Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Conspiracy theories

12 views
Skip to first unread message

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 1:54:16 PM1/27/12
to
I'm not sure why Mack et al have been trying to "put a lid down on"
any speculation about the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson and RFK,
two people at the top of the government at the time of the killing,
both privately believed there was a conspiracy of some sort, despite
the public posturing all engaged in at the time.

In the time I've been paying attention, there have been many
conspiracy theories, and quite a few have turned out to be valid (Iran
Contra, Pentagon Papers, Watergate, My Lai Massacre coverup, faked
evidence for war in Iraq, to name a few).

In all those cited cases, the people alleging the conspiracy (i.e. the
paranoid) turned out to be right, and not intellectually impaired.
RichL took this validation of conspiracy theorists as evidence that
other conspiracies are not real, since most of the ones I've cited
were discovered within two years in his reckoning. I'm not sure that's
accurate, and as I pointed out, establishing that a conspiracy has
taken place does not mean we now know all there is to know about it.

Recent conspiracy theories have included the "truthers" that suggest
9/11 was an inside job, or "birthers" who despite all evidence, cling
to the notion that President Obama is not a citizen. The GOP
encouraged many whacky conspiracy theories during the Clinton era, and
I think the party did so without really believing any of them: Vince
Foster was killed because he knew too much, Bill Clinton imported
cocaine into Arkansas on CIA planes, Hillary was having lesbian
affairs, yada yada.

When the smoke cleared, Clinton was proved to have lied about a
consensual affair, and all the other stuff was like the faked uproar
about Obama's citizenship.

One big difference is that on the right, much of life of conspiracy
theories is built by party members & office holders, who when asked if
Obama is a citizen, replied with half assed responses like "I'm going
to take him at his word- that's what he says", rather than "Of course
he is".

By contrast, the big left wing conspiracy is the truther movement, and
that has almost exactly 0 support among Democratic elected officials,
and instead is relegated to fringe groups. The fringe groups on the
right now run the GOP.

But trying to prove that JFK assassination theories are bunk is a
fool's errand.
The original action, with Oswald, a poor marksman during his military
service, firing an antique gun quickly and accurately, with one bullet
passing through Connolly three times to then mortally wound JFK defies
belief. When you add in the top down pressure to tell the official
story they wanted to tell, and not the one some evidence suggests, and
the evidence intentionally destroyed or classified beyond reach, you
are trying to nail jello to the wall.

I've seen some of you cite Gerald Posner, a guy who was fired from the
Daily Beast for plagiarism, and then was caught doing it again in his
new book. Even Bugliosi, who agrees with Posner's thesis, accuses him
of "omissions and distortions" .

I'm not sure what the point of raising the subject here is anyway.
Unlike an election, for instance, we won't be voting on this anytime
soon, and it seems like more ill will than anything arises from the
passions on both sides.

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 2:43:15 PM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:54:16 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
<jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote:


>The original action, with Oswald, a poor marksman during his military
>service, firing an antique gun quickly and accurately, with one bullet
>passing through Connolly three times to then mortally wound JFK defies
>belief. When you add in the top down pressure to tell the official
>story they wanted to tell, and not the one some evidence suggests, and
>the evidence intentionally destroyed or classified beyond reach, you
>are trying to nail jello to the wall.

This is one place I'll take exception to you. If you've seen the
recreations, you know it was a very easy shot. He had a telescopic
lens, for God's sake! And contrary to what you may have heard, he was
a pretty good shot. I saw a program that had his actual score sheets
from Marine basic training.
--

UsurperTom

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 3:03:25 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 1:54 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:

> that has almost exactly 0 support among Democratic elected officials,

Name a Republican elected official who endorsed a conspiracy theory
during the Clinton era.

gemjack

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 3:40:14 PM1/27/12
to
Not so, he sucked. Bad.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/folsom.htm

Mr. ELY - Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this
scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained,
concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Colonel FOLSOM - Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200
yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand
position----
Mr. ELY - You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in
Oswald's scorebook?
Colonel FOLSOM - Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the
three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all
10 shots within the four ring.
Mr. ELY - And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in
terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than
that if he were a good shot?
Colonel FOLSOM - Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should
get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.
Mr. ELY - And what was his score?
Colonel FOLSOM - Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score
of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his
record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points.
Do you want to compute these?
Mr. ELY - I don't see any point in doing this page by page.
I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we
could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his
career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
Colonel FOLSOM - No, no, he was not.

