The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory

[Robert Reeves]

Your attempt to comfort yourself with lame absurdity will not ever disguise the depth of depravity that runs right through USA's corruption spewing century of dominance. As if the two sickest individuals in American politics/security service (you jokingly use to mock the JFK assassination) are even remotely considered above such depraved abuses of power that were needed to successfully maintain the wicked conspiratorial lies to deprive the people of the truth.

You seriously live in the delusion that Hoover and LBJ didn't find it advantageous to see the back of JFK? Sad bastard.

[Dan O'meara]

I have no idea how long he was there eating lunch.  He didn't know himself because he had no cause to believe it mattered at the time.  He gave different estimates.

I find your unfamiliarity with the witness testimony on such a pivotal question surprising.
The reason it is a pivotal question is that the witness testimony makes it abundantly clear Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Obviously you are uncomfortable with this.
Unlike you, I have a very good idea how long he was eating lunch there and I will lay out the testimonial evidence as I see it.

After his initial fabrication to the DPD (that he travelled up to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman), BRW is interviewed by the FBI the next day. He concedes that he went up to the 6th floor alone, that he saw no-one there and went down to the 5th floor. No mention of eating his lunch. He is only up there for 3 minutes.

On January 14th, agents Carter and Griffin report that BRW said he went down to the 5th floor at 12:05 pm

During his WC testimony he is asked how long he stayed on the 6th floor. He replies:
"I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes."

Later in the same testimony he is asked what time he saw Norman and Jarman. He replies:
"It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12."

He is then asked to clarify what time, approximately, he left the 6th floor. He replies:
"Approximately 12:20, maybe."

As you point out, Williams gives various estimations for his time on the 6th floor. You would like to believe it's just a muddled memory but there is a distinct pattern to his estimates - the more he is questioned, the longer he is up there.
3 minutes, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 20 minutes.
20 minutes!
At first he tries to distance himself from the 6th floor completely, then he tries to minimise the time he is up there.

In order to clarify how long Williams was up there we must turn to the evidence given by the two men he meets up with on the 5th floor - Norman and Jarman.
Both men make their way out to the front of the TSBD. When asked how long he was out front, Norman gives a very specific timestamp. He states that they stayed out front until they heard the motorcade was on Main Street. According to the DPD dispatch tapes the motorcade is approaching Main Street at 12:22 pm. We can say with confidence Norman and Jarman are still stood outside the TSBD at 12:22 pm.
When Jarman is asked the same question he replies:
"Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25."
This corroborates Norman's timestamp which removes the "muddled memory" argument.
When asked what time he arrived on the 6th floor Jarman replies:
"That was about 12:25 or 12:28."

At 12:22 pm Norman and Jarman are stood outside the front of the TSBD.
Williams is up on the 6th floor having his lunch.
Seven minutes before this, at 12:15 pm, Arnold Rowland reports seeing a black male in the SN window at a time when Williams is having his lunch on the 6th floor. Rowland also reports seeing a white male carrying a high powered, scoped rifle on the same floor at the same time.

According to all this testimonial evidence it is safe to say Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Do you have any credible counter-evidence?
Do you disagree with this assessment of the testimonial evidence?

At worst, perhaps as a black man in the 1960s South, BRW initially was reluctant to admit that he had been on the 6th floor just minutes before the president was murdered from that location.  Black men had been punished for much less at that time.

?? But he wasn't "reluctant" to lie to the DPD and FBI??
Are you joking? You think lying to law enforcement agencies investigating the assassination of the president is somehow plausible for a black man in the 1960's South?

But that isn't a lie per se.  He never denied being there.  He simply did not volunteer that information in his initial short statement.

For the third time - he doesn't leave information out of his initial DPD statement, it isn't an omission or forgetfulness.
For the third time - Williams gives details of something that didn't happen. He lies. There is no other word for it.
He states he went up to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman. He embellishes on this lie when he says that shortly after they reached the 5th floor the motorcade arrived.
None of this is true. He's made it up. He's created a false narrative. He has deliberately lied.

Your unreasonableness over this point is noted. I've no doubt you will keep on repeating the same point.

