFK assassination was a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy or a small one? If a small one, what were the various “projects” done by the conspiracy, including fake evidence? And how many people were involved in each “project”?

By answering these questions, you would make it clear if you believe in a large or a small conspiracy.

My question;

Let me ask you three questions, without any predetermination about what the answer would have to be to be acceptable (as you usually do);

And provide as estimate in the number involved in the conspiracy.

Why don't you simply explain what you understand to be "the conspiracy"?

Are we talking about the planning and execution of the murder or about what happened after that or both?

Your reply;

Both, of course. Someone who planned or participated in the assassination, of course, should be counted. Someone who made or planted CE-399 should be counted. Someone who helped modify the Zapruder film should be counted.

If you consider the planning and execution of the murder and what happened after that all one and the same conspiracy, you are in fact talking (perhaps on purpose) about the most unlikely conspiracy of them all, because it would indeed involve way too many people and way too much advance planning of every detail. In such a scenario you might just as well put an ad in the paper asking for people to join in. If there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy case, it would probably be far more sophisticated than that!

Just take the examples you are giving. There is no way the conspirators can plan ahead to modify the Zapruder film, when they don't even know a man named Zapruder would be filming the shooting. And how can you plan ahead to plant a bullet at Parkland without knowing for sure it would be found and linked to the Kennedy murder? You can't, unless you implicate Zapruder and Tomlinson as co-conspirators, which is absolutely idiotic.

So, this seems to be where we part ways already. If there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, it consisted IMO in several parts; (1) the men who ordered the hit and stayed in the background, (2) the men who set up Oswald as a patsy, (3) the men who actually carried out the hit and, most importantly, (4) the men who controlled the evidence and had the means to cover things up.

My question;

Oswald couldn’t even support his family.

Do you think you know all there is to know about Oswald?

Your answer;

It is clear his family were economically poor. Much poorer than I would expect of a CIA agent.

Evasive and not the answer to my question. The honest answer would have to be that there is no way to know all there is to know about any person. What we know about Oswald is what the WC told us. There may have been things going on in Oswald's life that not even his wife or family knew about. Using a stereotype to dismiss possible scenarios is superficial.

My question;

What evidence was faked by the conspirators?

What exactly do you mean by evidence that was faked?

Perhaps this a black or white issue for you, but do you - for example - think the Klein's order form for the rifle needs to be fake for Oswald not have ordered the rifle for himself?

Your reply;

Like if you think CE-399 was planted. Like if you think the Zapruder film was faked. Like you think the autopsy report was modified to support only shots from the back.

If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.

Again, way too superficial, but exactly what I expected.

Let's get this out of the way first;

I do not think that the bullet now in evidence as CE-399 was planted. I don't believe that bullet was ever at Parkland Hospital to begin with and all indications are that it most certainly wasn't the bullet Tomlinson found.

I do not think that the Zapruder film is faked. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that it would have been virtually impossible to alter that film with the technology available back then and in the time frame available for it. What I can not rule out is that maybe some frames were removed.

In order to modify the autopsy report to support only shots from the back, there first had to have been one which said not all the shots came from the back. I know of no such report. As far as I am aware, the autopsy report has always said the shots came from the back. However, I also know that the findings in the report do not match what some of the men present at the autopsy saw.

If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.

This is, IMO,  where you go of the rails.

Let me give you a possible scenario in which Oswald did in fact write the order forms (for the rifle and the revolver) yet still did not order those weapons for himself. Now, let me be clear, I am not claiming this is what happened, I am merely suggesting it is a possibility.

If we assume that Oswald was being set up as a patsy for a still to be determined event, it is absolutely possible that somewhere in late 1962 / early 1963 he was introduced to a man calling himself Hidell. This man, after having gained Oswald's trust, tells him he wants to by a revolver and a rifle but - for example - he does not want his wife to know, so he asks Oswald if he can use his P.O. Box to receive the weapons. He then asks Oswald- under some pretence - if he could fill out the order forms for him. Perhaps he tells him he has injured his hand and can not write himself, or perhaps he simply says he doesn't know how to write because he is dyslexic. There are all sorts of possibilities....

