Hoover’s effort to “convince the public that Oswald” was lone assassin…

[Martin Weidmann]

It seems obvious.  If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war.  Necessitating a military response.  In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war.  Any CTer (such as Mark Lane) who was attempting to convince the public of a fake conspiracy risked causing WWIII.

It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response.

Really? The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...

In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war.

And others think that the alleged involvement of Russia/Cuba was just an excuse to cover up what really happened and put the blame on Oswald alone.

The whole idea of WWIII over the assassination of a President is just as idiotic as the nuclear arms race itself was. Sure, if Russia or Cuba were involved (which I seriously doubt they were), there would be a major political crisis but no regime would be stupid enough to fire the first nuke, as selfdestruction would most certainly follow.

[Walt Cakebread]

Name the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were pressuring for war?

And while you're at it, why don't you tell us precisely, how those "responsible leaders" of the US would get the country into WWIII because of the murder of Kennedy, regardless whether a lone nut or a conspiracy was behind it?

Name the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were pressuring for war?

Hi Martin, I can name one without searching my memory for others.... Curtis Le May

[Jerry Freeman]

  The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...

                                                   Can....is 

[David Von Pein]

Any clown can accuse somebody of something, so?

[...]

888 pages of lies and deception.

Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald. But such a ridiculous activity, which is something that Internet CTers engage in daily, won't make the evidence against him cease to exist.

It would appear as though most conspiracy theorists still haven't figured out the above basic truth---even 58 years after the evidence was collected.

~shrug~

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html

[David Von Pein]

Remember what happened when you claimed rock solid chain of possession of #2 on your list?

The two non-Poe shells indeed do have a rock-solid chain of custody. All CTer protests to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

[Martin Weidmann]

Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald. But such a ridiculous activity, which is something that Internet CTers engage in daily, won't make the evidence against him cease to exist.

It would appear as though most conspiracy theorists still haven't figured out the above basic truth---even 58 years after the evidence was collected.

~shrug~

Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald.

Here's a basic truth for you;

Sure, there is evidence against Oswald. The real question is; is it persuasive and conclusive enough and any objective person would have to conclude that it really isn't. It's mainly a circumstantial case with here and there some physical pieces of evidence thrown in. And even those physical pieces of evidence have their own individual problems. To ignore the problems there are with the evidence and the way it was gathered is just as dishonest as claiming that there is no evidence against Oswald.

[Richard Smith]

It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response.

Really? The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...

In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war.

And others think that the alleged involvement of Russia/Cuba was just an excuse to cover up what really happened and put the blame on Oswald alone.

The whole idea of WWIII over the assassination of a President is just as idiotic as the nuclear arms race itself was. Sure, if Russia or Cuba were involved (which I seriously doubt they were), there would be a major political crisis but no regime would be stupid enough to fire the first nuke, as selfdestruction would most certainly follow.

Talk about a strawman!  Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.  That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.  To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Talk about a strawman!  Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.  That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.  To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.

Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.


At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.

That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.

Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....

To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.


BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.

It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?

The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!