-
New analysis video! Who shot JFK?
Watch on Youtube!
Premiered on 25th February 2025
Please Subscribe to the YouTube Channel.Comment your thoughts on Youtube!
-
Hope you will all watch the premiere live, and join the chat!
4pm EST Sunday.
-
Hope you will all watch the premiere live, and join the chat!
4pm EST Sunday.
Was it a "Deep State" / "National Security State" op?
-
All will be revealed! ;)
-
All will be revealed! ;)
Oh goodie!
You're going to tell us all about the evil, evil, evil mastermind, James JESUS Angleton!!!
-
if Angleton weren't involved, I'd be amazed!
-
if Angleton weren't involved, I'd be amazed!
You know that in addition to Kim Philby, he was duped by a probable mole in CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security, Bruce Leonard Solie, don't you?
-
He was deeply involved in many bad things, and was master of the cover up. Probably a complex web with many complicit... Allan Dulles, Hoover, LBJ, Mafia...
-
He was deeply involved in many bad things, and was master of the cover up. Probably a complex web with many complicit... Allan Dulles, Hoover, LBJ, Mafia...
It sounds to me as though you've been brainwashed by KGB* disinformation.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
It sounds to me as though you've been brainwashed by KGB* disinformation.
*Today's SVR and FSB
I'm still waiting for my MKUltra medications to wear off. I could be triggered at any time!
-
Don't forget to set your reminders for the premiere!
-
I expect it is highly likely with JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X that the person(s) who pulled the trigger were merely the immediate cause. Crimes such as these rarely exist in a vacuum and there are most likely deeper levels of involvement (FBI, CIA, etc.) involved in the planning and execution. I wonder if final release of files will shed more conclusive light?
Or could it be just one man on a mission, followed by a lot of messed up stuff?
-
I'm still waiting for my MKUltra medications to wear off. I could be triggered at any time!
That was a joke, by the way, in case the thought police are listening!
-
I'm still waiting for my MKUltra medications to wear off. I could be triggered at any time!
Meds from the evil evil evil CIA, or the world-class humanitarian organization formerly known as the KGB*?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Well, we may learn more before too long... maybe... :-*
-
Who's watched on Youtube?
Comment your thoughts!
-
Who's watched on Youtube?
Comment your thoughts!
Just as the HSC on Assassinations suggested and just as President Ford confirmed in conversation with the President of France in the 70s - a conspiracy.
-
It pretty fringe to think there wasn't a conspiracy now. The probabilities make it pretty plain. It's the cover-ups that are the real tell. The world deserves details now.
-
It pretty fringe to think there wasn't a conspiracy now. The probabilities make it pretty plain. It's the cover-ups that are the real tell. The world deserves details now.
More than 60 years of investigations - by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out - and after all of that no credible/serious evidence of a conspiracy was found (no, the HSCA's conclusions of "probably" one doesn't meet my standard). How much more is needed? How many more investigations? Do we just dismiss all of those investigations. The ones done by the government and the media? The same media that exposed the CIA's crimes? They missed it? As Seymour Hersh said, the idea that the CIA was behind the assassination is absurd.
I guess Hersh and all of the subsequent investigations were part of coverups too? After all, as you said it's obvious there was a conspiracy. If it's obvious than the Warren Commission and FBI and HSCA and Church Committee and the NY Times and CBS and PBS and Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner and on and on have been covering it up. That was Seymour Hersh, someone who knows something about how the CIA works.
Here we are and the conspiracy believers can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. By the CIA. No it was the Mob. No it was LBJ. No it was anti-Castro Cubans. No it was the Birchers. No it was the Pentagon. No it was rich Texas oilmen. After all this time you folks can't agree on anything.
So who has been covering it all up all of these decades? Any original assassins are long dead. So you think a current generation of Americans, many of whom weren't even alive at the time, are covering it up? Even today? That makes no sense at all. Even more unlikely, as we know Democrats and Republicans hate each other like two sects in a religious war. The idea that they could get together to cover this up is...well, sorry, it's not believable.
-
More than 60 years of investigations - by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out - and after all of that no credible/serious evidence of a conspiracy was found (no, the HSCA's conclusions of "probably" one doesn't meet my standard). How much more is needed? How many more investigations? Do we just dismiss all of those investigations. The ones done by the government and the media? The same media that exposed the CIA's crimes? They missed it? As Seymour Hersh said, the idea that the CIA was behind the assassination is absurd.
I guess Hersh and all of the subsequent investigations were part of coverups too? After all, as you said it's obvious there was a conspiracy. If it's obvious than the Warren Commission and FBI and HSCA and Church Committee and the NY Times and CBS and PBS and Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner and on and on have been covering it up. That was Seymour Hersh, someone who knows something about how the CIA works.
Here we are and the conspiracy believers can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. By the CIA. No it was the Mob. No it was LBJ. No it was anti-Castro Cubans. No it was the Birchers. No it was the Pentagon. No it was rich Texas oilmen. After all this time you folks can't agree on anything.
So who has been covering it all up all of these decades? Any original assassins are long dead. So you think a current generation of Americans, many of whom weren't even alive at the time, are covering it up? Even today? That makes no sense at all. Even more unlikely, as we know Democrats and Republicans hate each other like two sects in a religious war. The idea that they could get together to cover this up is...well, sorry, it's not believable.
I understand your scepticism, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your argument. However, dismissing the possibility of a conspiracy because multiple investigations haven't "officially" proven one overlooks some key points.
First, the number of suspicious deaths related to the assassination is statistically staggering. Several researchers have calculated that the probability of so many key witnesses dying unnaturally—many by murder, accident, or suicide—is astronomically low if this were all mere coincidence. If there was no conspiracy, how do we explain that? What are the odds that so many individuals connected to a single historical event would meet untimely and suspicious deaths?
Second, the idea that the media and government “would have exposed it by now” assumes that every institution operates with complete transparency and without bias or political pressure. The same media that has exposed scandals has also ignored or downplayed others when it was inconvenient or dangerous to pursue. The FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies have a long history of obfuscation, as even declassified documents now confirm.
Lastly, regarding the disagreement over who was behind it—yes, there are different theories about who orchestrated the assassination, but that doesn’t invalidate the likelihood of a conspiracy. When a murder occurs in a criminal case, investigators may not immediately agree on who pulled the trigger, but that doesn’t mean no murder took place. The simple fact that there are multiple competing theories doesn't negate the substantial evidence that at least some conspiracy likely existed.
I’d genuinely be interested in how you personally explain the statistical anomalies surrounding the deaths of witnesses, the obstruction of evidence, and the inconsistencies in official reports. If it weren't a conspiracy, then what alternative explanation do you find most plausible?
-
The number of suspicious deaths related to the assassination is statistically staggering.
Any idea what the base number is of all of the people who were, in one way or another, "related to the assassination"?
One would think it is quite large.
Who determined whether or not a given murdered, suicided, or killed-by-a-really-really-strange accident person was "related" to the assassination," anyway?
John Armstrong, author of the highly influential tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theory book, Harvey and Lee and Harry and . . . Gasp . . . The Three Marguerites"?
LOL!
-
More than 60 years of investigations - by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out - and after all of that no credible/serious evidence of a conspiracy was found (no, the HSCA's conclusions of "probably" one doesn't meet my standard). How much more is needed? How many more investigations? Do we just dismiss all of those investigations. The ones done by the government and the media? The same media that exposed the CIA's crimes? They missed it? As Seymour Hersh said, the idea that the CIA was behind the assassination is absurd.
I guess Hersh and all of the subsequent investigations were part of coverups too? After all, as you said it's obvious there was a conspiracy. If it's obvious than the Warren Commission and FBI and HSCA and Church Committee and the NY Times and CBS and PBS and Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner and on and on have been covering it up. That was Seymour Hersh, someone who knows something about how the CIA works.
Here we are and the conspiracy believers can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. By the CIA. No it was the Mob. No it was LBJ. No it was anti-Castro Cubans. No it was the Birchers. No it was the Pentagon. No it was rich Texas oilmen. After all this time you folks can't agree on anything.
So who has been covering it all up all of these decades? Any original assassins are long dead. So you think a current generation of Americans, many of whom weren't even alive at the time, are covering it up? Even today? That makes no sense at all. Even more unlikely, as we know Democrats and Republicans hate each other like two sects in a religious war. The idea that they could get together to cover this up is...well, sorry, it's not believable.
Do we just dismiss all of those investigations.
That's exactly what you did when you dismissed the HSCA investigation because it didn't meet your standard!!
How many more lies, fabrications, manipulations and omissions have to be pointed out in the Warren Commission's 'conclusions' before they are discarded?
The biggest mystery in all this is how the Warren Commission can still be taken seriously. How has that happened? It is utterly baffling.
-
That is a good point. It is very easy to cherry pick.
Analyses suggest that around 100 to 200 individuals could be considered key witnesses—those who had direct knowledge of events surrounding the assassination, the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, or other related matters.
While exact percentages depend on how "key witness" is defined, some researchers estimate that between 10% and 25% of potential witnesses died under suspicious circumstances—a rate far above statistical norms. This is often cited as one of the strongest arguments for a cover-up.
In common sense terms, imagine if you had 100 friends and between 10 and 25 of them independently died in unusual ways over the course of a few short years, you might start to appreciate the probability. To put this in context, across the 25–64 age group, the average annual death rate in the US is about 0.3% 3 in 1,000 people per year.
-
Here's statistical graph of the estimated excess mortality rate of what might be considered key witness compared to the normal distribution.
(https://file.garden/Z2AbXZORyQGK_KyB/Screenshot%202025-02-24%20003317.png)
-
Do we just dismiss all of those investigations.
That's exactly what you did when you dismissed the HSCA investigation because it didn't meet your standard!!
How many more lies, fabrications, manipulations and omissions have to be pointed out in the Warren Commission's 'conclusions' before they are discarded?
The biggest mystery in all this is how the Warren Commission can still be taken seriously. How has that happened? It is utterly baffling.
It's obvious to me that you've been utterly brainwashed by 60-plus years of KGB* disinformation and "active measures."
Can you say Joachim Josten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, the Communist-owned Italian newspaper Paese Sera, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jimmy "I Never Met a Communist I Didn't Cherish" DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I am a mathematician so I can look into the statistical significance further...
If we assume 30 suspicious deaths in a pool of 100-150 witnesses, when only a few should have occurred naturally, the excess death rate is well beyond the expected standard deviation.
If we estimate a 5-standard-deviation event (or more), the probability of this occurring randomly is less than 1 in a million (p < 0.000001).
If we go further out on the tail (e.g., 6 or 7 standard deviations), the probability is so small it effectively approaches zero.
The probability that the observed cluster of witness deaths happened purely by chance approaches zero.
This strongly suggests a non-random cause, meaning that at least some of these deaths were likely the result of foul play, intimidation, or cover-up efforts rather than natural causes alone.
-
I am a mathematician so I can look into the statistical significance further...
If we assume 30 suspicious deaths in a pool of 100-150 witnesses, when only a few should have occurred naturally, the excess death rate is well beyond the expected standard deviation.
If we estimate a 5-standard-deviation event (or more), the probability of this occurring randomly is less than 1 in a million (p < 0.000001).
If we go further out on the tail (e.g., 6 or 7 standard deviations), the probability is so small it effectively approaches zero.
The probability that the observed cluster of witness deaths happened purely by chance approaches zero.
This strongly suggests a non-random cause, meaning that at least some of these deaths were likely the result of foul play, intimidation, or cover-up efforts rather than natural causes alone.
Witnesses to what?
The actual shooting?
Oswald's getting a haircut a month or two earlier?
-
No. A wider pool of people who may have held key information.
-
No. A wider pool of people who may have held key information.
But only 150 max?
-
But only 150 max?
or up to 200, but that's on the high side. It doesn't make a huge difference to the probability. To make the probability reasonable, one has to be able to confidently explain most, if not all of the deaths, as being innocent or unrelated to the assassination evidence.
-
or up to 200, but that's on the high side. It doesn't make a huge difference to the probability. To make the probability reasonable, one has to be able to confidently explain most, if not all of the deaths, as being innocent or unrelated to the assassination evidence.
Can you provide us with a list of these 150 or 200 witnesses, 30 of whom have allegedly died under suspicious circumstances?
-
OK, here are the first 100 names:
Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza
Abraham Zapruder (filmed the assassination)
Bill Newman (witness)
Gayle Newman (witness)
Jean Hill (witness)
Mary Moorman (witness, took famous Polaroid)
Beverly Oliver (claimed to be the "Babushka Lady")
Orville Nix (filmed the assassination)
Charles Brehm (witness)
Amos Euins (witness)
James Tague (wounded near Dealey Plaza)
Police & Secret Service Officials
J.D. Tippit (Dallas police officer killed after JFK's assassination)
Marrion Baker (motorcycle officer, entered the TSBD immediately)
Sam Holland (railroad worker, saw suspicious activity on the grassy knoll)
Ed Hoffman (claimed to see a shooter on the knoll)
Seymour Weitzman (found the “Mannlicher-Carcano” rifle)
Roger Craig (Dallas deputy sheriff, controversial statements)
Earl Cabell (Dallas mayor, brother of CIA deputy director Charles Cabell)
Jesse Curry (Dallas police chief)
Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service, protected JFK)
Winston Lawson (Secret Service, planned the motorcade route)
People Connected to Lee Harvey Oswald
Marina Oswald (Lee Harvey Oswald’s wife)
Marguerite Oswald (Oswald’s mother)
Robert Oswald (Oswald’s brother)
Ruth Paine (Oswald’s acquaintance, let Marina live with her)
Michael Paine (husband of Ruth, worked in military contracting)
Buell Wesley Frazier (drove Oswald to work on Nov. 22, 1963)
Linnie Mae Randle (Buell Frazier’s sister, saw Oswald with a package)
George de Mohrenschildt (CIA-linked geologist, befriended Oswald)
Jeanne de Mohrenschildt (wife of George, knew Oswald)
Silvia Odio (claimed Oswald met with anti-Castro Cubans before assassination)
Intelligence & Government Figures
James Jesus Angleton (CIA counterintelligence chief)
David Atlee Phillips (CIA officer involved in anti-Castro operations)
E. Howard Hunt (CIA, later involved in Watergate)
Richard Helms (CIA director, knew of Oswald’s file)
Charles Cabell (Deputy CIA Director, fired by JFK)
William King Harvey (CIA, involved in anti-Castro plots)
John McCone (CIA director during the assassination)
Fletcher Prouty (Air Force, claimed CIA involvement)
Allen Dulles (ex-CIA director, on Warren Commission)
David Sanchez Morales (CIA operative allegedly linked to assassination)
Organized Crime & Cuban Exiles
Jack Ruby (killed Oswald)
Sam Giancana (Chicago mob boss, had links to the CIA)
Johnny Roselli (Mafia-CIA liaison)
Carlos Marcello (New Orleans mob boss, suspected of JFK plot)
Santo Trafficante Jr. (Tampa mob boss, involved in anti-Castro plots)
David Ferrie (pilot, knew Oswald, linked to New Orleans mob)
Clay Shaw (New Orleans businessman, accused by Garrison)
Sergio Arcacha Smith (anti-Castro activist)
Frank Sturgis (anti-Castro operative, later Watergate burglar)
Eladio del Valle (Cuban exile, allegedly linked to Ferrie)
Warren Commission & Other Government Figures
Earl Warren (Chief Justice, led Warren Commission)
Gerald Ford (Warren Commission member, later U.S. President)
Arlen Specter (proposed the "Single Bullet Theory")
Richard Russell Jr. (Senator, skeptical of Warren Report)
John Sherman Cooper (Senator, Warren Commission member)
J. Lee Rankin (Warren Commission lawyer)
Lyndon B. Johnson (JFK’s vice president, became president)
Robert F. Kennedy (Attorney General, later assassinated)
Nicholas Katzenbach (Deputy Attorney General, pushed for lone gunman theory)
Herbert Hoover (FBI director, controlled investigation)
Additional Eyewitnesses & Researchers
Mary Pinchot Meyer (JFK mistress, murdered, had CIA links)
Beverly Oliver (claimed to be "Babushka Lady")
Eugene Dinkin (NSA cryptographic operator, claimed foreknowledge)
Chauncey Holt (claimed to be a "tramp" at Dealey Plaza, CIA ties)
Richard Sprague (House Select Committee investigator)
Dr. Charles Crenshaw (Parkland doctor, disputed official account)
Malcolm Perry (Parkland doctor, initially described throat wound as entry wound)
William Greer (Secret Service driver of JFK’s limo)
Roy Kellerman (Secret Service agent in JFK limo)
Clint Hill (Secret Service agent, jumped onto JFK’s car)
Jack Dougherty (TSBD employee, possibly near Oswald)
Harold Norman (TSBD worker, heard shots from above)
Eddie Piper (TSBD janitor, saw Oswald before shooting)
Julia Ann Mercer (saw men with rifles near Dealey Plaza)
Gordon Arnold (claimed to be near the knoll, saw suspicious activity)
Aubrey Rike (handled JFK’s body at Parkland)
Richard Randolph Carr (saw suspicious man flee TSBD)
James Files (claimed to be second shooter, controversial figure)
J. Walton Moore (CIA officer in Dallas, allegedly linked to Oswald)
Victor Marchetti (CIA officer, skeptical of lone gunman theory)
Ted Shackley (CIA operative, linked to anti-Castro operations)
John Martino (mobster, claimed conspiracy knowledge)
E. Howard Hunt Jr. (CIA officer, linked to various covert operations)
Louis Bloomfield (Canadian businessman, suspected intelligence links)
Joseph Adams Milteer (ultra-right activist, allegedly predicted JFK’s death)
Paul Kangas (private investigator, researched JFK case)
Richard Nagell (ex-intelligence, claimed to know about Oswald)
Suspicious Deaths of Key Witnesses
Dorothy Kilgallen (journalist investigating Ruby, died mysteriously)
Bill Hunter (journalist, shot in police station)
Jim Koethe (journalist, murdered in home invasion)
Gary Underhill (intelligence insider, shot himself under suspicious circumstances)
Thomas Hale Boggs (Warren Commission member, disappeared in plane crash)
Buddy Walthers (Dallas deputy sheriff, died in suspicious circumstances)
Lee Bowers (witness, saw activity on the grassy knoll, died in car crash)
Charles Harrelson (hitman, claimed knowledge of JFK assassination)
George Krutilek (mob accountant, found dead)
John Roselli (mobster, found murdered in a barrel)
Richard Cain (Chicago cop linked to the mob, murdered)
Joseph Milteer (far-right extremist, predicted JFK assassination in advance)
Hale Boggs (Congressman, Warren Commission member, plane disappeared)
Of course, there are more. Some previously mentioned.
-
OK, here are the first 100 names:
Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza
Abraham Zapruder (filmed the assassination)
Bill Newman (witness)
Gayle Newman (witness)
Jean Hill (witness)
Mary Moorman (witness, took famous Polaroid)
Beverly Oliver (claimed to be the "Babushka Lady")
Orville Nix (filmed the assassination)
Charles Brehm (witness)
Amos Euins (witness)
James Tague (wounded near Dealey Plaza)
Police & Secret Service Officials
J.D. Tippit (Dallas police officer killed after JFK's assassination)
Marrion Baker (motorcycle officer, entered the TSBD immediately)
Sam Holland (railroad worker, saw suspicious activity on the grassy knoll)
Ed Hoffman (claimed to see a shooter on the knoll)
Seymour Weitzman (found the “Mannlicher-Carcano” rifle)
Roger Craig (Dallas deputy sheriff, controversial statements)
Earl Cabell (Dallas mayor, brother of CIA deputy director Charles Cabell)
Jesse Curry (Dallas police chief)
Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service, protected JFK)
Winston Lawson (Secret Service, planned the motorcade route)
People Connected to Lee Harvey Oswald
Marina Oswald (Lee Harvey Oswald’s wife)
Marguerite Oswald (Oswald’s mother)
Robert Oswald (Oswald’s brother)
Ruth Paine (Oswald’s acquaintance, let Marina live with her)
Michael Paine (husband of Ruth, worked in military contracting)
Buell Wesley Frazier (drove Oswald to work on Nov. 22, 1963)
Linnie Mae Randle (Buell Frazier’s sister, saw Oswald with a package)
George de Mohrenschildt (CIA-linked geologist, befriended Oswald)
Jeanne de Mohrenschildt (wife of George, knew Oswald)
Silvia Odio (claimed Oswald met with anti-Castro Cubans before assassination)
Intelligence & Government Figures
James Jesus Angleton (CIA counterintelligence chief)
David Atlee Phillips (CIA officer involved in anti-Castro operations)
E. Howard Hunt (CIA, later involved in Watergate)
Richard Helms (CIA director, knew of Oswald’s file)
Charles Cabell (Deputy CIA Director, fired by JFK)
William King Harvey (CIA, involved in anti-Castro plots)
John McCone (CIA director during the assassination)
Fletcher Prouty (Air Force, claimed CIA involvement)
Allen Dulles (ex-CIA director, on Warren Commission)
David Sanchez Morales (CIA operative allegedly linked to assassination)
Organized Crime & Cuban Exiles
Jack Ruby (killed Oswald)
Sam Giancana (Chicago mob boss, had links to the CIA)
Johnny Roselli (Mafia-CIA liaison)
Carlos Marcello (New Orleans mob boss, suspected of JFK plot)
Santo Trafficante Jr. (Tampa mob boss, involved in anti-Castro plots)
David Ferrie (pilot, knew Oswald, linked to New Orleans mob)
Clay Shaw (New Orleans businessman, accused by Garrison)
Sergio Arcacha Smith (anti-Castro activist)
Frank Sturgis (anti-Castro operative, later Watergate burglar)
Eladio del Valle (Cuban exile, allegedly linked to Ferrie)
Warren Commission & Other Government Figures
Earl Warren (Chief Justice, led Warren Commission)
Gerald Ford (Warren Commission member, later U.S. President)
Arlen Specter (proposed the "Single Bullet Theory")
Richard Russell Jr. (Senator, skeptical of Warren Report)
John Sherman Cooper (Senator, Warren Commission member)
J. Lee Rankin (Warren Commission lawyer)
Lyndon B. Johnson (JFK’s vice president, became president)
Robert F. Kennedy (Attorney General, later assassinated)
Nicholas Katzenbach (Deputy Attorney General, pushed for lone gunman theory)
Herbert Hoover (FBI director, controlled investigation)
Additional Eyewitnesses & Researchers
Mary Pinchot Meyer (JFK mistress, murdered, had CIA links)
Beverly Oliver (claimed to be "Babushka Lady")
Eugene Dinkin (NSA cryptographic operator, claimed foreknowledge)
Chauncey Holt (claimed to be a "tramp" at Dealey Plaza, CIA ties)
Richard Sprague (House Select Committee investigator)
Dr. Charles Crenshaw (Parkland doctor, disputed official account)
Malcolm Perry (Parkland doctor, initially described throat wound as entry wound)
William Greer (Secret Service driver of JFK’s limo)
Roy Kellerman (Secret Service agent in JFK limo)
Clint Hill (Secret Service agent, jumped onto JFK’s car)
Jack Dougherty (TSBD employee, possibly near Oswald)
Harold Norman (TSBD worker, heard shots from above)
Eddie Piper (TSBD janitor, saw Oswald before shooting)
Julia Ann Mercer (saw men with rifles near Dealey Plaza)
Gordon Arnold (claimed to be near the knoll, saw suspicious activity)
Aubrey Rike (handled JFK’s body at Parkland)
Richard Randolph Carr (saw suspicious man flee TSBD)
James Files (claimed to be second shooter, controversial figure)
J. Walton Moore (CIA officer in Dallas, allegedly linked to Oswald)
Victor Marchetti (CIA officer, skeptical of lone gunman theory)
Ted Shackley (CIA operative, linked to anti-Castro operations)
John Martino (mobster, claimed conspiracy knowledge)
E. Howard Hunt Jr. (CIA officer, linked to various covert operations)
Louis Bloomfield (Canadian businessman, suspected intelligence links)
Joseph Adams Milteer (ultra-right activist, allegedly predicted JFK’s death)
Paul Kangas (private investigator, researched JFK case)
Richard Nagell (ex-intelligence, claimed to know about Oswald)
Suspicious Deaths of Key Witnesses
Dorothy Kilgallen (journalist investigating Ruby, died mysteriously)
Bill Hunter (journalist, shot in police station)
Jim Koethe (journalist, murdered in home invasion)
Gary Underhill (intelligence insider, shot himself under suspicious circumstances)
Thomas Hale Boggs (Warren Commission member, disappeared in plane crash)
Buddy Walthers (Dallas deputy sheriff, died in suspicious circumstances)
Lee Bowers (witness, saw activity on the grassy knoll, died in car crash)
Charles Harrelson (hitman, claimed knowledge of JFK assassination)
George Krutilek (mob accountant, found dead)
John Roselli (mobster, found murdered in a barrel)
Richard Cain (Chicago cop linked to the mob, murdered)
Joseph Milteer (far-right extremist, predicted JFK assassination in advance)
Hale Boggs (Congressman, Warren Commission member, plane disappeared)
Of course, there are more. Some previously mentioned.
Do you think Harrelson's being convicted of murdering a judge for the Mafia was just the evil, evil "Deep State" putting him away?
Why haven't any of the people in the top two lists died under mysterious circumstances / been killed under suspicious circumstances yet?
Or have they?
-
It only takes a handful of them to have been eliminated for the odds against a conspiracy to become extreme.
If, out of a group of 50 people, 5 of them win the lottery in the same year, you can conclude that it is almost certain, beyond reasonable doubt, there is foul play. The fact that the other 45 do not win, does not alter this.
For the witnesses, one can assume that it was not necessary to eliminate the others. If they were all eliminated, suspicions would be overwhelming and the scheme would collapse.
-
It only takes a handful of them to have been eliminated for the odds against a conspiracy to become extreme.
If, out of a group of 50 people, 5 of them win the lottery in the same year, you can conclude that it is almost certain, beyond reasonable doubt, there is foul play. The fact that the other 45 do not win, does not alter this.
For the witnesses, one can assume that it was not necessary to eliminate the others. If they were all eliminated, suspicions would be overwhelming and the scheme would collapse.
Sorry, Dude.
You make no sense to me.
Take this sentence, for example:
"It only takes a handful of them to have been eliminated for the odds against a conspiracy to become extreme."
WTF does "them" mean here?
WTF does "eliminated mean" -- death, or being removed from a list?
WTF does "odds against a conspiracy become extreme" mean?
And this one:
"For the witnesses, one can assume that it was not necessary to eliminate the others."
WTF does "for the witnesses" mean here?
. . . . . . .
Regardless, did I suggest that ALL of the witnesses should have been "eliminated" by the evil, evil "Deep State" / evil, evil "National Security State"?
No, I didn't. Why not say "too many," or some such thing, instead?
In other words, why the hyperbole?
Rhetorical question: Were only the most important witnesses "eliminated," or were they chosen randomly? Was just the right number of them (not too many, not too few) "eliminated" to effectively put The Fear of God in all of the others?
. . . . . . .
PS You want a strange death? Look into how former CIA officer Edward Ellis Smith died.
Hint: Smith was the dead drop setter-upper for CIA's spy, GRU Colonel Pyotr Popov in Moscow who was "honey trapped" and recruited by the KGB in 1956. Former CIA officer Tennent H. Bagley says in his 2007 Yale University Press book, Spy Wars, that Smith betrayed Popov to high-level KGB officer Vladislav Kovshuk in Washington DC movie houses in early 1957, but author John M. Newman (you've heard of him, right?) says it was Angleton's confidant, mentor and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie, who met with Kovshuk in those movie houses and that Smith just provided logistical support.
FWIW, Smith went on to become a scholar at the Hoover Institution, an officer in the Commonwealth Club, and a bank vice-president.
-
In a debate, it's often said that when one resorts to negative, personal remarks, it's a sign their argument is weak. Let's keep the discussion focused on the ideas rather than personal comments.
I am happy to rephrase my explanation if you find it difficult to understand.
-
In a debate, it's often said that when one resorts to negative, personal remarks, it's a sign their argument is weak. Let's keep the discussion focused on the ideas rather than personal comments.
I am happy to rephrase my explanation if you find it difficult to understand.
I've expanded my previous post for you.
-
I am happy to rephrase my explanation if you find it difficult to understand.
Not difficult, impossible,
So yeah, rephrase all of it.
-
Rephrasing:
It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.
If, out of a group of 50 people, 5 of them win the lottery in the same year, you can conclude that it is almost certain, beyond reasonable doubt, there is foul play. The fact that the other 45 do not win, does not alter this.
Considering the witnesses who did not die, one can assume that it was not necessary for them to be to killed. If all witnesses were, suspicions would be overwhelming and the scheme would collapse.
Mathematical consideration of probabilities prevents us jumping to conclusions – Just because something "feels" true doesn't mean it is. Probability helps us weigh different explanations and decide which is most likely, objectively. When we use logic, we rely on facts and structured arguments. This helps avoid emotional thinking and keeps discussions focused on evidence. This is how, for example and NTSB investigation would be run, where finding probable cause is crucial to future safety.
-
Of all the kooky claims supporting a conspiracy, the "mysterious deaths" justification is among the most absurd. Imagine the roving bands of death squads knocking people off left and right. Sometimes years or even decades after the assassination. Long after almost all of these people have told the authorities everything that they had to tell. And the death squads add untold numbers of new conspirators to carry out these acts. These people would then need to be silenced by someone else. And on and on exponentially until there would be no one left to bury the dead.
-
Of all the kooky claims supporting a conspiracy, the "mysterious deaths" justification is among the most absurd. Imagine the roving bands of deaths squads knocking people off left and right. Sometimes years or even decades after the assassination. Long after almost all of these people have told the authorities everything that they had to tell. And the death squads add untold numbers of new conspirators to carry out these acts. These people would then need to be silenced by someone else. And on and on exponentially until there would be no one left to bury the dead.
This is like the US was/is a banana republic with groups vying for power killing one another. Presidents being assassinated in broad daylight with hundreds of people watching, witnesses killed, staged investigations led by corrupt judges and controlled media. It's the United States of Guatemala. Only this time secretly. I know we've got problems; the Establishment (such as it is) has been awful but this is really over the top.
In conspiracy world it's conspiracies all of the way down; that's how they explain what has happened since that day in Dallas. The claim isn't that 60 years ago a small group of rogue CIA agents with a handful of others, e.g., anti-Castro Cubans, mob types, conspired to kill JFK. And then the Warren Commission and others missed that act. Out of shoddiness or incompetence. Okay, that's plausible. The claim is that major elements of the CIA - from Angleton to others - conspired with other groups to kill JFK and then frame Oswald. Then the WC covered it up. Deliberately.
Then the news media covered it up. For more than half a century. The followup investigations have covered it up. Then people like Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner have covered it up. It hasn't been incompetence; it's been a series of deliberate acts by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out. Add to this mix of conspirators the roving death squads (Marina is still alive: I would think the conspirators would want her dead first? She could reveal how they forced her to testify against Oswald among other damaging revelations).
This is silly. You have to have a bizarre mindset to think this is possible. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't do this and keep it quiet. But the US government with its bureaucracy and leaking and free press can do it? C'mon, this is a fantasy world.
-
It was the computer model's main hypothesis; take it or leave it. It's objectively pointing to a statistical anomaly. It's not based on subjectivity or opinion.
It will be interesting to see if anything of any importance comes to light when the last files are revealed... if they ever are!
-
Of all the kooky claims supporting a conspiracy, the "mysterious deaths" justification is among the most absurd. Imagine the roving bands of death squads knocking people off left and right. Sometimes years or even decades after the assassination. Long after almost all of these people have told the authorities everything that they had to tell. And the death squads add untold numbers of new conspirators to carry out these acts. These people would then need to be silenced by someone else. And on and on exponentially until there would be no one left to bury the dead.
A case of brain fog?
Long after almost all of these people have told the authorities everything that they had to tell.
There exists no evidence to support this claim.
And on and on exponentially until there would be no one left to bury the dead.
To set up a death squad to eliminate each member of a death squad ad infinitum is probably the most retarded idea I've seen a Lone Nutter come up with.
-
A case of brain fog?
Long after almost all of these people have told the authorities everything that they had to tell.
There exists no evidence to support this claim.
And on and on exponentially until there would be no one left to bury the dead.
To set up a death squad to eliminate each member of a death squad ad infinitum is probably the most retarded idea I've seen a Lone Nutter come up with.
If you actually believed that rogue death squads were roaming the country committing murder after murder to cover up the conspiracy, and they were still at large, you would be a bit more reluctant to post that on a public forum. This tells me that you don't really believe that nonsense.
-
It was the computer model's main hypothesis; take it or leave it. It's objectively pointing to a statistical anomaly. It's not based on subjectivity or opinion.
It will be interesting to see if anything of any importance comes to light when the last files are revealed... if they ever are!
I'll leave it. Junk science is just that but if you believe that you have "objective" evidence that supports a conclusion that dozens or hundreds of people were killed as part of a conspiracy to assassinate the president, why are you wasting time on this forum instead of standing inside the Dallas PD or FBI HQ providing them with your evidence? Why are you not taking this evidence to the NY Times and other media outlets? If I believed that I had evidence that would lend itself to advancing a homicide investigation - much less hundreds including the assassination of the president - I would be making every effort to provide that evidence to the relevant authorities and/or media.
-
If you actually believed that rogue death squads were roaming the country committing murder after murder to cover up the conspiracy, and they were still at large, you would be a bit more reluctant to post that on a public forum. This tells me that you don't really believe that nonsense.
Regardless of what I believe, you came up with the replicating death squads, so why should I worry?
-
Regardless of what I believe, you came up with the replicating death squads, so why should I worry?
They just silenced Clint Hill. Maybe add him to the list.
-
They just silenced Clint Hill. Maybe add him to the list.
I don't keep a list, but nice try. To me, this looks more like chronic brain fog.
-
Regardless of what I believe, you came up with the replicating death squads, so why should I worry?
Bugliosi has a short chapter in his book addressing the junk science and lunacy of the mysterious deaths hoax. Again, though, if I were convinced that a death squad was at large killing dozens or hundreds of witnesses, I would be reluctant to point that out on a public forum that members of the death squad might be monitoring. I would take that information to the authorities and let them deal with it.
-
I don't keep a list.
That's the best strategy.
-
Bugliosi has a short chapter in his book addressing the junk science and lunacy of the mysterious deaths hoax. Again, though, if I were convinced that a death squad was at large killing dozens or hundreds of witnesses, I would be reluctant to point that out on a public forum that members of the death squad might be monitoring. I would take that information to the authorities and let them deal with it.
Certainly not, as the authorities are in on it. The death squads are busy eliminating each other with no time to monitor. This could be your most retarded strawman ever. The fog must be terribly thick.
-
The authorities are in on it.
"Former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin totally agrees with you.
-
It would actually be interesting to know if the Russians have any inside knowledge on file somewhere. There could be an untapped source of information. There were obviously Soviet connection... and spies sometimes know more than the target.
-
It would actually be interesting to know if the Russians have any inside knowledge on file somewhere. There could be an untapped source of information. There were obviously Soviet connection... and spies sometimes know more than the target.
Da! Da! Da!
And as a former diplomat, you know that we can always trust what the Ruskies say!
I am so happy that Michael McFaul lobbied Hillary for a "reset" with "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin, aren't you?
Btw, how is Brexit working out for you?
-
You are welcome either way. Let's enjoy the freedom to discus matters where we still can.
-
You are welcome either way. Let's enjoy the freedom to discus matters where we still can.
Thank you very, very much!
-
Certainly not, as the authorities are in on it. The death squads are busy eliminating each other with no time to monitor. This could be your most retarded strawman ever. The fog must be terribly thick.
The authorities in 2025 are still in on "it"? LOL. Where will this conspiracy ever end? It just goes on and on but that does make a good excuse for not taking your evidence out of the shadows of the Internet into the real world. "Retarded" strawman? If only Roger Collins was still with us.
-
Thanks for the video but it only illustrates everything wrong with relying on computer AI. Computers aren't intelligent, they can't reason, they aren't self aware, all that they can do is accumulate human provided resources and regurgitate it, and in this case since the vast, vast majority of input comes from insane conspiracy nonsense then that is what is regurgitated.
Garbage in Garbage out.
We are a long, long way away from computer juries and videos like this only strengthen that fact! And even though the current legal system may have flaws, it's the human input of reasoning and making human judgements that makes it the fairest system available.
JohnM
-
Bugliosi has a short chapter in his book addressing the junk science and lunacy of the mysterious deaths hoax. Again, though, if I were convinced that a death squad was at large killing dozens or hundreds of witnesses, I would be reluctant to point that out on a public forum that members of the death squad might be monitoring. I would take that information to the authorities and let them deal with it.
Bugliosi has a short chapter in his book addressing the junk science and lunacy of the mysterious deaths hoax.
One of the very most popular and durable myths about the Kennedy assassination that conspiracy theorists have successfully peddled to millions of Americans is that witnesses who knew things that the conspirators who killed Kennedy didn’t want anyone to know met “mysterious” or “suspicious” deaths. The myth has many inherent weaknesses, just one of which is that once someone has already told his story, the cat, as the expression goes, “is already out of the bag.” And that’s one of the main reasons why the conspiracy theorists’ mysterious-deaths argument, first brought to national attention through a promotional campaign for the 1973 movie Executive Action, is lame on its face. Many of the witnesses who allegedly died mysteriously had already told their stories
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
-
The authorities in 2025 are still in on "it"? LOL. Where will this conspiracy ever end? It just goes on and on but that does make a good excuse for not taking your evidence out of the shadows of the Internet into the real world. "Retarded" strawman? If only Roger Collins was still with us.
So there would be self-guided death squads still around in 2025, "monitoring"? It was you who came up with the strawman that conspirators had sent out death squads that would replicate, no one else. You alone launched that insane idea.
-
So there would be self-guided death squads still around in 2025, "monitoring"? It was you who came up with the strawman that conspirators had sent out death squads that would replicate, no one else. You alone launched that insane idea.
How were all of those witnesses killed -- through spooky action at a distance?
Pardon the pun.
-
One of the very most popular and durable myths about the Kennedy assassination that conspiracy theorists have successfully peddled to millions of Americans is that witnesses who knew things that the conspirators who killed Kennedy didn’t want anyone to know met “mysterious” or “suspicious” deaths. The myth has many inherent weaknesses, just one of which is that once someone has already told his story, the cat, as the expression goes, “is already out of the bag.” And that’s one of the main reasons why the conspiracy theorists’ mysterious-deaths argument, first brought to national attention through a promotional campaign for the 1973 movie Executive Action, is lame on its face. Many of the witnesses who allegedly died mysteriously had already told their stories
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
Concerns about witness deaths were raised long before 1973, with early researchers like Penn Jones Jr. and Jim Marrs documenting them in the 1960s.
And how do you address the math? The core statistical improbability of so many witnesses meeting untimely or violent deaths in such a short span?
-
How were all of those witnesses killed so mysteriously or murdered so obviously under false pretenses -- through spooky action at a distance?
Pardon the pun.
I never claimed they were. I like puns. No need for an excuse.
-
I never claimed they were. I like puns. No need for an excuse.
What's your excuse?
-
Concerns about witness deaths were raised long before 1973, with early researchers like Penn Jones Jr. and Jim Marrs documenting them in the 1960s.
And how do you address the math? The core statistical improbability of so many witnesses meeting untimely or violent deaths in such a short span?
The genesis of the mysterious-deaths allegation goes back farther than the movie Executive Action. Penn Jones Jr., the late editor of a small, four-page weekly newspaper, the Midlothian Mirror, with a circulation of about five hundred1 in Midlothian, Texas (a semi-rural, one-yellow-page town of around 1,500 twenty-five miles southwest of Dallas), believed deeply in Oswald’s innocence.* In 1966 he self-published the first volume of his four-volume Forgive My Grief series in which he started alleging that people connected to or associated with the assassination in some way were suffering untimely and mysterious deaths—for instance, Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper of the rooming house where Oswald lived. But as the HSCA said, “There is no indication in the records relating to her death, or in Mr. Jones’ book, as to what exactly was mysterious about a 61-year-old woman with large calcium deposits and a case of pneumonia, dying of acute heart failure. The same is the case with other deaths cited in the same book, for example, Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the coroner…at David Ferrie’s death, and Thomas Howard, Jack Ruby’s attorney, both of whom died of heart attacks [Chetta in 1968, Howard in 1965].”2 Jones tells his readers that his book “gives names and details of the strange deaths of…people who knew something, learned something, or saw something that was supposed to have remained secret.”
The biggest supporter of Jones’s fantastic charges was Ramparts magazine, a onetime Catholic quarterly turned New Left monthly out of San Francisco. After interviewing him several times and conducting what the editorial staff suggested was a thorough investigation, they bought his allegations completely, publishing many of his articles on mysterious deaths word for word and concluding “that Penn [Jones] was right when he said the Warren Report was a waste of paper.”4 What gave tremendous aid to Penn Jones’s fantasies and mythology was a February 26, 1967, article in the London Sunday Times in which an actuary hired by the paper calculated that the odds of fifteen of the people Jones had listed as having died mysterious deaths (a list that included Oswald, Ruby, and Tippit) within a little over a three-year period after November 22, 1963 (up to the date of the article, February 26, 1967), were “100 trillion to one.” The article ended by observing that these “statistics are not proof of anything” but said that actuarial “science” pointed to foul play. The HSCA requested, in 1978, a copy of the actuarial study from the London paper and received a response on May 19, 1978, from the legal manager saying the article was “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…We asked [the actuary] the wrong question…what were the odds against fifteen named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time…[instead of] the odds against fifteen of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period,” which they said would have been “much lower.” The editor said this was a “fundamental error…for which we apologize.”5 Apart from the issue of fifteen named people out of the U.S. population as opposed to fifteen un named people from the Warren Commission Index (there are 2,479 people in the Commission Index),6 the joker here is “named” people. For instance, if one were to ask what are the odds against one named person (out of any number, no matter how big or small) getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 500 to 1, since about 1 out of 500 people in our population gets multiple sclerosis. However, if the question were what are the odds against one person (one person period, not one named person) out of 500 getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 1 out of 1—in other words, it’s a virtual certainty, since 1 out of 500 people gets multiple sclerosis.
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
JohnM
-
The genesis of the mysterious-deaths allegation goes back farther than the movie Executive Action. Penn Jones Jr., the late editor of a small, four-page weekly newspaper, the Midlothian Mirror, with a circulation of about five hundred1 in Midlothian, Texas (a semi-rural, one-yellow-page town of around 1,500 twenty-five miles southwest of Dallas), believed deeply in Oswald’s innocence.* In 1966 he self-published the first volume of his four-volume Forgive My Grief series in which he started alleging that people connected to or associated with the assassination in some way were suffering untimely and mysterious deaths—for instance, Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper of the rooming house where Oswald lived. But as the HSCA said, “There is no indication in the records relating to her death, or in Mr. Jones’ book, as to what exactly was mysterious about a 61-year-old woman with large calcium deposits and a case of pneumonia, dying of acute heart failure. The same is the case with other deaths cited in the same book, for example, Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the coroner…at David Ferrie’s death, and Thomas Howard, Jack Ruby’s attorney, both of whom died of heart attacks [Chetta in 1968, Howard in 1965].”2 Jones tells his readers that his book “gives names and details of the strange deaths of…people who knew something, learned something, or saw something that was supposed to have remained secret.”
The biggest supporter of Jones’s fantastic charges was Ramparts magazine, a onetime Catholic quarterly turned New Left monthly out of San Francisco. After interviewing him several times and conducting what the editorial staff suggested was a thorough investigation, they bought his allegations completely, publishing many of his articles on mysterious deaths word for word and concluding “that Penn [Jones] was right when he said the Warren Report was a waste of paper.”4 What gave tremendous aid to Penn Jones’s fantasies and mythology was a February 26, 1967, article in the London Sunday Times in which an actuary hired by the paper calculated that the odds of fifteen of the people Jones had listed as having died mysterious deaths (a list that included Oswald, Ruby, and Tippit) within a little over a three-year period after November 22, 1963 (up to the date of the article, February 26, 1967), were “100 trillion to one.” The article ended by observing that these “statistics are not proof of anything” but said that actuarial “science” pointed to foul play. The HSCA requested, in 1978, a copy of the actuarial study from the London paper and received a response on May 19, 1978, from the legal manager saying the article was “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…We asked [the actuary] the wrong question…what were the odds against fifteen named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time…[instead of] the odds against fifteen of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period,” which they said would have been “much lower.” The editor said this was a “fundamental error…for which we apologize.”5 Apart from the issue of fifteen named people out of the U.S. population as opposed to fifteen un named people from the Warren Commission Index (there are 2,479 people in the Commission Index),6 the joker here is “named” people. For instance, if one were to ask what are the odds against one named person (out of any number, no matter how big or small) getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 500 to 1, since about 1 out of 500 people in our population gets multiple sclerosis. However, if the question were what are the odds against one person (one person period, not one named person) out of 500 getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 1 out of 1—in other words, it’s a virtual certainty, since 1 out of 500 people gets multiple sclerosis.
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
JohnM
Dear John,
Do you think we're more likely to read your posts if you bold the text?
-- Tom
-
Dear John,
Do you think we're more likely to read your posts if you bold the text?
-- Tom
Hi Tom,
•When I write my own text it's written with regular text with the occasional italic, bold or underline for specific emphasis and if I'm feeling that a concept requires a particularly stronger presence I use a bigger font.
•When I quote another member I use the Forum quote function.
Do you think we're more likely to read your posts if you bold the text?
•And when I quote an outside source I bold it all.
It works for me and keeps every post I contribute consistent.
JohnM
-
Hi Tom,
•When I write my own text it's written with regular text with the occasional italic, bold or underline for specific emphasis and if I'm feeling that a concept requires a particularly stronger presence I use a bigger font.
•When I quote another member I use the Forum quote function.
•And when I quote an outside source I bold it all.
It works for me and keeps every post I contribute consistent.
JohnM
Dear John,
I prefer to read regular-sized, non-bolded, text.
-- Tom
-
Dear John,
I prefer to read regular-sized, non-bolded, text.
-- Tom
Thanks Tom,
I explained why I post the way I do, and if you read my posts or don't read my posts makes no difference to me.
JohnM
-
My money, and this is purely personal speculative opinion, is that a former president is implicated in some way in the unreleased files. Most likely LBJ. Although long dead, postponement of publication might be felt necessary to protect credibility of the institution.
-
Rephrasing:
It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.
If, out of a group of 50 people, 5 of them win the lottery in the same year, you can conclude that it is almost certain, beyond reasonable doubt, there is foul play. The fact that the other 45 do not win, does not alter this.
Considering the witnesses who did not die, one can assume that it was not necessary for them to be to killed. If all witnesses were, suspicions would be overwhelming and the scheme would collapse.
Mathematical consideration of probabilities prevents us jumping to conclusions – Just because something "feels" true doesn't mean it is. Probability helps us weigh different explanations and decide which is most likely, objectively. When we use logic, we rely on facts and structured arguments. This helps avoid emotional thinking and keeps discussions focused on evidence. This is how, for example and NTSB investigation would be run, where finding probable cause is crucial to future safety.
It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.
This doesn't make sense to me as we're way above a handful. Unless the conspirators didn't have a clue about statistics they would soon back off but that didn't happen. They happily moved past "extremely high" toward "overwhelming" probability of a conspiracy.
-
It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.
This doesn't make sense to me as we're way above a handful. Unless the conspirators didn't have a clue about statistics they would soon back off but that didn't happen. They happily moved past "extremely high" toward "overwhelming" probability of a conspiracy.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
-
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
One would think that if your theory is correct the witnesses would have been killed within one week of the assassination.
-
That's what one might think but arguments against that would be:
1. If a very large number of witnesses were killed very early on, it would blow the whole operation as it would be so clear that a dramatic cover-up would be underway.
2. Other, less visible methods of silencing would be use where possible, such as blackmail, threats to family or bribery.
3. Awareness of others being disposed of would be a powerful tool to pressurise.
Therefore, the expectation would be that only a fraction would be killed and spread over a length of time, when needs must.
-
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
Or, we're dealing with a group of witnesses to a high-profile murder case who were harassed by FBI agents, Dallas PD detectives, etc., and within this group the death rate is acceptable. I'll say you can't use the average across the country death rate as a reference. Smokers had abnormal death rates for a reason, not because of a conspiracy, initially at least.
-
Conspiracy believers simply start with their conspiracy belief ("Oswald couldn't have done this!!") and then select that information that supports their theory. This is, they reverse engineer a theory. Theory first and then fit the facts to support that theory. The assassination, then, is really a mirror, a Rohrschach test that reveals who the conspiracy believer disfavors.
It's why there are so many different theories as to who was behind the act: viz., the CIA, the Pentagon, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Birchers, the Mossad, LBJ, rich Texas oilmen, Castro, the Soviets, the South Vietnamese (for the killing of Diem). It's a long list. Heck, they can't even agree on a basic question as to who Oswald was.
Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.
-
@Steve M. Galbraith
Funny, that's what the Warren Commission did, working their way backward from "We need to convince the public that Oswald fired the shots and acted alone," trying to make the evidence fit. Didn't really work, even though the FBI fed them tainted evidence to help them out. You should read their report.
-
That's what one might think but arguments against that would be:
1. If a very large number of witnesses were killed very early on, it would blow the whole operation as it would be so clear that a dramatic cover-up would be underway.
2. Other, less visible methods of silencing would be use where possible, such as blackmail, threats to family or bribery.
3. Awareness of others being disposed of would be a powerful tool to pressurise.
Therefore, the expectation would be that only a fraction would be killed and spread over a length of time, when needs must.
I see.
LOL!
-
Conspiracy believers simply start with their conspiracy belief ("Oswald couldn't have done this!!") and then select that information that supports their theory.
It's worse than that.
Thanks to Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Paese Sera newspaper (RIP), Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Stone's JFKA guru, Jim "I Never Met a Communist I Didn't Absolutely Cherish" DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseum, they start out convinced that the evil, evil, evil CIA murdered JFK, and then they select the (oftentimes-KGB-provided) information that supports their theory.
-
You are right. To determine probable cause you must not start with any preconceptions or desired outcomes. In any forensic investigation you must have an open mind. A scientific approach is not concerned with belief.
-
Conspiracy believers simply start with their conspiracy belief ("Oswald couldn't have done this!!") and then select that information that supports their theory. This is, they reverse engineer a theory. Theory first and then fit the facts to support that theory. The assassination, then, is really a mirror, a Rohrschach test that reveals who the conspiracy believer disfavors.
It's why there are so many different theories as to who was behind the act: viz., the CIA, the Pentagon, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Birchers, the Mossad, LBJ, rich Texas oilmen, Castro, the Soviets, the South Vietnamese (for the killing of Diem). It's a long list. Heck, they can't even agree on a basic question as to who Oswald was.
Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.
Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.
Like all LNers, you don't seem to be aware that Oswald-Did-It is also a theory.
Like all LNers, you have somehow convinced yourself that you are dealing with a fact and that everyone else has a theory.
You are a Non-Conspiracy Theorist - an NCTer
-
Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.
Like all LNers, you don't seem to be aware that Oswald-Did-It is also a theory.
Like all LNers, you have somehow convinced yourself that you are dealing with a fact and that everyone else has a theory.
You are a Non-Conspiracy Theorist - an NCTer
Either sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald did it (with possible encouragement or logistical support from the KGB, the DGI, or Buell Wesley Frazier), or the evil, evil, evil CIA-Mafia did it and oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
Which do you think (sic) is more probable, O'meara?
-
Either sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald did it (with possible encouragement or logistical support from the KGB, the DGI, or Buell Wesley Frazier), or the evil, evil, evil CIA-Mafia did it, and oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
Which do you think (sic) is more probable, O'meara?
Beware of false dichotomies.
-
Beware of false dichotomies.
Beware of brainwashed-by-KGB-disinformation Zombies on the Internet.
-
Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.
Like all LNers, you don't seem to be aware that Oswald-Did-It is also a theory.
Like all LNers, you have somehow convinced yourself that you are dealing with a fact and that everyone else has a theory.
You are a Non-Conspiracy Theorist - an NCTer
What does my belief in what happened have to do with my question? A conspiracy theorist could ask the same question. It doesn't matter which side you are on. My view on what happened doesn't make the question invalid.
Again: Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years?
And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald. Oswald plus someone else. But a small one.
-
@Steve M. Galbraith
"And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald. Oswald plus someone else. But a small one."
Oswald plus someone else constitutes a conspiracy, so you screwed up again.
-
New analysis video! Who shot JFK?
Watch on Youtube!
Premiered on 25th February 2025
Please Subscribe to the YouTube Channel.Comment your thoughts on Youtube!
Who made the video?
I saw one major error during the ad. The National Academy of Sciences didn't debunk the acoustics conclusions reached by the experts for the HSCA, alone. Steve Barber debunked it, and the Committe on Ballistic Acoustics confirmed his discovery that debunked it and used his discovery to conclude that the section of the recording that was thought to have captured the "gunshots" was actually 90 seconds AFTER the assassination. Whomever did the research for this documentary didn't get it right.
-
Any intriguing event of such global importance is going to attract all sorts of theories, many of which are going to be unfounded or highly improbable, such as Paul MacCartney being replaced, crop circles being made by aliens, the earth being a flat disc, etc. With JFK you get shot by the driver (because on a poor copy of the Zapruder film the top of a head looks a bit like a pistol), shot by accident by AR15 in following car (because a photo shows the gun draw, but this happened after the shooting), shot by aliens, no doubt! Because people want answers in the absence of certainty, and people are happy to write books to make money, and it all sounds intriguing.
Most humans seem to have the need to believe; you only need look at the preponderance of cults and world religions.
It appears to be quite probable that there was a single shooter, probably Oswald. Evidence of cover-up suggests there was something else to hide and a number of key figures had opportunity, means and some strong motives.
-
Who made the video?
I saw one major error during the ad. The National Academy of Sciences didn't debunk the acoustics conclusions reached by the experts for the HSCA, alone. Steve Barber debunked it, and the Committe on Ballistic Acoustics confirmed his discovery that debunked it and used his discovery to conclude that the section of the recording that was thought to have captured the "gunshots" was actually 90 seconds AFTER the assassination. Whomever did the research for this documentary didn't get it right.
This was the primary source from the National Academies...
(https://file.garden/Z2AbXZORyQGK_KyB/acoustics.png)
Either way, it seems the acoustic evidence should be discarded.
How did you see it during the ad?
-
Just for fun!
-
What do people think of Ruby's rather awkwardly spoken words,
'Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.'
-
What does my belief in what happened have to do with my question? A conspiracy theorist could ask the same question. It doesn't matter which side you are on. My view on what happened doesn't make the question invalid.
Again: Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years?
And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald. Oswald plus someone else. But a small one.
"What does my belief in what happened have to do with my question? A conspiracy theorist could ask the same question. It doesn't matter which side you are on. My view on what happened doesn't make the question invalid."
As someone who has accepted a particular JFK theory, you are in a perfect position to answer this question.
It appears to me that the proliferation of theories reflects differing character traits. Various sources will create a theory that reflects how they look at things and then followers come along and choose whichever theory reflects who they are and how they look at the world.
"Conspiracy believers simply start with their conspiracy belief ("Oswald couldn't have done this!!") and then select that information that supports their theory. This is, they reverse engineer a theory. Theory first and then fit the facts to support that theory. The assassination, then, is really a mirror, a Rohrschach test that reveals who the conspiracy believer disfavors."
When you posted this I got the impression that you didn't realise this description applies to LNers more than anyone. The Warren Commission has done their thinking for them, their opinions have been provided for them and they will defend this theory to the bitter end. They literally start with their belief that Oswald-Did-It [ODI] and work the evidence from there.
"And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald...But a small one."
Agreed.
My own theory, which is the result of my best interpretation of the evidence wherever it leads, points to a small conspiracy involving a handful of people.
As a theory it will always have holes in it that have to be filled with speculation, but there isn't a single JFK theory, including the ODI theory, that doesn't suffer from the same limitation.
-
Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
If we adhere to entrenched beliefs we will still think that the Earth is at the centre of the the solar system (a reasonable model until overtaken by further observation) or that the sun would not rise without its daily worship.
-
Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
If we adhere to entrenched beliefs we will still think that the Earth is at the centre of the the solar system (a reasonable model until overtaken by further observation) or that the sun would not rise without its daily worship.
Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE". There are those here seeking to deny SCIENCE. I would encourage them to seek membership in the "Flat Earth Society". They will be most comfortable there.
-
Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE". There are those here seeking to deny SCIENCE. I would encourage them to seek membership in the "Flat Earth Society". They will be most comfortable there.
The Knott Lab cartoon found the bullet still hit JBC in the back, just in a different place than where the bullet hole actually was.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCdqDYVb/Knottcomposite.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This is from Z225 (the actual shot was Z222/Z223, but it's close enough).
The green line shows the trajectory of the bullet through JFK's throat and hitting JBC's back.
However, no bullet hole was found in that part of JBC's back.
It was never explained how this stupidity came to pass but the answer was pretty clear.
The Knott Lab cartoon did an excellent job of recreating Dealey Plaza and the presidential limo, but they hired a blind 10 year old child to animate the people actually in the limo. The biggest mistake the little kid made was shown earlier in the animation and it was a classic error:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNPKB1y7/knott4.png) (https://postimages.org/)picture uploader (https://postimages.org/)
He'd only put JBC sat directly in front of JFK and not to further in the limo [D'oh!] but that's what happens when you hire blind children for an animated cartoon.
If this mistake was corrected the green line hitting JBC's back would line up with the bullet hole actually found in his back.
Royell's usual tactic after being shown this evidence is to go quiet for a few weeks and then come back shouting about how Science has proven that it is impossible for two men to be shot with one bullet.
-
Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
If we adhere to entrenched beliefs we will still think that the Earth is at the centre of the the solar system (a reasonable model until overtaken by further observation) or that the sun would not rise without its daily worship.
Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
Every single JFK theory, no matter how bizarre, kicks off with a statement very similar to this one.
Things go downhill very shortly after this.
One question - how do you differentiate between a cover up and profound incompetence?
-
Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE". There are those here seeking to deny SCIENCE. I would encourage them to seek membership in the "Flat Earth Society". They will be most comfortable there.
Quite. They might conclude 'improbable' or highly 'improbable' depending on their evidence, but to say 'impossible' for such a scenario is highly unscientific.
Even if it were an improbable shot, and there were no evidence of more than 3 bullets, one would have to conclude luck was on his side and the shot was made.
Over the years, investigations have tended more towards the conclusion that the single bullet theory is more plausible. With the positioning of the seats and the angle of Connelly's body seen in the Zapruder film, it seems that what appeared to be implausible was in fact quite possible.
Firing at a complex, dynamic target, there is a very large number of possible outcomes - miss left, miss right, hit this or that, etc., etc. Even though each outcome is individually very unlikely, one will occur. Say one million people buy a lottery ticket; one person wins. It is unreasonable to say to that person, 'you could not have won', because the odds of winning are so low.
I can only suggest that the Knott Lab was working with poor evidence, or there was something improper going on.
The single bullet theory was proposed very quickly as a way to explain just 3 shots. It's easy to think, therefore, that it was contrived, especially as it is seemingly elaborate, so it is understandable that people would be sceptical of it. And some people find it difficult to change their opinion. (That's how someone like Galileo was persecuted for his discoveries.) It seems, even if the the SBT appeared to be made up on the spot, it may have been quite accurate, perhaps unlike much of the rest of the Warren Commission's affairs.
-
This was the primary source from the National Academies...
(https://file.garden/Z2AbXZORyQGK_KyB/acoustics.png)
Either way, it seems the acoustic evidence should be discarded.
How did you see it during the ad?
I couldn't agree more.
I saw the Acoustics section s as crap.
-
I seems strange to me that the original conclusion was drawn from such a low quality, mono recording. The sounds are very ambiguous, and there was no time reference.
Like they were seeing faces in a Rorschach inkblot test.
-
There has been the suggestion that timing of shots can be inferred from the Zapruder film, by analysing camera shake that may have been as a result of Zapruder's reflex reaction to the sounds.
I would have thought the shots would not have been loud enough from there. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
-
Quite. They might conclude 'improbable' or highly 'improbable' depending on their evidence, but to say 'impossible' for such a scenario is highly unscientific.
Even if it were an improbable shot, and there were no evidence of more than 3 bullets, one would have to conclude luck was on his side and the shot was made.
Over the years, investigations have tended more towards the conclusion that the single bullet theory is more plausible. With the positioning of the seats and the angle of Connelly's body seen in the Zapruder film, it seems that what appeared to be implausible was in fact quite possible.
Firing at a complex, dynamic target, there is a very large number of possible outcomes - miss left, miss right, hit this or that, etc., etc. Even though each outcome is individually very unlikely, one will occur. Say one million people buy a lottery ticket; one person wins. It is unreasonable to say to that person, 'you could not have won', because the odds of winning are so low.
I can only suggest that the Knott Lab was working with poor evidence, or there was something improper going on.
The single bullet theory was proposed very quickly as a way to explain just 3 shots. It's easy to think, therefore, that it was contrived, especially as it is seemingly elaborate, so it is understandable that people would be sceptical of it. And some people find it difficult to change their opinion. (That's how someone like Galileo was persecuted for his discoveries.) It seems, even if the the SBT appeared to be made up on the spot, it may have been quite accurate, perhaps unlike much of the rest of the Warren Commission's affairs.
"Luck" can play no part in the SBT. The SBT bullet trajectory "Is IMPOSSIBLE" per Forensic SCIENCE.
-
The SBT bullet trajectory "Is IMPOSSIBLE" per Forensic SCIENCE.
Bull pucky.
-
It's a pity Clint Hill did not live to see the final release of documents and possible resolution.
He seemed like a good man. RIP Clint.
-
More than 60 years of investigations - by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out - and after all of that no credible/serious evidence of a conspiracy was found (no, the HSCA's conclusions of "probably" one doesn't meet my standard).
Apparently your standard is different for believing that Oswald did it.
-
Apparently your standard is different for believing that Oswald did it.
How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, Iacoletti?
Oodles and gobs?
-
If only a small, elite group planned and did the assassination (eg, rogue intelligence operatives, organised crime guys, or military people), the number of people with direct foreknowledge could be as low as 5 to 10.
This would include planners, shooters, and key facilitators who ensured security gaps, logistics, or cover-up efforts.
If multiple groups were involved (eg, intel agencies, mob connections, and political insiders), the number of people with some foreknowledge would increase to around 10 to 30.
This could include backchannel operatives, bribed officials, and key personnel ensuring media control or evidence manipulation.
This can be seen in someting like Operation Neptune Spear in 2011 when they killed bin Laden: known to only a small group of 5 to 10 high-ranking US officials, a few Navy SEALs, and CIA operatives before execution. Even White House was unaware.
CIA/Mafia plots against Castro involved a handful of CIA operatives and mob figures like Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli, but information eventually leaked.
Iran/Contra... about 20 or 30.
-
If only a small, elite group planned and did the assassination (eg, rogue intelligence operatives, organised crime guys, or military people), the number of people with direct foreknowledge could be as low as 5 to 10.
This would include planners, shooters, and key facilitators who ensured security gaps, logistics, or cover-up efforts.
If multiple groups were involved (eg, intel agencies, mob connections, and political insiders), the number of people with some foreknowledge would increase to around 10 to 30.
This could include backchannel operatives, bribed officials, and key personnel ensuring media control or evidence manipulation.
This can be seen in someting like Operation Neptune Spear in 2011 when they killed bin Laden: known to only a small group of 5 to 10 high-ranking US officials, a few Navy SEALs, and CIA operatives before execution. Even White House was unaware.
CIA/Mafia plots against Castro involved a handful of CIA operatives and mob figures like Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli, but information eventually leaked.
Iran/Contra... about 20 or 30.
Why aren't you willing to accept that a sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist (who had probably been sent to Moscow in 1959 by a KGB "mole" in the CIA as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" -- the mole who sent LHO to Moscow!!! -- in the wrong part of the CIA and who lived two blocks from a KGB school in Minsk for two-and-one-half years) killed JFK all by himself by firing three shots at him over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza?
-
I merely answered your question: How many needed to be in on a plot, if there were one? Given examples of known plots, the answer was about 5 to 30
If we knew the facts for certain, this forum would not exist.
-
I merely answered your question: How many needed to be in on a plot, if there were one? Given examples of known plots, the answer was about 5 to 30
If we knew the facts for certain, this forum would not exist.
Why do you think John Armstrong felt it was necessary to create his complicated "Harvey and Lee" theory?
To "fit together" certain seemingly contradictory bits of evidence so that "innocent" Lee Harvey Oswald could be seen by gullible tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists as having been "patsied" by the bad guys, right?
Do you think Oswald was "patsied" by the bad guys?
If so, how do you think the bad guys did that?
Did they have to forge a lot of documents, etc?
-
If the goal was to frame Oswald, i guess the operation would need to manipulate his movements and employment to place him where he could be blamed.
His sudden job at the Depository just weeks before the assassination? Was this orchestrated by someone guiding him toward Dealey Plaza?
Oswald was Marine with U2 base clearance, defector to the Soviet Union, and Fair Play for Cuba activist: perfect profile for a comie scapegoat.
Connections with CIA linked people, De Mohrenschildt, Ferrie, suggest that intelligence elements had him on their radar.
If he were unwittingly being handled, he might have been steered toward suspect activities eg his Mexico City trip...
Would they need to forge many papers?
If elements of his movements were carefully shaped in real time, there would be little need for large scale forgery.
Selective leaks and supression would be enough. Eg, records of Mexico City trip were altered/withheld, and original autopsy notes disappeared.
Intelligence agencys don’t need to forge every document, they only need to control what gets seen and what doesn’t.
A patsy doesn’t need to be 100% innocent he just needs to be the most convenient, guilty looking guy.
Arrest at a theatre carrying a revolver would firm up illusion of guilt.
Alledged Tippit killing was key... removed any chance of him being seen as an innocent bystander.
Ruby killing made sure there would be no trial to challenge evidence.
Several key witnesses were ignored, intimidated, or died.
WC process ensured inconvenient testimony was sidelined... like doctors describing rear exit wound.
What I'm saying is, given that there have been other assassination and plots cordinated in such a way, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility? Remeber Iran/Contra and Oliver North? Stuff does go on.
-
If the goal was to frame Oswald, I guess the operation would need to manipulate his movements and employment to place him where he could be blamed. His sudden job at the Depository just weeks before the assassination? Was this orchestrated by someone guiding him toward Dealey Plaza?
Since JFK's speech at the Dallas Trade Mart wasn't booked until November 14 and Oswald started working at the TSBD on October 16, do you think the bad guys decided shortly after June 5 -- when it was decided that JFK would visit Texas -- to put Oswald in the TSBD and hope that not only would there be a motorcade, but that it would go to the Trade Mart rather than to the Women's Building at the fairgrounds?
Or were the bad guys just fortunate that self-described Marxist (and therefore frameable) Oswald was already in place in the TSBD when the Trade Mart commitment was made?
-
I merely answered your question: How many needed to be in on a plot, if there were one? Given examples of known plots, the answer was about 5 to 30
If we knew the facts for certain, this forum would not exist.
How many were involved in framing Oswald? And you have teams (or just one?) of death squads going around the country silencing witnesses. How many of these? Who ordered them to do this? And then, remarkably, the coverups of this plot. Or plots. The Warren Commission, the FBI, the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA, the Church Committee.
What about the news media and investigative reporters? Like Sy Hersh? And Tim Weiner? CBS news? PBS? ABC? The NY Times?
You have multiple generations of Americans of various backgrounds over decades planning this, executing the plan, covering it up, silencing witnesses and then coverups of those coverups. You think it's still going on with the files, correct? The files that were reviewed by the ARRB, the Clinton White House, the Bush White House, the Obama White House, the (first) Trump White House, the Biden White House and this Trump White House again. They all covered this up too?
Your 5 to 30 number is getting bigger and bigger each time you explain what happened. At some point don't you think you need to step back and ask: "Is this even possible?"
Shorter: You are simply starting with your conspiracy belief and then reverse engineering your conspiracy. It's a sort of "cargo cult conspiracy" where you have a conspiracy ritual where you construct your conspiracy first and then hope that the conspirators will show up eventually ("In the next files! No the next ones! Not those, those over there!). That is to say, to be frank, you are just making it all up.
-
How many were involved in framing Oswald? And you have teams (or just one?) of death squads going around the country silencing witnesses. How many of these? Who ordered them to do this? And then, remarkably, the coverups of this plot. Or plots. The Warren Commission, the FBI, the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA, the Church Committee.
What about the news media and investigative reporters? Like Sy Hersh? And Tim Weiner? CBS news? PBS? ABC? The NY Times?
You have multiple generations of Americans of various backgrounds over decades planning this, executing the plan, covering it up, silencing witnesses and then coverups of those coverups. You think it's still going on with the files, correct? The files that were reviewed by the ARRB, the Clinton White House, the Bush White House, the Obama White House, the (first) Trump White House, the Biden White House and this Trump White House again. They all covered this up too?
Your 5 to 30 number is getting bigger and bigger each time you explain what happened. At some point don't you think you need to step back and ask: "Is this even possible?"
Shorter: You are simply starting with your conspiracy belief and then reverse engineering your conspiracy. It's a sort of "cargo cult conspiracy" where you have a conspiracy ritual where you construct your conspiracy first and then hope that the conspirators will show up eventually ("In the next files! No the next ones! Not those, those over there!). That is to say, to be frank, you are just making it all up.
With the CIA involved this ain't the result of a 3 Man Hit Squad. And it's no coincidence that Bush Sr would then rise to become CIA Director. Ford moving JFK's Back Wound up to the Neck, too. Both eventually becoming POTUS. Lotta fingers were in this pie before, during, and after the Kill Shot.
-
With the CIA involved this ain't the result of a 3 Man Hit Squad. And it's no coincidence that Bush Sr would then rise to become CIA Director. Ford moving JFK's Back Wound up to the Neck, too. Both eventually becoming POTUS. Lotta fingers were in this pie before, during, and after the Kill Shot.
With respect, my first answer gave a range from 5 to 30. I have not changed it.
Why would news organisation need to be on a potential conspiracy? They wouldn't have inside knowledge; just report.
-
Since JFK's speech at the Dallas Trade Mart wasn't booked until November 14 and Oswald started working at the TSBD on October 16, do you think the bad guys decided shortly after June 5 -- when it was decided that JFK would visit Texas -- to put Oswald in the TSBD and hope that not only would there be a motorcade, but that it would go to the Trade Mart rather than to the Women's Building at the fairgrounds?
Or were the bad guys just fortunate that self-described Marxist (and therefore frameable) Oswald was already in place in the TSBD when the Trade Mart commitment was made?
The timing of Oswald's employment at the depository is potentially the weakest aspect of any conspiracy theory.
However, the route being published mid Nov does not preclude the possibility that it was planned well before then. June to October is plenty of time, and I would imagine they would like to plan as early as possible for all the logistics.
Trade Mart was officially chosen on November 15, but whose to say it was not pencilled in much earlier?
I found this: The earliest known date that the Dallas Trade Mart was seriously considered as a possible luncheon site for JFK appears to be mid-to-late September 1963
-
The route's being published mid Nov does not preclude the possibility that it was planned well before then. I would imagine they would like to plan as early as possible for all the logistics.
Who is "they," and how many of them were there?
The Trade Mart was officially chosen on November 15, but who's to say it was not penciled in much earlier?
"Penciled-in" means tentative; not definite.
Who's to say that it was?
Answer: Tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists.
The earliest known date that the Dallas Trade Mart was seriously considered as a possible luncheon site for JFK appears to be mid-to-late September 1963.
A possibility considered so "seriously" that the bad guys took it as a certainty and therefore put their patsy in the TSBD on 16 October?
-
Who is "they," and how many of them were there?
"Penciled-in" means tentative; not definite.
Who's to say that it was?
Answer: Tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists.
A possibility considered so "seriously" that the bad guys took it as a certainty and therefore put their patsy in the TSBD on 16 October?
Whose to say it was a certainty? It may have been just an option, accelerated in the last few days.
-
Whose to say it was a certainty? It may have been just an option, accelerated in the last few days.
So, what you're really saying is that the bad guys put Oswald in the TSBD "on spec."
Okay.
-
A bit speculative, don't you think?
Certainly it is speculative. As I said, the timing of Oswald's employment is a weakness in a conspiracy. But it does not eliminate the possibility.
-
Certainly it is speculative. As I said, the timing of Oswald's employment is a weakness in a conspiracy. But it does not eliminate the possibility.
Okay.
What other possible problem areas do you see with your favorite JFKA conspiracy theory?
Let's discuss them.
For example, maybe a lot more than 30 bad guys and bad gals were involved in the murder of JFK by the "Deep State" / "Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" / "National Security State," which murder, of course, involved the "patsy-ing" of Oswald, the shooting (from where? -- The Grassy Knoll?), and the all-important COVER UP!!!
-
Here's what the conspiracy believers think happened (in part): The conspirators - CIA, Pentagon, FBI, Mob, whatever - got together to assassinate the president - essentially commit treason and if caught executed and their family names disgraced forever - by shooting him in broad daylight with 300-400 people watching, many with cameras. Nobody said no, nobody said, what the hell? They all saluted the plan. They meekly went along with this treason. Yes, they did.
Then the next step, yes there's even more, was to send out kill teams to murder those among the 300+ witnesses there who saw their act and were going to expose it. Yes, they did this too.
Yes, everyone went along with this brilliant ploy. And remained silent. And covered their tracks. And never talked. And future generations of Americans - who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TREASON - have covered up for them. Even today they are doing so. Or trying.
In some world on some planet in some universe this perhaps makes sense. But not in this one.
-
Okay.
What other possible problem areas do you see with your favorite JFKA conspiracy theory?
Let's discuss them.
For example, maybe a lot more than 30 bad guys and bad gals were involved in the murder of JFK by the "Deep State" / "Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex" / "National Security State"?
I have no favoured theory. I would be interested to know what happened.
OK. Let take a parallel, the near successful attempt to assassinate the UK prime minister, Thatcher, in 1984.
Who were involved in the conspiracy?
Here we can be less speculative as we know the IRA were responsible as Patrick Magee, who planted the bomb was caught.
The IRA’s Need-to-Know Structure
The IRA operated in highly compartmentalized cells, meaning only those directly involved in a mission had details.
This minimized the risk of infiltration or leaks.
Magee never revealed the full network
MI5 and police were aware of IRA operations in Britain, but they had no prior warning of the bombing.
While some IRA informants existed, no one tipped off authorities about this specific attack.
Estimated Number of People Who Knew in Advance
On the ground: likely 2 to 3 individuals (including Magee).
IRA estimated 5 to 10 individuals.
Because of their mode of operation, they were able to keep plans entirely secret, and only Magee was ever caught. Like assassinating bin Ladin, nothing leaked, keeping things as small and tight as possible.
-
I have no favoured theory. I would be interested to know what happened.
OK. Let take a parallel, the near successful attempt to assassinate the UK prime minister, Thatcher, in 1984.
Who were involved in the conspiracy?
Here we can be less speculative as we know the IRA were responsible as Patrick Magee, who planted the bomb was caught.
The IRA’s Need-to-Know Structure
The IRA operated in highly compartmentalized cells, meaning only those directly involved in a mission had details.
This minimized the risk of infiltration or leaks.
Magee never revealed the full network
MI5 and police were aware of IRA operations in Britain, but they had no prior warning of the bombing.
While some IRA informants existed, no one tipped off authorities about this specific attack.
Estimated Number of People Who Knew in Advance
On the ground: likely 2 to 3 individuals (including Magee).
IRA estimated 5 to 10 individuals.
Because of their mode of operation, they were able to keep plans entirely secret, and only Magee was ever caught. Like assassinating bin Ladin, nothing leaked, keeping things as small and tight as possible.
Wikipedia:
Patrick Joseph Magee (born 1951)[1] is a former Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteer who is best known for planting a bomb in the Brighton Grand Hotel targeting Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet, which killed five people. He is often referred to as 'the Brighton bomber'.[2]
My comments:
Magee wasn't unwittingly "placed" (as your patsied Oswald ostensibly was) or . . . gasp . . . wittingly lying-in-wait one month before a hypothetical Thatcher would come by his place of work in a motorcade -- au contraire, he checked into the hotel which he'd been (correctly) led to believe Thatcher and her Cabinet would be staying four weeks later, and planted a bomb in a bathroom wall that he set to go off when she and her Cabinet would be sleeping in said hotel.
In other words, Thatcher wasn't his only target; he would have considered his mission "accomplished" if at least some of her evil, evil Cabinet had succumbed but evil, evil Thatcher had survived.
Therefore, Magee's mission was simpler for himself and the other conspirators than it was for the evil, evil bad guys and the evil, evil bad gals who put "patsied" Oswald in position way ahead of time "on spec" and who have, by themselves or their legions of bad-guy and bad-gal descendants, successfully covered up their evil, evil involvement to this very day!!!
RELEASE THE FILES!!!
(LOL)
-
Wikipedia:
Patrick Joseph Magee (born 1951)[1] is a former Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteer who is best known for planting a bomb in the Brighton Grand Hotel targeting Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet, which killed five people. He is often referred to as 'the Brighton bomber'.[2]
My comments:
Magee wasn't unwittingly "placed" (as your patsied Oswald ostensibly was) or . . . gasp . . . wittingly lying-in-wait one month before a hypothetical Thatcher would come by his place of work in a motorcade -- au contraire, he checked into the hotel which he'd been (correctly) led to believe Thatcher and her Cabinet would be staying four weeks later, and planted a bomb in a bathroom wall that he set to go off when she and her Cabinet would be sleeping in said hotel.
In other words, Thatcher wasn't his only target; he would have considered his mission "accomplished" if at least some of her evil, evil Cabinet had succumbed but evil, evil Thatcher had survived.
Therefore, Magee's mission was simpler for himself and the other conspirators than it was for the evil, evil bad guys and the evil, evil bad gals who put "patsied" Oswald in position way ahead of time "on spec" and who have, by themselves or their legions of bad-guy and bad-gal descendants, successfully covered up their evil, evil involvement to this very day!!!
RELEASE THE FILES!!!
(LOL)
Agreed, but Brighton was a conspiracy to assassinate a major head of state, knowledge was kept only a handful, so securely that conspirators remain hidden indefinitely.
JFK scenario was more elaborate, but equal it appears more has needed to be done maintain secrecy, i.e., apparent silencing of witnesses and classified files for 60 years.
-
Brighton was a conspiracy to assassinate a major head of state . . .
And/or her Cabinet
. . . knowledge [of the conspiracy] was kept [by] only a handful [and was done] so securely that [the] conspirators remain[ed] hidden indefinitely.
Probably because it was such a simple affair and so few people were involved.
[The] JFK scenario was more elaborate . . .
Correct. Much more elaborate.
but equal . . .
Huh?
. . . it appears more has needed to be done maintain secrecy, i.e., apparent silencing of witnesses and classified files for 60 years.
Yes!
Much, much more, and by implausibly large numbers of evil, evil bad guys and evil, evil bad gals, too!
PS I'm so relieved that you decided to throw the word "apparent" in there.
There may be hope for you yet.
-
[/quote]
Do you think release of files will shed any new light? Is there anything still hidden, and if so will it remain buried?
-
There is really no need for computer analysis which is only as good as what you input into it and what parameters are selected as was pointed out pages ago in this thread. Nothing can preclude common sense and the difference between circumstance and happenstance! There only needs to be a few questions asked and there are no answers given. You then reach credible conclusions when things are ignored or even too well documented. The number 1) below is the "biggy"!
1) The most important witness at the crime scene was never interviewed, recorded or allowed to give her eyewitness statement of account. Jacqueline Kennedy. From Zapruder film her gaze was down at the chest after the first shot. Being that close, she would be able to tell you how many shots and how she thought a part of the brain ended up on the trunk. The conclusion to draw from this is that what she would have told the public would not have aligned or even be allowed by those in charge of the investigation to fabricate and align their stories. Is that not common sense when you ignore her? Noteworthy, the FBI and not a local jurisdiction controlled the entire investigation affair.
2) Oswald was in the limelight and was even photographed by the media and portrayed as a VIP. Not only did he have money to travel... he defected to Russia...visited Cuba... then had his passport reinstated... then be at the right place...then the right time and ...then have all the right motives. Patsy and grooming would be the best description of his actions and the most common sense terms to describe how and where he was. Patsy is his own word to describe his own framing. He didn't think his handlers would turn on him and that he would wear it. He was a little naive to not see through the setup!
3) His inability to speak due to his death is once more common sense. If he was killed by the great "patriot" nightclub owner Jack Rubenstein for no apparent reason, actually makes no sense. He was also in media circles and circulated.
4) Jack Ruby never being brought to trial before his death (or even issuing statements from anyone interviewing him and stayed alive) brings that to a dead end as well.
5) Having an enemy of JFK such as Allen Dulles (after being fired by JFK), be part of an appointed Warren Commission investigation is also glaringly common sense and obviously common sense. No grand jury!
You really do not need a computer analysis to analyze the common sense of what the above is telling you. Do you think you can win the lottery? Happenstance versus circumstance! Maybe can run it through a computer's algorithm!
The truth about who runs government and controls things is too obvious. The elites, the rich and the deep state (made up of the un-elected) should lead any reasonable observer to a common sense conclusion. Here is another good example. Suppose Epstein actually was a CIA operative, well paid and was there to collect dirt on politicians so that they could be controlled....wouldn't that makes sense as well as part of a CIA team? No cameras, no cellmate, suicide watch, sleeping guards and then have him disappear. Definitely was suicide! You might label him a modern day patsy! You just have a controlled media to report or not report what you deemed is newsworthy to the general public. The term controlled speech should come to mind. Narrative control is what CIA is and was good at and is being used on the people since its formation and the beginning of time. Their use of the media was brought up in the 70's and they went off camera in the investigation of it as they would rather not talk about it. I think that was the House Intelligence Committee as circulated on youtube - Operation Mockinghttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html
One more thing, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. Bill Clinton and then almost Hilary as President should lead you to conclude that there are no better Presidents than those that are found from within a circle of friends. You should be vary wary of NGOs and who runs them. All the elites seems to use them and have them to bypass tax laws and use money to influence public opinion without ever having to pay tax and skim off in the process.
Whether it was secret societies, Skull & bones or the group of Free Masons that made up the Warren Commission (including Zapruder), you must question allegiances and how much power there is at the top end of society. Who is being groomed and for what positions? It would certainly appear to be a controlled democracy and NOT in the hands of the people that vote! Look at the Washington Monument, the Pentagon and the White House, the street pattern in Washington as an example. Was this not designed by a group that made decisions on "behalf" of the people? Not to mention the pyramid and eye on every 1 dollar bond note! Alas only conspiracy that can never be proven to mean anything! And so it went with JFK and his brother. There is no there....there!