The point I am trying to make is that you can not simply conclude that just because Oswald's handwriting is on the order form (if it actually is, as John Iacoletti has already pointed out) that he ordered the rifle and revolver for himself, using an alias, nor can you assume that just because the order form exists he did in fact receive those weapons.


I think my intent is quite clear. You’re just pretending, perhaps even to yourself, that you don’t understand.

Oh, but I did understand and yes, your intent is absolutely clear. You first build up the most unlikely preposterous conspiracy you can think off, involving thousands of people, which of course you then instantly dismiss as impossible and then you invite other people to argue against your dismissal and tell them in advance which answers you will not accept.


You’re just giving me the same kind of run-around a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” would be giving me.

I don't believe there was a "Fake 2020 Election" conspiracy, so I am not going to comment on that. And I did not give you the run-around about the Kennedy case. I asked you three very specific questions to obtain answers which would tell me just how superficial your approach to the case is and it worked.

[Dan O'meara]

You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever.  None. You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor.  None.  He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates.  You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation.  Which itself makes no sense.  Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking?  So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"?  He didn't see anything.  What now?  You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative.  You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions.   Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so.

"You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever."

"Numerous random citizens"?
It might be enough to point out that the names I've listed are all male employees of the TSBD.
But there's more to it than that - other than James Jarman every single person who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
You call that random?

As for those who had foreknowledge of the assassination - what kind of evidence could there be? Secret recordings?
 
"You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor.  None.  He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates."

On the contrary, the evidence I've presented so far, the testimonies of Wiliiams, Norman, Jarman and Rowland, tell us something very specific - at 12:22 PM Norman and Jarman were out in front of the TSBD whilst, on the 6th floor, Williams was having his lunch at the same time a white male carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle was on the same floor.
I am well aware BRW gave varying estimates, I make a specific point about it - after owning up to being alone on the 6th floor, every time he is questioned about how long he was up there the estimates get longer and longer.
He starts of at 3 minutes, then 5 minutes, then 10, 12, 15 and, finally, 20 minutes.
BRW testifies that he was up on the 6th floor for 20 minutes, something corroborated by Jarman, Norman and Rowland.

"You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation.  Which itself makes no sense."

This particular discussion started when you asked me why I believe there is some kind of conspiracy. I have presented just a small amount of evidence, so far, as to why I view things the way I do.
The quality of my interpretation of this evidence depends on the quality (and quantity) of evidence and how good (or not) my reasoning is. If my interpretation stands up to genuine scrutiny then it is sound but, so far, you've dismissively brushed it off because, I assume, it doesn't fit in with the interpretation you've been given.

"Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking?"

I am making a point.
In fact, I'm making a few points but there are only two that need concern us here -
1)  Other than Danny Arce, everyone who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day.
2)  BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.

Presenting large amounts of self-corroborating evidence that indicates a specific interpretation isn't "pedantic nitpicking".
It's being thorough.

"So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"?  He didn't see anything."

Again with this crazy argument.
We've been over this a number of times - if he didn't see anything he wouldn't be lying to the DPD and FBI.
End of story.
Also, it's not just a question of BRW being on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin, something the testimonial evidence abundantly demonstrates.
The testimonies of the first officers to see the SN - Mooney, Brewer, Haygood, Hill, Craig - place BRW's lunch remains in/on the SN. Montgomery, who came slightly later, describes the same.
Along with Rowland's testimony, the evidence indicates Williams was actually in the SN while he was having his lunch.

"You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative.  You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions."

Bonnie Ray Williams - "I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior."
Hank Norman - "I went to the fifth floor...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman...went with me."
Junior Jarman - "After eating lunch, Jarman went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor"

All three men telling exactly the same lie.
Williams went up to the 6th floor alone. He joined Norman and Jarman on the fifth after having stayed up there for at least 20 minutes. They did not go up to the 5th floor together. It's a lie.

There is no reason for Norman and Jarman to tell this lie. The only person this lie affects is Williams, it takes him away from the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman are lying to cover for Williams.

If you have any "perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions" let's hear them.

"Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so."

Just denying the evidence over and over again doesn't make it go away.

[Martin Weidmann]

"You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever."

"Numerous random citizens"?
It might be enough to point out that the names I've listed are all male employees of the TSBD.
But there's more to it than that - other than James Jarman every single person who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
You call that random?

