What a Conspiracy Theorist Needs to Do to be Taken Seriously.

[Jerry Freeman]

Because Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy stories have a powerful grip on the imagination. 58 years? That’s nothing. People have been concerned about the powerful Bavarian Illuminati conspiracy for over 250 years. Fear of a large world-wide conspiracy of many Jews, possibly all Jews

There is a Bavarian Illuminati or World wide Jewish conspiracy discussion board with widespread interest?
 If there is no such thing as a conspiracy...why was the word invented?
What politician has had the balls to stand up and doubt the official story? Did they review the testimony and exhibits? Or what main stream news person?
They all feel that it is in their best interest to remain ...a conspiracy of silence. Like these guys--------

[Bill Chapman]

------
LSEC
------

'Lets spoof every conspiracy'

Finally, the call-to-action for yours truly, the 'Manitobian Candidate'

Lets get this party started:

-----------------------------
BILL CHAPMAN RELOADED
-----------------------------
Click-Click
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2444.msg80740.html#msg80740

The Nobody Who Shot The Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.msg80948.html#msg80948

Operation Sitzgoose
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2674.msg96788.html#msg96788

[Jon Banks]

Three people in a conspiracy is plausible.

Ten people starts to become a little unbelievable, particularly for as outrageous a proposition as assassinating a President. Would someone know nine other people that one can safely approach to invite them to join this scheme? Even if one thinks one knows nine others, is it not the possible that one of them might decide to become a big hero. If one of them alerts the authorities, and the gunman is captured within the last hour red handed with the rifle, the person who turned them in would be a big American hero. Who could resist such a prize? If there is only a ten per cent chance that a certain person would betray the conspiracy in hopes of becoming a big American hero, the odds of success are just under 35 per cent, with about a 65 per cent chance that up to nine would go to prison.

By your logic, no conspiracy would ever succeed.

Here in the real world, criminal conspiracies happen and often succeed. In the criminal underworld, where violence is a commonly used tool, it's easier to get people to keep secrets.

Aside from organized crime, the CIA also uses tools like deception and plausible deniability to execute conspiracies around the world and in some cases they've collaborated with the criminal underworld. 

Of course, the CIA isn't the only intelligence agency that kills people and uses deception and plausible deniability. There are foreign intelligence agencies that use similar tactics. So don't think I'm only pointing fingers at our American spies.

Lastly, organized crime and intelligence agencies use "compartmentalization". Which means that people could unwittingly be part of a conspiracy and not even know who they're working with or what the over-arching objective is. Sort of like how it's alleged that some of the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were on a suicide mission. They were only told what they needed to know to complete certain tasks. They may not have been told that it was a suicide mission.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.september111

So, I have answered your question. How about answering mine. The side without the truth on their side will always dodge questions. Both questions address what you believe probably happened, not what you know for certain happened.

Question 1:

What tasks did the conspiracy successfully complete (the assassination, faking the Zapruder film, faking the autopsy reports, etc.)?

Question 2:

How many people would you estimate would be needed to do all that?

First off, I don't believe the Zapruder film is "fake".

Secondly, the problems with the autopsy are part of the Cover-Up, which I view as separate from the Conspiracy plot to kill Kennedy.

The people involved with the Cover-Up likely had different motives than those who plotted to kill JFK. For example:

- LBJ suspected others were involved but wanted to prevent WW3
- Some wanted to cover up incompetence by law enforcement and the national security agencies
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to operations against Cuba or the Soviets (ie RFK)
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to the CIA's domestic spy programs (it's illegal for the CIA to conduct operations domestically)

Therefore I view the assassination and post-assassination cover-ups as separate (but related) issues. Covering up evidence of a conspiracy makes them indirectly complicit after the fact.

Also, some agencies (ie the FBI and CIA) have admitted to covering up information about the Kennedy assassination so it's not even debatable that there were in fact cover-ups and that leads to valid questions about the evidence.

-------------------

To answer your questions, I believe a minimum of ten people would be needed in order to execute a plot against JFK. Two to three people handled Oswald while the rest handled the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

Whether that qualifies as "large conspiracy" likely varies from person to person. I personally don't think ten people is a "large enduring conspiracy".

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I don’t know much about Dougherty, Truly, Shelly and Fritz but I suspect Richard is right. But, the one thing Dan O’meara has going for him is that he is proposing a Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, which is not nearly as implausible as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. But the story of some TSBD workers and a single Dallas police detective is not nearly as compelling as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, involving the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas police department and host of others (politicians, doctors, photograph and film experts, ballistic experts) so Dan’s story is rejected by the vast majority of CTers in favor of some other much more sensational, but wildly improbable story.

One of the problems the conspiracists who believe in a large scale conspiracy behind the assassination make is to view all of these agencies as sort of a monolithic thing. As in: "the CIA", "the FBI", "the Warren Commission" or just "the government." They get into trouble with the definite article "the."

All of these agencies are bureaucracies. Bureaucracies consisting of dozens if not hundreds if not, over the past near 60 years since the assassination, thousands of people. We've had dozens of heads of the CIA, of the FBI. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. All men and women of various backgrounds and views and politics.

It is utterly absurd to think that all of these people have covered up for the government's role in the assassination. The role of "the CIA." But they do. Because "the CIA" overturned this or that government, or tried to assassinate Castro, or did "bad thing X or Y" they were behind the assassination. And since then all of the men and women who served in it over that time have covered it up. We just heard, again, that "the CIA" is withholding documents. So the only explanation is "they" are covering it up. Who is "they"? There never are any names. It's just "the CIA."

But here we are. With the same conspiracy view that the reason that investigations haven't uncovered the conspiracy is simply proof of the conspiracy.  We've had multiple government investigations, multiple news media investigations, multiple independent investigations by historians and reporters and it's uncovered nothing of this giant "C" conspiracy. But all of this work is dismissed. It's all evidence, in the conspiracy view, of how big the conspiracy was. Even today it's being covered up.

[Jon Banks]

One of the problems the conspiracists who believe in a large scale conspiracy behind the assassination make is to view all of these agencies as sort of a monolithic thing. As in: "the CIA", "the FBI", "the Warren Commission" or just "the government." They get into trouble with the definite article "the."

All of these agencies are bureaucracies. Bureaucracies consisting of dozens if not hundreds if not, over the past near 60 years since the assassination, thousands of people. We've had dozens of heads of the CIA, of the FBI. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. All men and women of various backgrounds and views and politics.

You guys are attacking strawmen. Who has argued that the Dallas PD, FBI, Secret Service, and CIA act as a monolith? Name the posters.

Clearly there were (and still are) cover-ups but each bureaucracy likely had different reasons for secrecy and obstructing investigations.

Also, compartmentalization is easier to accomplish within large bureaucracies. No one seriously believes that everyone who works for the CIA or FBI knows about every secret project or knows who all the undercover assets are.

And hasn't it been established that Richard Helms and James Angleton kept secrets that even the CIA directors they served under didn't know about?

[Dan O'meara]

You have provided no credible evidence to support the baseless claim that Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz had any "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination.   Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination.   In classic CTer tradition, you have substituted your own desired subjective narrative to fill gaps and account for minor, pedantic differences in the testimony.  Witnesses had imperfect knowledge of events.  They often used imprecise language to describe events.  But don't take my word for it.  Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them.  Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty.   If you did so, it would be dismissed as the stuff of Bigfoot and UFOs.  Even the most of the more outlandish JFK CTers have not gone so far as to implicate these ordinary folks in a conspiracy to assassinate the president.  You can dress it up all you want, but it is still tin foil hat nonsense.

I'm not surprised you're so uptight after the mauling I gave you on "The Sign of a Large-secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory" thread. I invite any reader to go to that thread and read through the record of our discussion. It ends abruptly after Reply #53 when Richard flees the debate. And note, it is Richard who comes across as the tin foil merchant, constantly barking pronouncements, deliberately refusing to understand the most simple arguments and displaying a startling lack of knowledge concerning the most basic elements of this case.

"Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination."

I painstakingly lay out the reality of these lies.
The lies I deal with in that thread have nothing to do with "complicity in the JFK assassination". Strawman alert!!
And these lies are not "pedantic differences in the testimony", they are wholesale fabrications.
I hadn't even begun to deal with those lies that do reveal complicity (you'd ran for the hills before that could happen).

"Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them.  Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty."

Never, ever forget, Richard - all you have is a narrative.
You have zero credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots.
Think about that for a minute while you bask in your certainty - zero credible evidence.
The only thing you have that's even close is the eye-witness testimony of Brennan.
That's it!
Absolutely nothing else.
Think about that.
And how credible is Brennan?

"Howard Brennan was not, however, an especially reliable witness:

He claimed that the man was standing up when aiming the rifle, but the sash window made this impossible; it was open only up to about waist height.
He claimed that “I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion”, but later explicitly denied that he had seen the man fire the gun.
He claimed on the afternoon of the assassination that “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again”, but he was unable to pick out Oswald at an identification parade a few hours later, despite having seen Oswald’s photograph on television in the meantime.

[http://www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window]

I came across this quote attributed to Brennan on the Spartacus educational site:

"My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor... By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do."

So, while the WC has Oswald racing across the floor, miraculously removing all prints from the rifle, Brennan has the assassin hanging around admiring his handiwork. Go figure.
This seems to be more in line with the fact BRW, Norman and Jarman, directly underneath the assassin, never reported anyone running across the floor or coming down the stairs. And Dorothy Garner never saw him/heard him coming down the stairs. And almost all witness describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a white shirt Oswald didn't have. And Oswald reportedly seeing Norman and Jarman enter the building around 12:25PM places him on the first floor, ten minutes after Rowland's man with a rifle on the 6th floor. And on and on...

Never forget  - you only have a narrative.
And if you do ever come up with some credible evidence that Oswald fired the shots why don't you "take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet" and put an end to all this?
Pulitzer winning stuff indeed.

[Joe Elliott]

There is a Bavarian Illuminati or World wide Jewish conspiracy discussion board with widespread interest?

I don’t know about on-line discussion boards but in the past those two conspiracy theories had a large following. Particularly the alleged worldwide Jewish conspiracy. By far the most destructive conspiracy theory in history, resulting in 6 million deaths. Yes, the Nazis believed that most of the Jews of the world, perhaps all, knew about and were involved in a large conspiracy against Gentiles. And now the Neo-Nazis have made a new Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory saying the Holocaust was a hoax.

If there is no such thing as a conspiracy...why was the word invented?

No one denies that conspiracies exist. What skeptics argue against are Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies. Such conspiracies, like the large one involving the CIA, the FBI, the police, politicians, various experts, etc. are wildly too improbable to exist.

A conspiracy involving three, or five or eight, yes, that might happen. Particularly if there is no large payoff, like becoming a national hero if you go to the authorities, as in the case of a hypothetical JFK conspiracy. Oh, yes, except I forgot. You believe that all the authorities were in on it, and everyone knew they were all in on it. So that was not an option.

But in any case, rational skeptics find that large conspiracies are not plausible. And skeptics have been following this reasoning for at least two hundred years. And, so far as I know, this reasoning has never failed. The larger a conspiracy is the more likely it would fail. In the real world, secret conspirators try to limit the size of a conspiracy, not bring in as many people as they can.

What politician has had the balls to stand up and doubt the official story? Did they review the testimony and exhibits? Or what main stream news person?
They all feel that it is in their best interest to remain ...a conspiracy of silence. Like these guys--------

Ah, the main stream news people. Like the Pro Trump Stolen Election Conspiracy Theorists, you think the media helped cover up the JFK assassination. Just as they are allegedly covering up for those who stole the 2020 Election. Well, you have one thing in common with Trump supporters. You readily accept a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory. You have no problem believing that the media can cover up a major story that should be presented to the public.

What politician had the balls to stand up to the Warren Commission. I guess Trump supporters would say that the Republican Governor and Secretary of State in Georgia did not have the nerve to question the election in the state. The classic JFK conspiracy arguments have been recycled by the Trump supporters.

[Joe Elliott]

By your logic, no conspiracy would ever succeed.

Here in the real world, criminal conspiracies happen and often succeed. In the criminal underworld, where violence is a commonly used tool, it's easier to get people to keep secrets.

Aside from organized crime, the CIA also uses tools like deception and plausible deniability to execute conspiracies around the world and in some cases they've collaborated with the criminal underworld. 

Of course, the CIA isn't the only intelligence agency that kills people and uses deception and plausible deniability. There are foreign intelligence agencies that use similar tactics. So don't think I'm only pointing fingers at our American spies.

Lastly, organized crime and intelligence agencies use "compartmentalization". Which means that people could unwittingly be part of a conspiracy and not even know who they're working with or what the over-arching objective is. Sort of like how it's alleged that some of the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were on a suicide mission. They were only told what they needed to know to complete certain tasks. They may not have been told that it was a suicide mission.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.september111

First off, I don't believe the Zapruder film is "fake".

Secondly, the problems with the autopsy are part of the Cover-Up, which I view as separate from the Conspiracy plot to kill Kennedy.

The people involved with the Cover-Up likely had different motives than those who plotted to kill JFK. For example:

- LBJ suspected others were involved but wanted to prevent WW3
- Some wanted to cover up incompetence by law enforcement and the national security agencies
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to operations against Cuba or the Soviets (ie RFK)
- Some had an interest in protecting secrets related to the CIA's domestic spy programs (it's illegal for the CIA to conduct operations domestically)

Therefore I view the assassination and post-assassination cover-ups as separate (but related) issues. Covering up evidence of a conspiracy makes them indirectly complicit after the fact.

Also, some agencies (ie the FBI and CIA) have admitted to covering up information about the Kennedy assassination so it's not even debatable that there were in fact cover-ups and that leads to valid questions about the evidence.

-------------------

To answer your questions, I believe a minimum of ten people would be needed in order to execute a plot against JFK. Two to three people handled Oswald while the rest handled the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

Whether that qualifies as "large conspiracy" likely varies from person to person. I personally don't think ten people is a "large enduring conspiracy".

Real life large conspiracies do happen. But they are hardly secret. Many are involved in the Mafia, but this is hardly a secret.

I think you separate the original assassination and the coverup so you can claim a small conspiracy.

It’s similar to how one might argue that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the election for Biden. Only ten higher ups in the company knew of this conspiracy. The people lower down did not know this. One programmer was ordered to add 3,000 votes for the Democratic candidate in this county, and a different programmer was told to add 280 votes for the Democratic candidate in this town. But they didn’t realize this was done to rig the entire national election for Biden. Yeah, right.

Okay, there were only ten in the original conspiracy. A conspiracy that will surely be exposed. Except, unbeknownst to the original ten, a bunch of others would decide, independently of each other, to cover up for them. What a lucky break.

In mid-November 1963, how would the original ten have known they would be so lucky?

And seven or eight to handle the logistics of what happened in Dealey Plaza. You mean to make certain no policemen or secret service agent immediately arrest or shoot at a shooter? Wouldn’t that take more than seven or eight?

And what sort of tasks did the ones who “unknowingly” helped cover up for the assassination. Unknowingly make fake autopsy reports? Unknowingly plant bullets? How exactly did they help cover things up?

Again, I can’t tell how many were involved in covering up for the assassination, if you don’t list all the tasks that they accomplished. What were these tasks. And are they the sort of tasks that no one would figure out what the overall goal was? Since this is a small conspiracy, you should have no problem listing all the tasks.