Most likely because he saw nothing while eating lunch and didn't think it mattered.

Again, this truly bizarre suggestion.
If he saw nothing why would he lie?
Think about it.

He later explained it when questioned at greater length.  In his statement, he says "we" went down the elevator but then "I" went to the 5th floor.   That is entirely consistent with his actions.

Utterly meaningless.

Your post is really weak and I don't think you should be taking on an issue like this if you are as unfamiliar with the witness testimony as you appear to be (although I strongly suspect you are more than familiar with the relevant evidence).
If you have a different (reasonable) interpretation of the evidence I've presented let's hear it.
Your last recourse is to simply classify me as one of the many nut-jobs plying their trade on this forum and walk away from this discussion. I advise this course of action.

[John Iacoletti]

No, "Richard" isn't all that familiar with the evidence and he doesn't even care.  "Oswald did it" is all he needs to know.

[Joe Elliott]

Joe Elliott do you believe E Howard Hunt when he says there was a plot to kill JFK and then proceeds to name several colleagues of his from CIA departments that specialized in clandestine operations to remove 'foreign' leaders via force as the conspirators. Also, incriminating himself.

Just think about it! After everything we know about Hunt ... was he really making it up?

Do I believe E. Howard Hunt? No. I would not believe anything he had to say.

I think E. Howard Hunt was falsely implicating President Lyndon Johnson in the assassination because he was bitter about Johnson’s support of Civil Rights legislation. If E. Howard Hunt was still alive today I would have no doubt that he would be a big supporter of Donald Trump.

[Joe Elliott]

Joe,

You seem to assume that everybody you think would have needed to be involved in a conspiracy was completely informed about everything and an active and willing participant. I think your assumption is wrong.

For a conspiracy to work, all that was required is that the actual conspirators had control of the evidence and the investigation. Prior to the assassination all they needed was a small group of people to set up Oswald (which really wasn't so difficult) and a small team to carry out the actual assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the people somehow involved in the case, were so on a need to know basis and/or acting on orders, without actually knowing what was really going on and what the big picture really was.

The massive number of anomalies in the physical evidence clearly suggests that the evidence was manipulated and adapted to the narrative we know today.

First, I would like to point out that this exact defense could be used for any Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory:

“Only a few of the heads of Dominion Voting Systems were aware of this conspiracy. The computer programmers who made it happen were just following instructions. So, when told that if Trump won Arizona, they should write code that would add enough votes to the Biden totals to allow Biden to win Arizona, and so they do so. But they did not realize that this was done to allow Biden to win the election regardless of who won the election. They didn’t realize that similar instructions were given to others who were writing the computer code for other states. So, only a few really had a big picture of what was going on.”

Similarly:

“Only a few at the top of the Dallas Police Department knew what was going on. One was ordered to place a bullet on a stretcher. Another was ordered to plant fake documents to make it appear that Oswald ordered a rifle. Another was ordered to put a gun in Oswald’s hand while he was arrested. But none of them knew that this was done to frame Oswald. None of them really knew the big picture.

Secondly, you have not made an:

* Estimate of the number who helped the conspiracy.
* Nor, a number who were not but followed orders as if they were involved in the conspiracy.
* And how did the conspirators know ahead of time that so many others who were not part of the conspiracy would help them out, as if they were involved.
* Nor, a list of evidence that was modified or faked, to explain all the “anomalies”.

Anyone who supports a conspiracy theory, needs to lay out this information, so one can judge if the conspiracy theory is a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, or not. As basically CTers, or 99% of them, do not do so. Failure to do so should convince a rational skeptical thinker to conclude that this is a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory and that this theory can be dismissed for that reason alone, the same reason rational skeptics have dismissed other conspiracy theories over the centuries like:

* Elders of Zion conspiracy theory.
* Illuminati conspiracy theory.
* Freemason conspiracy theory.

The same rational reasoning that worked two centuries ago still works today.

Thirdly, JFK CTers could argue, it doesn’t matter if Trump is elected (or selected by various Secretary of State for Georgia, etc.) because the same “Deep State” put in place by the JFK assassination will still be in place. I would hold that this is a dangerous belief.