As for those who had foreknowledge of the assassination - what kind of evidence could there be? Secret recordings?
 
"You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor.  None.  He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates."

On the contrary, the evidence I've presented so far, the testimonies of Wiliiams, Norman, Jarman and Rowland, tell us something very specific - at 12:22 PM Norman and Jarman were out in front of the TSBD whilst, on the 6th floor, Williams was having his lunch at the same time a white male carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle was on the same floor.
I am well aware BRW gave varying estimates, I make a specific point about it - after owning up to being alone on the 6th floor, every time he is questioned about how long he was up there the estimates get longer and longer.
He starts of at 3 minutes, then 5 minutes, then 10, 12, 15 and, finally, 20 minutes.
BRW testifies that he was up on the 6th floor for 20 minutes, something corroborated by Jarman, Norman and Rowland.

"You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation.  Which itself makes no sense."

This particular discussion started when you asked me why I believe there is some kind of conspiracy. I have presented just a small amount of evidence, so far, as to why I view things the way I do.
The quality of my interpretation of this evidence depends on the quality (and quantity) of evidence and how good (or not) my reasoning is. If my interpretation stands up to genuine scrutiny then it is sound but, so far, you've dismissively brushed it off because, I assume, it doesn't fit in with the interpretation you've been given.

"Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking?"

I am making a point.
In fact, I'm making a few points but there are only two that need concern us here -
1)  Other than Danny Arce, everyone who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day.
2)  BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.

Presenting large amounts of self-corroborating evidence that indicates a specific interpretation isn't "pedantic nitpicking".
It's being thorough.

"So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"?  He didn't see anything."

Again with this crazy argument.
We've been over this a number of times - if he didn't see anything he wouldn't be lying to the DPD and FBI.
End of story.
Also, it's not just a question of BRW being on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin, something the testimonial evidence abundantly demonstrates.
The testimonies of the first officers to see the SN - Mooney, Brewer, Haygood, Hill, Craig - place BRW's lunch remains in/on the SN. Montgomery, who came slightly later, describes the same.
Along with Rowland's testimony, the evidence indicates Williams was actually in the SN while he was having his lunch.

"You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative.  You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions."

Bonnie Ray Williams - "I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior."
Hank Norman - "I went to the fifth floor...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman...went with me."
Junior Jarman - "After eating lunch, Jarman went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor"

All three men telling exactly the same lie.
Williams went up to the 6th floor alone. He joined Norman and Jarman on the fifth after having stayed up there for at least 20 minutes. They did not go up to the 5th floor together. It's a lie.

There is no reason for Norman and Jarman to tell this lie. The only person this lie affects is Williams, it takes him away from the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman are lying to cover for Williams.

If you have any "perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions" let's hear them.

"Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so."

Just denying the evidence over and over again doesn't make it go away.

I would like to hear your opinion on this, Dan

was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.

How can we be sure that the assassination took place from the 6th floor?

Yes, the rifle was found there and three shells, but there is no conclusive evidence that shows the MC rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63 and a couple of shells are easily dropped, like Fritz in fact did.

I'm not claiming the shots did not come from the 6th floor, but I just wonder how we can be sure they did..

[Dan O'meara]

I would like to hear your opinion on this, Dan

was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.

How can we be sure that the assassination took place from the 6th floor?

Yes, the rifle was found there and three shells, but there is no conclusive evidence that shows the MC rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63 and a couple of shells are easily dropped, like Fritz in fact did.

I'm not claiming the shots did not come from the 6th floor, but I just wonder how we can be sure they did..

Multiple witnesses seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor before and during the assassination is strong evidence. The DPD tapes show the TSBD was identified within a few minutes of the assassination, presumably from the likes of Brennan, Euins and Rowland.
Not all, but some of the TSBD employees in the building at the time were convinced the shots came from inside the building.
I agree, the shells were not photographed in their original positions. Tom Alyea reports Fritz picking them up and allowing him to film them and a bit later giving them to Studebaker to recreate the scene. But shells were witnessed there by the first officers at the SN, that's how the SN was initially identified.
The trajectory for the wounds sustained by JFK and JBC seem consistent with a shot from the general vicinity of the TSBD,