-gj

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 4:08:50 PM1/27/12
to
He qualified as a "sharpshooter". Can't recall what TV show it was -
it may have been the Peter Jennings ABC special or the one done by
A&E/History Channel. They had a Marine spokesman on who said he was
better than average.

Looking at it from another perspective, maybe that's why the first
shot missed, but if you've seen the re-creations, it was a very easy
shot with a rifle with a telescopic sight.
--

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 4:19:13 PM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:40:14 -0500, gemjack
<geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a
rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots
during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using
a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May
1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of
sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records,
characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he
was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an
excellent shot".[60]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 4:44:25 PM1/27/12
to

On Jan 27, 3:03 pm, UsurperTom <Usurper...@aol.com> wrote:

> Name a Republican elected official who endorsed a conspiracy theory
> during the Clinton era.

I note you didn't ask about the Obama presidency, because the internet
does not have enough bandwidth to list them all .;-)

Howabout committee chair Rep. Dan Coats? (R. In)
from his wiki page:

Burton was one of the most ardent opponents of President Bill Clinton.
In 1998, he said, "If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe
happened, he'd [Clinton] be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm
after him."[1] Rep. Burton led the House inquiry into the death of
Vincent Foster; he was convinced that Foster was murdered and urged
extensive investigation into the possible involvement of the Clintons.
Burton gained attention for re-enacting the alleged crime in his
backyard with his own pistol and a pumpkin standing in for Foster's
head.

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 4:52:08 PM1/27/12
to

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:54:16 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
>
> <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
> >The original action, with Oswald, a poor marksman during his military
> >service, firing an antique gun quickly and accurately, with one bullet
> >passing through Connolly three times to then mortally wound JFK defies
> >belief. When you add in the top down pressure to tell the official
> >story they wanted to tell, and not the one some evidence suggests, and
> >the evidence intentionally destroyed or classified beyond reach, you
> >are trying to nail jello to the wall.
>

On Jan 27, 2:43 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is one place I'll take exception to you.  If you've seen the
> recreations, you know it was a very easy shot.  He had a telescopic
> lens, for God's sake!  And contrary to what you may have heard, he was
> a pretty good shot.  I saw a program that had his actual score sheets
> from Marine basic training.
> --

The cite you gave includes the info that lead me to refer to him as a
"poor marksman", which is incomplete, in reading the wiki.

The Wiki page includes this:

"During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a
rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots
during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using
a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May
1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of
sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records,
characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he
was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an
excellent shot".[60]

However, Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to
laugh at Oswald's shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got
"Maggie's drawers"; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle
pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification
firing. He also said that Oswald did not seem to care if he missed or
not.[61] Delgado was first stationed with Oswald in Santa Ana,
California at the beginning of 1958 meeting him for the first time
there and a little more than a year after Oswald first made
sharpshooter.[62]"

& the thing about a telescopic lens, is it can almost be a hindrance
on moving target; any slight variation and you are lost. Note that his
prowess was on stationary targets.

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 5:12:38 PM1/27/12
to
But it was such an easy shot. You must have seen the re-creations. If
Oswald was adequate or even mediocre, he could have pulled it off. As
I said, maybe that's why the first shot missed - he was nervous, and
he needed to get a feel for the weapon in conjunction with the target.

I don't see any evidence that he wasn't the shooter in what I've read
about his shooting skills. YMMV.
--



John Doherty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 5:33:51 PM1/27/12
to
Wasn't he shooting through a Texas live oak that still had its leaves?

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 5:51:44 PM1/27/12
to
It was the end of November. I'm under the impression that he had a
clear shot. Thre would have been mofre of a fanfare about it if his
sight was obscured by leaves.

About moving targets - the target was very slowly moving away from him
in almost a straight line, so the vertical hairline would have been
stationary. He only had to wait until the President was in the cross
hairs.

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 6:01:24 PM1/27/12
to
The other thing, John, is that if there were truly a conspiracy, I
don't think the powers-that-be would have chosen a rube like Oswald to
be any part of it. I do think he had a crazy, fantastic idea that he
acted on, got off three shots, two of which were lucky, and he left in
a hurry. He certainly didn't have his full wits about him from the
moment he pulled the trigger.
--

RichL

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 7:42:35 PM1/27/12
to
"John Doherty" <jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote in message
news:77aaaa8e-d522-4fa8...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

> In all those cited cases, the people alleging the conspiracy (i.e. the
> paranoid) turned out to be right, and not intellectually impaired.
> RichL took this validation of conspiracy theorists as evidence that
> other conspiracies are not real, since most of the ones I've cited
> were discovered within two years in his reckoning. I'm not sure that's
> accurate, and as I pointed out, establishing that a conspiracy has
> taken place does not mean we now know all there is to know about it.

I'd say that in the examples you posted, actual cover-ups were exposed
fairly quickly. That suggests (but doesn't prove) that a long time lapse
since the event occurs makes it likely that allegations of conspiracy are
false.

There's also the matter of WHO actually believes the theories, and what axes
they have to grind. At this point, I'd say most people who believe in a
conspiracy involving the Kennedy assassination DON'T have an axe to grind.
But a counterexample is the "birther" movement, which CLEARLY does, as most
rational people didn't give the allegations a moment's thought to begin
with, and only the die-hards continue to cling to it.

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 8:01:19 PM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:42:35 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
As was said many times, in almost fifty years of investigating, not
ONE iota of credible evidence has ever been established to suggest a
conspiracy except the tortured (and distorted) souls of many
Americans.
--



marcus

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 9:53:54 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 1:54 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
It does seem a bit odd that a Beatles newsgroup would be the place to
discuss the JFK assassination, unless one believes the over-
exaggeration that The Beatles first trip to the USA(arriving in
America only 11 weeks to the day after JFK was killed) took America
out of its grief. I don't believe it, but many do.

However, back to the subject of conspiracies. As I mentioned before,
I became a student of the JFK assassination theories when I was 16 in
1966 after "Rush To Judgement" and "Whitewash" were published. It was
an eye-opener. I have gone through periods where I thought Oswald
played no role in the actual murder, to there being two assassins not
in the Texas Schoolbook Depository to my current belief that Oswald
was the shooter, but had assistance in doing so.

Admittedly, conspiracies are often welcome by some who can not believe
that one person could have killed someone they regarded so highly.
It's kind of a wishful thinking that someone so puny and ineffectual
couldhave played a role in the murder of someone so admired.

Ironically, as some of you may recall, in the not too distant past
there was a poster here who constantly derided my ten year assault on
corporations, how they were controlling our lives, politics, and
destroying the middle class (which I have been telling people about
for over 25 years now). He criticized me for using the word
"corporations" too much, and basically accused me of being a
conspiracy nut about the power of corporations. I kept explaining
that there was no conspiracy...there was nothing hidden, it was all
there in the open for everyone to see. In the past year, we've seen
many people come around to that way of thinking. I give this example
as one where someone is accused of being a conspiracist, when they are
really reporting facts that anyone could verify if they wanted to.

On the other hand, there are real conspiracies that need to be
exposed...the Pentagon Papers(cited by others in this ng) is the
greatest example. I guess one can't dismiss a conspiracy as wrong,
just because it's touted as a conspiracy...each needs to be evaluated
by its own merits, or lack thereof.

Marc

http://marccatone.webs.com

marcus

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 10:18:37 PM1/27/12
to
an above paragraph should have read:


"Admittedly, conspiracies are often welcome by some who can not
believe
that one person could have killed someone they regarded so highly.
It's kind of a wishful thinking that someone so puny and ineffectual
could not have played a role in the murder of someone so admired."

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 10:18:46 PM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:53:54 -0800 (PST), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Look how quickly the Lincoln conspirators were brought to justice.
What else? Guiteau was the lone gunman who assassinated Garlfield,
and I don't think conspiracy theories abounded. There was little mass
media to speak of. News was carried by telegraph and newspapers. I
don't think America had entered the Age of Paranoia in 1881.

I truly think that if there were a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination, something would eventually come out about it, and it
would be able to be investigated forensically with hard evidence.
Fifity years later, and we're still waiting.
--

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 11:12:33 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 8:01 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> As was said many times, in almost fifty years of investigating, not
> ONE iota of credible evidence has ever been established to suggest a
> conspiracy except the tortured (and distorted)  souls of many
> Americans.

from wiki:

"Contrary to the Warren Commission, the United States House Select
Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that President
John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
[3] The HSCA found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren
Commission Report to be seriously flawed. While agreeing with the
Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to
Kennedy and Governor Connally, it stated that there were at least four
shots fired and that there was a "high probability" that two gunmen
fired at the President. No gunmen or groups involved in the conspiracy
were identified by the committee, but the CIA, Soviet Union, organized
crime and several other groups were said to be not involved, based on
available evidence. The assassination is still the subject of
widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and
alternative scenarios."

That was more than tortured souls-- that was based on a review of
available info then. Has there been a government review since that
refuted this conclusion?

RichL

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 11:28:22 PM1/27/12
to
"marcus" <marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec2db596-cb1a-4ef1...@s7g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

> "Admittedly, conspiracies are often welcome by some who can not
> believe
> that one person could have killed someone they regarded so highly.
> It's kind of a wishful thinking that someone so puny and ineffectual
> could not have played a role in the murder of someone so admired."

That's true, and it just occurred to me that the only assassinations or
attempted assassinations from the 60s onward in the US that did NOT evolve a
significant conspiracy theory were those of George Wallace and Ronald
Reagan.

marcus

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 11:52:55 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 11:28 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "marcus" <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes, because they survived.

RichL

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 12:00:02 AM1/28/12
to
"marcus" <marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:894ceb86-0ed7-48bb...@t7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
But is that really the explanation? Is an act of assassination more likely
to be a conspiracy if it's successful?

I had more in mind the "because they were admired" factor.

marcus

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 12:06:21 AM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 12:00 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "marcus" <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:894ceb86-0ed7-48bb...@t7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:28 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "marcus" <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ec2db596-cb1a-4ef1...@s7g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > "Admittedly, conspiracies are often welcome by some who can not
> >> > believe
> >> > that one person could have killed someone they regarded so highly.
> >> > It's kind of a wishful thinking that someone so puny and ineffectual
> >> > could not have played a role in the murder of someone so admired."
>
> >> That's true, and it just occurred to me that the only assassinations or
> >> attempted assassinations from the 60s onward in the US that did NOT
> >> evolve a
> >> significant conspiracy theory were those of George Wallace and Ronald
> >> Reagan.
>
> > Yes, because they survived.
>
> But is that really the explanation?  Is an act of assassination more likely
> to be a conspiracy if it's successful?
>
> I had more in mind the "because they were admired" factor.

A successful assassination attempt of a much admired person is more
likely to engender a conspiracy theory because people are incredulous
that one lone person could have pulled it off

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 12:21:03 AM1/28/12
to
Except.....there's no credible evidence except what they happen to
think.

Yes, they were tortured souls, and they were addressing the demands of
the American people - that it was a conspiracy.

Trouble is, it wasn't,

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 12:38:38 AM1/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:12:33 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
<jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote:


>That was more than tortured souls-- that was based on a review of
>available info then. Has there been a government review since that
>refuted this conclusion?

They have spent millions of dollars. The ABC News special, and
History/A&E channels both sponsored in depth investigations.

Did you watch the two hour ABC Special? It addresses all the
anomalies that could point to a conspiracy including the shadows on
the grassy knoll. They constructed a computer simulated 3D model so
they could view the assassination from any given point. Both studies
concluded that it was Oswald and no conspiracy.

Yet there are those (and you may be one) who keep saying, "It must
have been a conspiracy!" Why? This phenomenon is addressed, too -
the little waif who killed the most powerful man in the world? It
doesn't add up.

When the House Committe did its second review decades later, the
nation was in the midst of a paranoid phase; actually, it hasn't
ceased. It just changes subjects from time-to-time. Probably sprang
from the Cold War - Americans were brainwashed to be paranoid. I'd
say the Cold War reached its peak around the end of the Vietnam War,
so that was about ten years after the assassination.

It's been terrorists for a while - sometimes jumps to swine or bird
flu; ebola is another scare. Oh, those nasty illegal immigrants
bringing all kinds of disease and crime into the U.S. What else?
--


Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 1:16:51 AM1/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:12:33 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
<jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote:

>That was more than tortured souls-- that was based on a review of
>available info then. Has there been a government review since that
>refuted this conclusion?

Why would you trust a government review?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/18/historians-claim-new-research-shows-oswald-acted-alone-in-jfk-assassination/

One report cites Jackie Kennedy believing LBJ was behind the
assassination! Even more ridiculous.

This is very interesting and compelling:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131456&page=1

Lisi Peteras

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 6:46:33 AM1/28/12
to
On 1/27/2012 11:28 PM, RichL wrote:

> That's true, and it just occurred to me that the only assassinations or
> attempted assassinations from the 60s onward in the US that did NOT
> evolve a significant conspiracy theory were those of George Wallace and
> Ronald Reagan.

that's because the left wing media could not believe that anyone would
want to kill such important liberal deities.

sure, they could understand that wallace and reagan were evil scumbags,
but gods like the kennedys? good lord no.

Lisi Peteras

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 6:48:41 AM1/28/12
to
see what i told you? the liberals think these guys were gifts from
heaven who pee champagne when in fact kennedy was HATED, DESPISED and
had MANY enemies.

Lisi Peteras

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 6:50:28 AM1/28/12
to
well you had a lot of theories about new york jews that you posted ad
nauseum here.

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 9:27:08 AM1/28/12
to


> >On Jan 27, 8:01 pm, Mack A. Damia  <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As was said many times, in almost fifty years of investigating, not
> >> ONE iota of credible evidence has ever been established to suggest a
> >> conspiracy except the tortured (and distorted)  souls of many
> >> Americans.
>

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:12:33 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
>
> >from wiki:
>
> >"Contrary to the Warren Commission, the United States House Select
> >Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that President
> >John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
> >[3] The HSCA found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren
> >Commission Report to be seriously flawed. While agreeing with the
> >Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to
> >Kennedy and Governor Connally, it stated that there were at least four
> >shots fired and that there was a "high probability" that two gunmen
> >fired at the President. No gunmen or groups involved in the conspiracy
> >were identified by the committee, but the CIA, Soviet Union, organized
> >crime and several other groups were said to be not involved, based on
> >available evidence. The assassination is still the subject of
> >widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and
> >alternative scenarios."
>
> >That was more than tortured souls-- that was based on a review of
> >available info then.  Has there been a government review since that
> >refuted this conclusion?
>

On Jan 28, 12:21 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Except.....there's no credible evidence except what they happen to
> think.

You are old enough to remember the era, Mack. There was widespread
enormous cynicism in the wake of the sorry end of the Viet Nam War
after the Pentagon Papers, My Lai, Secret Bombing of Cambodia, the
many threads of Watergate that lead to Nixon's resignation, etc. The
American people were hungry for less BS and more unvarnished truth, or
the closest we could get to it.

In that light, the Committee conducted a meticulous analysis of all
allegations of conspiracy to date, and came up with many of the points
you are trying to make here, such as :

"1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy.
The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third
shot he fired killed the President."


>
> Yes, they were tortured souls, and they were addressing the demands of
> the American people - that it was a conspiracy.

The demand was not to arrive at a conclusion, it was to screen out
some of the BS that the Warren Commission and every other government
functionary had been shoveling for 15 years.
>
> Trouble is, it wasn't,

Not sure if you've read this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

It's funny that you think this committee started from a conclusion.
From what I've seen here, and your statements of hyperbole (like the
still unaddressed comment of "undisputed fact" that only the
intellectual impaired believe in conspiracy theories), it seems like
it's you that starts with a conclusion, and that you embrace & reject
available evidence on the basis of how close it hews to the conclusion
you like.

Your bullishness in this argument that only the dullards out there
don't share your complete confidence in "Oswald Acting Alone" flies in
the face of the vast body of evidence that is available in the
assassination of JFK.

If you proceeded from a perspective that you could see how it's so
murky that many people of good faith could believe otherwise, that the
so many interconnecting links between mob figures, Oswald, nutty Bay
of Pigs holdovers, CIA ops and Lee Oswald do create some intriguing
suggestion, then your conviction would hold more weight.

In the end, the House Committee, which was obviously not "tortured
souls", believed that Oswald did fire upon and hit the president, but
that he did not act alone.

"2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that
at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other
scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen
firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific
conspiracy allegations."

I personally don't think Oswald was innocent; he likely fired at the
president that day, and probably hit him and or Connolly. But I do not
share your confidence that no one else was involved, even if I do not
have all the answers.

Life is often like that-- we search to understand things and do not
have all the answers. People are still piecing together the Lincoln
assassination and its aftermath.

Frank from Deeeetroit

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 11:57:03 AM1/28/12
to
A 48 or 49 out of 50 is a High Master ranking.

48 is a 96%, a 49 is a 98%

Frank

Frank from Deeeetroit

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 11:54:50 AM1/28/12
to
On Jan 27, 4:08 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:40:14 -0500, gemjack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:43:15 -0800, Mack A. Damia
> ><mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:54:16 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
> >><j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
> >>>The original action, with Oswald, a poor marksman during his military
> >>>service, firing an antique gun quickly and accurately, with one bullet
> >>>passing through Connolly three times to then mortally wound JFK defies
> >>>belief. When you add in the top down pressure to tell the official
> >>>story they wanted to tell, and not the one some evidence suggests, and
> >>>the evidence intentionally destroyed or classified beyond reach, you
> >>>are trying to nail jello to the wall.
>
> >>This is one place I'll take exception to you.  If you've seen the
> >>recreations, you know it was a very easy shot.  He had a telescopic
> >>lens, for God's sake!  And contrary to what you may have heard, he was
> >>a pretty good shot.  I saw a program that had his actual score sheets
> >>from Marine basic training.
>
> >Not so, he sucked.  Bad.
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/folsom.htm
>
> >Mr. ELY - Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this
> >scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained,
> >concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?
> >Colonel FOLSOM - Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200
> >yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand
> >position----
> >Mr. ELY - You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in
> >Oswald's scorebook?
> >Colonel FOLSOM - Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the
> >three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all
> >10 shots within the four ring.
> >Mr. ELY - And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in
> >terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than
> >that if he were a good shot?
> >Colonel FOLSOM - Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should
> >get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.
> >Mr. ELY - And what was his score?
> >Colonel FOLSOM - Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score
> >of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his
> >record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points.
> >Do you want to compute these?
> >Mr. ELY - I don't see any point in doing this page by page.
> >I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we
> >could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his
> >career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
> >Colonel FOLSOM - No, no, he was not.
>
> He qualified as a "sharpshooter".  Can't recall what TV show it was -
> it may have been the Peter Jennings ABC special or the one done by
> A&E/History Channel.  They had a Marine spokesman on who said he was
> better than average.
>
> Looking at it from another perspective, maybe that's why the first
> shot missed, but if you've seen the re-creations, it was a very easy
> shot with a rifle with a telescopic sight.
> --

Shooting qualification ranks are thus, from lowest qualifier to
highest;

Marksman
Sharpshooter
Expert
Master
High Master

I hold an Expert badge in Bullseye discipline, and a High Master in
Police discipline, as well as a Distinguished Bullseye discipline..

Frank

Frank from Deeeetroit

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 12:00:10 PM1/28/12
to
The NatGeo special, of last November, indicated Oswald fired his first
shot as Kennedy's limo turned the corner. Photographs taken by the
Secret Service at the time, indicate the first shot was fired directly
below the window Oswald was perched at. The shot struck the traffic
light and was deflected.

Frank

Frank from Deeeetroit

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 12:01:00 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 27, 8:01 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:42:35 -0500, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Doherty" <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote in message
Well said.

Frank

JohnBL

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 3:36:34 PM1/28/12
to
On Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:27:08 AM UTC-6, John Doherty wrote:
The "scientific acoustial evidence," the only evidence upon which the committee based their "at least two gunmen" conclusion, has long been debunked. See: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/.
>
> I personally don't think Oswald was innocent; he likely fired at the
> president that day, and probably hit him and or Connolly. But I do not
> share your confidence that no one else was involved, even if I do not
> have all the answers.

If you don't have all the answers, then how can you have a valid opinion on the matter?

>
> Life is often like that-- we search to understand things and do not
> have all the answers. People are still piecing together the Lincoln
> assassination and its aftermath.

What are we still learning about the Lincoln assassination?

For those not familiar with John McAdams' website, may I suggest spending a week or two perusing its contents (it's big site):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

One of the more valuable assassination resources, in print or on the web. If you still want to argue in favor of conspiracy after reading this site, fine, but don't rely on "evidence" that's been discredited for 30 years, and that even conspiracy buffs don't believe any more.

John L

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 3:54:44 PM1/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:36:34 -0800 (PST), JohnBL <Car...@aol.com>
wrote:
What gets me is that these conspiracies must be just "vague notions" -
or else there would be some kind of action on them. Look at how we
have investigated and pursued other events. We have't stopped until
every issue is resolved.

I just don't get it, because in fifty years of conspiracy theories,
nobody has said a word - nobody has left a note in his will - no shred
of evidence has been uncovered.

Yet we still hear, "conspiracy". Maybe in the same vein as the
reasoning of the OJ murder trial jury?
--

UsurperTom

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 4:04:35 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 27, 4:44 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:

> I note you didn't ask about the Obama presidency

I don't know of any birthers in Congress or running for president. Dan
Burton was one man in Congress and investigating Foster's death is no
different than Cynthia McKinney's attempt to have Congress investigate
whether Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.

JohnBL

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 7:30:51 PM1/28/12
to
On Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:54:44 PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> What gets me is that these conspiracies must be just "vague notions" -
> or else there would be some kind of action on them. Look at how we
> have investigated and pursued other events. We have't stopped until
> every issue is resolved.

Exactly. The reason that conspiracy buffs can't pursue matters until resolved is because they reach a dead end every time. Every so-called scrap of "evidence" that supposedly suggests conspiracy is not evidence at all. Buffs rely on creative interpretations of the existing evidence, and on ad-hoc reasoning when their interpretations are shown to be absurd and illogical.

If there was a conspiracy, then at the very least some consistency in the evidence should have emerged long ago. After nearly 50 years, there should be ONE conspiracy theory, rather than several hundred.

> I just don't get it, because in fifty years of conspiracy theories,
> nobody has said a word - nobody has left a note in his will - no shred
> of evidence has been uncovered.

And consider the entities most often accused of taking part in the conspiracy. The FBI, the Secret Service, and the Dallas police are among those often accused, so let's use them as examples.

If we believe the conspiracy crowd, then hundreds of individuals in those agencies went along with a plot to kill the president. There would have been no way to pull of some of the more elaborate conspiracy scenarios without such widespread cooperation. Yet this means we have to accept that everyone involved, many of whom probably liked and voted for JFK, went along with it and had no crisis of conscience in 50 years, such that they would willing go along with a cover-up.

I have plenty of reasons to distrust the U.S. government, but willing complicity in a plot to kill a president is not one of them. They can't even keep it quiet when some congressman is banging his secretary, and we expect that they can keep the lid on a presidential assassination for half a century? Puh-leeze.

>
> Yet we still hear, "conspiracy". Maybe in the same vein as the
> reasoning of the OJ murder trial jury?

They believed the gloves did not fit, just as conspiracy buffs believe they see gunmen hiding in tree shadows and bushes.

John L

Mack A. Damia

unread,
Jan 28, 2012, 8:54:37 PM1/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:30:51 -0800 (PST), JohnBL <Car...@aol.com>
wrote:
The gloves fit, even two of the jurors agreed/. OJ was pretending to
struggle with them.

What I was talking about was the blood evidence. That would have had
to be a conspiracy, and that's just how the defense played it.
Discredit Fuhrman, and the fuse was lit.
--

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 29, 2012, 4:53:29 PM1/29/12
to

> On Jan 27, 4:44 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
> > I note you didn't ask about the Obama presidency
>
On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, UsurperTom <Usurper...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't know of any birthers in Congress or running for president.


What color is the sky in your world, Tom?

Donald Trump was crowing all the while about the president's
citizenship even after Obama released the long form birth certificate
(the same week he announced the successful killing of Osama bin Ladin,
FWIW).

Many of the others running for the GOP omination have found it useful
to play that game as well. After Trump's ego hit the wall of reality,
Rick Perry, the moronic candidate, proudly took up the banner of
birtherism for the stupid he wised to represent.

And specifically, to call your bluff a second time, here's a list of
Republican Congressmen that are also birthers:

Rep: Bill Posey, R-Fla.: ...Posey, a first-term representative from
the “Space Coast” of Florida, is the sponsor of a bill that would
require presidential candidates to submit their birth certificates.
Posey has said that he can’t “swear on a stack of Bibles” that Obama
is a citizen. The congressman told Lou Dobbs, “The eligibility of the
president to serve under the Constitution has arisen five times, and
Congress has failed to do anything about it thus far.”

Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.: “Nice try,” responds Chris Matthews,
who then showed him the president’s birth certificate. “You’re
verifying the paranoia out there. You’re saying to the people, ‘You’re
right, that’s a reasonable question, whether he’s a citizen or not.’”

Campbell spends the interview trying to weasel out of the question.
“As far as I know, yes,” he says of Obama’s legitimacy. “Say it now:
Barack Obama is president of the United States and he was born in this
country,” Matthews insists. “He is president of the United States,”
responds Campbell. Finally, under duress, Campbell concedes that Obama
enjoys natural-born status: “Yes, I believe so.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.: ...The Oklahoma conservative recently told
Politico that the Birthers “have a point,” adding, “I don’t discourage
it … But I’m going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think
are very destructive to America.”

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: Asked about the president’s eligibility
at an Alabama town hall meeting back in February, Shelby said, “Well,
his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I
haven’t seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to
be president.”

There's four to chew on. There are another 13 listed if you want me to
keep going.

Just say the word, and I'll keep posting these news items that have
eluded you to date.

> Dan
> Burton was one man in Congress and investigating Foster's death is no
> different than Cynthia McKinney's attempt to have Congress investigate
> whether Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.


Cynthia McKinney is another nutcase, you are correct on that. The
difference is that in the GOP, the inmates are running the asylum.
McKinney managed a one woman "briefing" to air her paranoia about Bush
& 9/11. By contrast, Burton had a committee, and backing from his
fellow partisans to waste endless taxpayer dollars on his fantasy,
something the Dems did not indulge McKinney.

UsurperTom

unread,
Jan 29, 2012, 5:13:34 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 29, 4:53 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:

> Donald Trump

Donald Trump is not a Republican. He's an independent. Over the years,
he supported both Democrats and Republicans. Also, he doesn't hold
elective office. Obama did finally release his birth certificate as a
result of Trump questioning it, so I don't know what the big deal is.

John Doherty

unread,
Jan 29, 2012, 6:26:47 PM1/29/12
to
OK, grasp at that straw if you like. The likely nominee, Romney, has
in recent past voted for a Democrat himself -- Paul Tsongas. And proud
idiot Rick Perry started his career as a Dem about 25 years ago, FWIW.
You can have him ;-)

But the fact is that Trump flirted with a run for the GOP nomination,
and many of the other actual candidates (Gingrich, Bachmann & Perry)
made pilgrimages to kiss his ring.

And I believe that Donald's true allegiance is to his ego, just as I
believe that Mitt Romney's core principle is that he'll say anything
to get elected president. But when Trump took aim at his PR stunt of a
candidacy at the GOP nomination, he knew just what snake oil the rubes
were buying, and he peddled his Trump brand Birtherism. If it was a
feint at another office or in another party, he'd sing a different
song, for sure.

And Bachmann, Perry & Gingrich are all GOP officeholders, and they've
all played at birtherism.

The big deal, if you still haven't figured it out, is that this move
is part of the new "Disloyal Opposition" strategy of the GOP. If they
couldn't defeat Clinton at the polling stations, they'd hype up
charges and have millionaire Clinton haters fund fake suits in order
to engineer a perjury accusation over his consensual sexual contacts,
and try to use that to drive him from office.

When Obama beat McCain, Senate minority leader McConnell went on
record that his number one priority in the next four years was
defeating the President at re-election-- putting party before country.
He did not want to solve economic problems if that might improve
Obama's chances. Better to have the people suffer to serve partisan
ends.

And the birther movement is all part of that ethos; if you cannot
defeat him at the polls, let's sew doubts about his very fitness for
the office. The people behind the movement know very well that he's a
citizen. They are just leveraging the general difference and newness
of a man who's father was an African into deeper suspicions about
socialism, Kenyan revolutionary politics and any other imaginary
boogiemen to rile up the yahoos.

Just a couple days ago, a questioner at a Santorum event in Florida
prefaced her question to the former Senator with the statement that
the president is a muslim, and Santorum felt no need to correct
(unlike McCain 4 years ago who famously did just that in the face of
ignorance, to his credit).

Lisi Peteras

unread,
Jan 29, 2012, 6:37:04 PM1/29/12
to
On 1/29/2012 4:53 PM, John Doherty wrote:

> Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.: “Nice try,” responds Chris Matthews,

Chris Matthews?????

You actually think Chris Matthews is a credible journalist?

This is a guy who gets a tingle up his leg over Obama. Aside from being
a socialist and a buffoon, he is one of the dirtbag Democrat shills on
PMSNBC, a channel watched by just 3 people: Lenin, Marx and Mao.


> Cynthia McKinney is another nutcase, you are correct on that. The
> difference is that in the GOP, the inmates are running the asylum.
> McKinney managed a one woman "briefing" to air her paranoia about Bush
> & 9/11. By contrast, Burton had a committee, and backing from his
> fellow partisans to waste endless taxpayer dollars on his fantasy,
> something the Dems did not indulge McKinney.

She is another trouble-making nigger just like Maxine Waters.

They should ship those sambos back to Africa.
0 new messages