[Joe Elliott]

The model I'm working has 4 people with "on the ground" foreknowledge of what was going to happen that day - Shelley, Truly, Fritz and the shooter, Dougherty.
Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run.
The impetus for the assassination would've taken place further up the TSBD chain, probably Byrd and associates (yet to look into this side of things but it seems the only way to go)
Elements of the various intelligence agencies may have known something was coming but just allowed it to happen then followed the Oswald-Did-It order that came from the top.

The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies.

A conspiracy as small as this is clearly not what 99% of CTers have envisioned.

Also, you sometimes list four names, sometimes seven.

You also allude to oil companies but do not provide an estimate of the number involved in the conspiracy.

And did this “small” conspiracy (just the employees of the TSBD, oh, and the oil industry) fake the paperwork linking the rifle to Oswald? Did they fake the autopsy? Did they fake the backyard photographs?

Exactly what evidence was tampered with by the conspiracy?

[Dan O'meara]

A conspiracy as small as this is clearly not what 99% of CTers have envisioned.

Also, you sometimes list four names, sometimes seven.

You also allude to oil companies but do not provide an estimate of the number involved in the conspiracy.

And did this “small” conspiracy (just the employees of the TSBD, oh, and the oil industry) fake the paperwork linking the rifle to Oswald? Did they fake the autopsy? Did they fake the backyard photographs?

Exactly what evidence was tampered with by the conspiracy?

"A conspiracy as small as this is clearly not what 99% of CTers have envisioned."

This thread is asking an important question.
There can be no doubt that the vast majority of CTers are weak minded lunatics who have no interest in actually finding out what was going with the JFK case. They are simply propping up their own fragile egos at the expense of the truth. It's disgusting really and embarrassing that I am lumped in with them by default.
Because witness evidence is contradictory by nature and the investigation was unbelievably incompetent, not to mention corrupt, these people can come up with any outlandish theory they want, no matter how large it gets.

"Also, you sometimes list four names, sometimes seven."

The list of four - Truly, Shelley, Fritz and Dougherty - are those who had foreknowledge of events that day.
The list of seven - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman, Jarman, Dougherty, Givens - are those who clearly lied to the investigating authorities. Williams, Norman and Jarman did not lie because they were part of the conspiracy they lied because Williams saw something he shouldn't have seen. Williams tried to distance himself from it and dragged Norman and Jarman into his lie as back up.

"You also allude to oil companies but do not provide an estimate of the number involved in the conspiracy."

I've made no mention of oil companies.

"And did this “small” conspiracy (just the employees of the TSBD, oh, and the oil industry) fake the paperwork linking the rifle to Oswald? Did they fake the autopsy? Did they fake the backyard photographs?"

None of this was faked.
I don't believe any evidence was faked.
Some important evidence was destroyed/lost such as BRW's lunch remains including the soda bottle.
Forrest Sorrels taking Oswald's shirt out to Bledsoe so she could make notes seems a weird use of evidence.
But I don't believe anything was faked.
I'm working on a "Patsy" model, so Oswald can do all the things he is said to have done - bought a rifle and revolver, got Marina to take photos etc.

"Exactly what evidence was tampered with by the conspiracy?"

Obviously, I've given the example of the lunch remains and Bledsoe.
There are other small examples of tampering but not on some kind of industrial scale.
You must remember, the order, from the very top, that the investigation into the murder was to focus solely on Oswald, really happened. This led to a skewing of the investigation. Which in turn led to moments of corruption. Not as part of a conscious conspiracy put as part of "following orders."

[Bill Chapman]

Your attempt to comfort yourself with lame absurdity will not ever disguise the depth of depravity that runs right through USA's corruption spewing century of dominance. As if the two sickest individuals in American politics/security service (you jokingly use to mock the JFK assassination) are even remotely considered above such depraved abuses of power that were needed to successfully maintain the wicked conspiratorial lies to deprive the people of the truth.

You seriously live in the delusion that Hoover and LBJ didn't find it advantageous to see the back of JFK? Sad bastard.

jokingly use to mock the JFK assassination
_Nah, to mock oswald arse kissers

Meantime, back here on Planet Earth: