unnecessary convolutions
davidemerling
There would be two critical elements of the conspiracy.
1. Kill Kennedy.
If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
terminating his administration would not be achieved.
2. Do not get caught.
This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
assassination.
If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
it is an abysmal failure.
Would it really matter if multiple gunmen were used? Would it really
matter if it was obvious that a conspiracy was involved? As long as
Kennedy died and the nature of the conspiracy was not revealed - it
doesn't matter.
The investigators could spin their wheels for eternity trying to
figure out WHO the gunmen were and WHO hired them and WHO the
masterminds were. As long as nobody is caught - it doesn't matter.
Yet, nearly every conspiracy theory seems to suggest that the MOST
important aspect of the assassination plan was to falsely implicate
Oswald. Further, that tremendous lengths were taken to achieve this -
often at great risk and in very convoluted manner. At any point in
time, if anybody was caught trying to fabricate evidence against
Oswald - that could very well unhinge the entire conspiracy.
After the president is assassinated - why continue with all these
shenanigans enlisting the services of so many people and agencies over
such a protracted period of time? It multiplies, many fold, the
opportunity for it to all come unraveled. Certainly the CIA would
*never* have drawn it up in this manner.
Just kill him and be done with it!
Nobody would possibly sit down and draw up a plan like all these
conspiracy theories suggest.
It's as if the conspirators spent 5 minutes discussing how they were
going to kill the president and planned the framing of Oswald for
YEARS - as if *that* was the most critical element.
You don't need a patsy if the authorities can't catch the actual
gunmen - no matter how many there were ... no matter where they shot
from ... no matter what kind of weapon they used. It wouldn't matter
if Kennedy was hit with a dozen different bullets from a dozen
different directions. So?
It's a game of "catch me if you can."
Everybody knows the BEST plan is the simplest one - involving the
fewest number of people.
Mausers ... faked photos ... faked autopsy ... lying investigators ...
police officers planting evidence ... homicide detective lying about
the defendant's statements ... a conniving district attorney ...
corrupt FBI ... corrupt CIA ... corrupt Secret Service ... corrupt
vice president ... forged documents ... mafia complicity ... right
wing estremists ... coerced witnesses ... murdered witnesses ...
IT'S INSANE!
46 years later - no credible person has ever come forward with a any
regrets. No whistle blowers. No smoking gun. Just a bunch of wild
speculation from people who have invested a tremendous amount of their
time in a once in vogue and burgeoning conspiracy industry - who are
now just too stubborn to look at themselves in the mirror and say, "I
was wrong."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
WhiskyJoe
> Everybody knows the BEST plan is the simplest
> one - involving the fewest number of people.
> Mausers ... faked photos ... faked autopsy ...
> lying investigators ... police officers
> planting evidence ... homicide detective
> lying about the defendant's statements ...
> a conniving district attorney ... corrupt FBI ...
> corrupt CIA ... corrupt Secret Service ...
> corrupt vice president ... forged documents ...
> Mafia complicity ... right wing extremists ...
> coerced witnesses ... murdered witnesses ...
> IT'S INSANE!
I almost totally agree with this.
Let's see, we have a president we need to get
rid of. Let's review some facts about him:
* He's up for re-election in a year
* He barely won his presidential election,
against Richard Nixon, no less,
hardly Mr. Charisma.
* His wife is wildly popular.
* He is recklessly seeing mistresses on the side.
So, what to do? Expose his affairs and ruin his
chances of winning the next election?
Of course not. He must be bumped off.
But these things must be done delicately.
We'll set up a patsy. We'll get him a job
that is hopefully along the motorcade route.
Or maybe get his wife's friends and neighbors
to set up the job.
And shoot him from the general direction of
where the patsy is? Of course not. Shoot him
from the front and then rush out into the plaza
and, like the movie JFK shows, grab as many
witnesses as possible, twist their arms behind
their backs, take them down to headquarters and
insist to them that they heard echoes, echoes,
from the front.
It is not insane. It is beyond insane.
Thalia
A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of the
Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear holocaust
due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to get along (and
there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides were as bad as the
other) The conspiracy was orchestrated by a camp within the CIA - those
who had been betrayed by Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, so Kennedy's death
was somewhat personal for them. There was also much disquiet over Kennedy
signing the nuclear test ban treaty and demonstrating an unwillingness to
confront the Communist threat, and the Soviet Union, through the use of
force. Some of the conspirators were WWII vets and hey had seen and been
close to death many times, death was not such a big deal when you were at
war, and they were at war with Kennedy. Kennedy was showing he was not
that easily controlled - and they wanted a replacemnet who would go all
the way in Vietnam, which is exactly what they got. The plan was quite
ingenious in many ways - get rid of the bastard Kennedy, and blame it on a
pro-Castro Sociast, and plant the seed that he was in cahoots with the
Cuban regime. The operation (due to the many components involved) only
ended up succeeding in the death of Kennedy, the lone nut got the blame in
the end, and the authorities suspected that LHO was set up with his 'trip'
to Mexico, so this part was downplayed. Many plots have been orchestarted
in history, and they usually don't go entirely to plan, due to a person's
incompetence, or sometimes just bad luck. Think of the conspiracy to kill
Hitler for example - almost pulled off, but just a few things at critical
moments went against the plot, and it unravelled. The plot to kill kennedy
also has it's weak points, some incredibly weak points that make the
conspiracy obvious, and yet there are items of the case that bode well in
the Lone Nut favour - you have to be willing to concede that something
like a coup d'tat could take place in the United States, and that the
authorities will lie to the American people about it, and manipulate
evidence to achieve their stated aim of convincing the public that Oswald
was the lone killer. Some people just refuse to accept such a thing, like
the American mainstream media, and this is where the brainwashing of the
American people to think that their government is always "good and honest"
comes into play. The Soviets are evil, they killed lots of Polish officers
in WWII, when little or no mention is made of the massacre that was the
Vietnam War, or the folly of destroying Iraq and killing thousands of
civilians in the process, when there was no threat against the security of
the United States posed by the Iraqi regime.
The CIA (and the US military in general) has an image to protect, they
would never want the public to "officially" understand that some members
of theirs participated in a plot to kill the democratically elected
Commander-in-chief. Trust in them would diminish, and trust in the
institutions of The United States would also diminish, not enough for
revolution, but enough to harm the institutions and the brand of America.
As to "credible" persons coming forward, Lone Nutters decide that anyone
with information indicating conspiracy is a "kook" or "attention seeker"
and is therefore not credible. Even LBJ said he suspected (he possibly
knew it - he is privy to information us mere mortals are not) conspiracy,
yet maybe the former President of the United States doesn't cut it in your
world of credibility. If you want to hear some "whistle blowers" relating
to this case read JFK and the Unspeakable, surprisingly very few Lone
Nutters seem to bother - they would prefer to feel like they are on the
"winner's" side, than on the "right" side.
The Dutchman
If you're an LNer, your eyebrows often rise when you hear someone
claim, say, that Ruth Paine was CIA, since her Pop was in the OSS,
etc. When you find out Buell Frazier had moved not so long ago from
another part of Texas and had recently landed a job at the TSBD, you
find yourself thinking, geez, that would make a hell of a slick cover
story. Yeah, get his sister, et al, together at a kaffee klatsch. Make
it seem like the normal unfolding of reality. But what about Truly?
I'm a little new to this game, so I'll just ask: Is there any real
evidence he was in on this whole shenanigan? Anything at all? I've
read stuff on the net that throws suspicion on Ruth P, her husband,
and the "White" Russians they hung with, but, et tu, Truly? I mean,
the guy flips a coin in his head to determine which TSBD Lee Harvey is
gonna work at. Is there a snowball's chance in you-know-where that the
parade route could have/would have been routed to go past the other
warehouse, which wasn't on a "main drag"? Maybe a master planner like
Goldfinger, or a metaphorical spider on LSD, could weave a web whereby
these snags, flies in the ointment, could be ironed out perfect, could
be could coalesce into a perfect plot. It just seems so "fictional",
to me at any rate.
Thalia
It was not the done thing to expose politicans for their mistresses in
the 60's, it was a different era, newspapers wouldn't pay a million
dollars to one of his mistresses to talk, and she probably wouldn't
have talked anyway - women were classier then. Kennedy would have won
his second term, Americans are loathe to remove Presidents after only
one term, and Kennedy had enough support. Much quicker to kill him,
and besides, it was personal.
jbarge
I keep wishing that there's no reason to dig further, but unfortunately
the more I research it the more things pop up. Why the FBI didn't properly
investigate the shooting is an open question, but there it is.
One example: On November 22nd Texas law officer A. Richardson telephoned
the Dallas FBI office and informed them white supremacist Jimmy George
Robinson should be considered a suspect.
On November 23rd the FBI office report of this telephone conversation was
filed away with the hand-written notation "Not necesarry to cover as true
suspect located."
Or as J. Edger told RFK at 4:01 pm EST on 11/22/1963, "We had the man."
Oh, they solved the case in a 150 minutes - what took them so long?
Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
or even 5?
C'mon people - time's a'wasting!
And another oddity - shall I call it a loose end?
Yes, I shall.
The oddball Richard Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot to assassinate JFK.
There's a debunking article on a site connected with this site, and it
does a very nice job of showing why we should ignore Richard Nagell - I
found it very convincing.
But in reviewing the circumstances of Nagell's story I find one fact that
I find hard to wrap my mind aroound.
When Nagell was arrested on September 20th, 1963 his possessions were
inventoried by the police, and contained cameras, notebooks, and whatnot.
One item - found in his wallet - was "...a mimeographed
newsletter....addressed to Richard Case Nagell from....the Fair Play For
Cuba Committee."
2 months later after Dealey Plaza Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot
involving Oswald, who of course was a member of the FPCC. So.....this
crazy guy who is just making all of this up just manages by total
coincidence to be carrying a newsletter from the same organization that
LHO had joined?
Wow - now that's something to ponder.
Imagine the odds - here is a crazy person who improvises a connection with
the assassination also JUST HAPPENS to have in his wallet an FPCC
newsletter 2 months before Dealey Plaza.
A hundred to one?
A thousand to one?
A hundred thousand, a million, how high?
After all - Nagell's crazy, right?
Why would he have an FPCC newsletter - why not a torn cereal box top or a
G-Man Spy Decoder ring?
Well, that Nagell fellow sure was lucky - and my loose ends just keep
piling up.
Coondog
> On Nov 14, 12:16 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of the
> Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear holocaust
> due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to get along (and
> there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides were as bad as the
> other)
I know some folks that lived under the yoke of communism and they
wouldn’t agree with this “good bad” statement of yours.
> force. Some of the conspirators were WWII vets and hey had seen and been
> close to death many times, death was not such a big deal when you were at
> war, and they were at war with Kennedy.
May I ask what infantry division you were serving with when you
discovered this jewel?
Bill Clarke
John McAdams
>On Nov 14, 12:16�pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>>
>
>A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of the
>Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear holocaust
>due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to get along (and
>there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides were as bad as the
>other)
Terribly revealing comment.
I wonder if she would insist on the same view about WW II.
Or the conflict over slavery in the U.S.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
slats
news:u2ntf5tjc5l92q03a...@4ax.com:
No kidding. But remember, she's not a Leftist. Just ask her. LOL.
bigdog
Pretty much. It wasn't hard to figure out.
> - what took them so long?
> Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
> or even 5?
>
> C'mon people - time's a'wasting!
>
> And another oddity - shall I call it a loose end?
>
That's pretty much all CTs ever come up with.
> Yes, I shall.
>
> The oddball Richard Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot to assassinate JFK.
>
> There's a debunking article on a site connected with this site, and it
> does a very nice job of showing why we should ignore Richard Nagell - I
> found it very convincing.
>
> But in reviewing the circumstances of Nagell's story I find one fact that
> I find hard to wrap my mind aroound.
>
> When Nagell was arrested on September 20th, 1963 his possessions were
> inventoried by the police, and contained cameras, notebooks, and whatnot.
>
> One item - found in his wallet - was "...a mimeographed
> newsletter....addressed to Richard Case Nagell from....the Fair Play For
> Cuba Committee."
>
> 2 months later after Dealey Plaza Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot
> involving Oswald, who of course was a member of the FPCC. So.....this
> crazy guy who is just making all of this up just manages by total
> coincidence to be carrying a newsletter from the same organization that
> LHO had joined?
>
Why did it have to be a coincidence? When Oswald was arrested, Nagell
could have remembered him as the guy who sent him the FPCC letter or saw
the news reports about Oswald beind a FPCC member and made the connection
with the letter he had received. It would be pretty easy to go from there
and then make the whole thing up. Now if he knew something in advance, why
wouldn't he have let somebody know before the fact. Anybody can invent a
story after it's already gone down. All you have to do is fill in the
blanks.
> Wow - now that's something to ponder.
>
> Imagine the odds - here is a crazy person who improvises a connection with
> the assassination also JUST HAPPENS to have in his wallet an FPCC
> newsletter 2 months before Dealey Plaza.
>
> A hundred to one?
>
> A thousand to one?
>
> A hundred thousand, a million, how high?
>
> After all - Nagell's crazy, right?
>
> Why would he have an FPCC newsletter - why not a torn cereal box top or a
> G-Man Spy Decoder ring?
>
Are you saying everyone who ever got correspondence from the FPCC
should be considered a suspect?
> Well, that Nagell fellow sure was lucky - and my loose ends just keep
> piling up.- Hide quoted text -
>
Now if only you could tie them together. It would be the first time any CT
has ever done that. So far, all you have is a pile of loose threads.
j leyden
One of my favorite works of suspense fiction is "Day of the Jackal" about
an effort to assassinate de Gaulle. The conspirators hired a pro and
turned him loose. There were no "patsies" or other nonsense. He came up
with a pretty straight-forward plan, but, of course, he failed. Although
there were numerous attemprts in real life, to kill de Gaulle, he escaped
unharmed. So you couldn't kill him in the book or the movie version
either.
JGL
Bud
You confuse your ability to criticize the investigation with
establishing that a proper investigation was not done. Any investigation
could be criticized, no matter who ran it.
> One example: On November 22nd Texas law officer A. Richardson telephoned
> the Dallas FBI office and informed them white supremacist Jimmy George
> Robinson should be considered a suspect.
>
> On November 23rd the FBI office report of this telephone conversation was
> filed away with the hand-written notation "Not necesarry to cover as true
> suspect located."
And so he was. With indications of Oswald`s guilt coming in from
every direction, why would they look elsewhere?
> Or as J. Edger told RFK at 4:01 pm EST on 11/22/1963, "We had the man."
And in all the days from that day to this, no one else can be shown
to be involved except Oswald.
> Oh, they solved the case in a 150 minutes - what took them so long?
> Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
> or even 5?
It was a simple case.
> C'mon people - time's a'wasting!
>
> And another oddity - shall I call it a loose end?
>
> Yes, I shall.
>
> The oddball Richard Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot to assassinate JFK.
>
> There's a debunking article on a site connected with this site, and it
> does a very nice job of showing why we should ignore Richard Nagell - I
> found it very convincing.
>
> But in reviewing the circumstances of Nagell's story I find one fact that
> I find hard to wrap my mind aroound.
>
> When Nagell was arrested on September 20th, 1963 his possessions were
> inventoried by the police, and contained cameras, notebooks, and whatnot.
>
> One item - found in his wallet - was "...a mimeographed
> newsletter....addressed to Richard Case Nagell from....the Fair Play For
> Cuba Committee."
Saying what?
> 2 months later after Dealey Plaza Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot
> involving Oswald, who of course was a member of the FPCC. So.....this
> crazy guy who is just making all of this up just manages by total
> coincidence to be carrying a newsletter from the same organization that
> LHO had joined?
>
> Wow - now that's something to ponder.
>
> Imagine the odds - here is a crazy person who improvises a connection with
> the assassination also JUST HAPPENS to have in his wallet an FPCC
> newsletter 2 months before Dealey Plaza.
Both were interested in politics. Nagell himself would have to
explain why he had that item, that is the only real place to start.
> A hundred to one?
>
> A thousand to one?
>
> A hundred thousand, a million, how high?
That a poor use of statistics. Both Nagell and Oswald suffered self-
inflicted bullet wounds. What are the chances that this would be true, how
many people shoot themselves, and to have both shooting themselves would
be in the hundreds of thousands to one, right? Does that establish a
connection between Oswald`s bullet wound and Nagell`s? Is it a spook
initiation rite or something?
This kind of "connecting" isn`t as significant as it seems, look at all
the connections between Lincoln and Kennedy. And Oswald wasn`t the only
ex-marine to shoot people with a military rifle, Charles Whitman also
murdered in Texas from a high structure. Do the similarities make for a
connection (or a loose end)?
> After all - Nagell's crazy, right?
>
> Why would he have an FPCC newsletter - why not a torn cereal box top
Interesting, a torn cardboard box top was found on Oswald when
arrested. See "Cox`s Fort Worth" below...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/16/1630-001.gif
What are the chances you would pick an item so close to what Oswald
was actually carrying, a hundred to one, a thousand?
>or a
> G-Man Spy Decoder ring?
>
> Well, that Nagell fellow sure was lucky - and my loose ends just keep
> piling up.
Your inability to take them anywhere is vindication of the original
investigation.
Anthony Marsh
Kennedy had the press in his hip pocket. All he had to do was call up
his buddy at a newspaper to kill a story.
Anthony Marsh
A little background. The recommendation of the Hoover Commission was that
the US should match the Soviets in tactics, evil for evil. Kennedy came
along and reversed that, saying that the US would not match the Soviets
evil for evil.
> other) The conspiracy was orchestrated by a camp within the CIA - those
> who had been betrayed by Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, so Kennedy's death
Helms was Deputy Director for Plans, the dirty tricks department. He
oversaw assassinations.
The problem the CIA had was that there was no way to explain to the public
that various things happen at the CIA which are not official sanctioned
and ordered projects from higher up.
> As to "credible" persons coming forward, Lone Nutters decide that anyone
> with information indicating conspiracy is a "kook" or "attention seeker"
> and is therefore not credible. Even LBJ said he suspected (he possibly
> knew it - he is privy to information us mere mortals are not) conspiracy,
Hoover showed LBJ the evidence and told him about Oswald in Mexico.
Anthony Marsh
The plan was not to start the shooting from the grassy knoll. That shot
was not supposed to be taken unless the TSBD shooter had failed, which he
did.
Anthony Marsh
> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> There would be two critical elements of the conspiracy.
>
> 1. Kill Kennedy.
>
> If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
> terminating his administration would not be achieved.
>
> 2. Do not get caught.
>
> This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
> completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
> assassination.
>
Doesn't follow. You think Oswald was the shooter and he was caught
immediately and then let go. The grassy knoll shooter was caught
immediately and then let go.
> If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
> it is an abysmal failure.
>
Not really. Even when they are caught redhanded they can depend on
people like you to make excuses for them.
> Would it really matter if multiple gunmen were used? Would it really
> matter if it was obvious that a conspiracy was involved? As long as
> Kennedy died and the nature of the conspiracy was not revealed - it
> doesn't matter.
>
Well, if you try hard enough you can claim that multiple gunmen does not
equal conspiracy.
> The investigators could spin their wheels for eternity trying to
> figure out WHO the gunmen were and WHO hired them and WHO the
> masterminds were. As long as nobody is caught - it doesn't matter.
>
> Yet, nearly every conspiracy theory seems to suggest that the MOST
> important aspect of the assassination plan was to falsely implicate
> Oswald. Further, that tremendous lengths were taken to achieve this -
> often at great risk and in very convoluted manner. At any point in
> time, if anybody was caught trying to fabricate evidence against
> Oswald - that could very well unhinge the entire conspiracy.
>
> After the president is assassinated - why continue with all these
> shenanigans enlisting the services of so many people and agencies over
> such a protracted period of time? It multiplies, many fold, the
> opportunity for it to all come unraveled. Certainly the CIA would
> *never* have drawn it up in this manner.
>
Maybe if it were an official CIA project. Look at how successful and
professional they were in their attempt to assassinate Castro.
> Just kill him and be done with it!
>
> Nobody would possibly sit down and draw up a plan like all these
> conspiracy theories suggest.
>
The CIA does all the time.
> It's as if the conspirators spent 5 minutes discussing how they were
> going to kill the president and planned the framing of Oswald for
> YEARS - as if *that* was the most critical element.
>
They may have had several possible patsies.
> You don't need a patsy if the authorities can't catch the actual
> gunmen - no matter how many there were ... no matter where they shot
They did catch Oswald and then they let him go.
> from ... no matter what kind of weapon they used. It wouldn't matter
> if Kennedy was hit with a dozen different bullets from a dozen
> different directions. So?
>
You'd think of a way to call it an accidental shooting. Like the white
police officer "accidentally" shooting the black homeless man while
"cleaning his gun." 147 times.
> It's a game of "catch me if you can."
>
> Everybody knows the BEST plan is the simplest one - involving the
> fewest number of people.
>
The old tricks are the best tricks.
> Mausers ... faked photos ... faked autopsy ... lying investigators ...
> police officers planting evidence ... homicide detective lying about
> the defendant's statements ... a conniving district attorney ...
> corrupt FBI ... corrupt CIA ... corrupt Secret Service ... corrupt
> vice president ... forged documents ... mafia complicity ... right
> wing estremists ... coerced witnesses ... murdered witnesses ...
>
> IT'S INSANE!
>
> 46 years later - no credible person has ever come forward with a any
> regrets. No whistle blowers. No smoking gun. Just a bunch of wild
Just a deathbed confession which you ignore.
yeuhd
> The plan was not to start the shooting from the grassy knoll. That shot
> was not supposed to be taken unless the TSBD shooter had failed, which he
> did.
Ah, you've interviewed the grassy knoll sniper.
d.wigg
Apparently convincingly convoluted. We're up to at least 3 separate
conspiracies now as responses to your OP.
Robert Harris
<9285ee1f-4d21-4152...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> There would be two critical elements of the conspiracy.
>
> 1. Kill Kennedy.
>
> If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
> terminating his administration would not be achieved.
>
> 2. Do not get caught.
>
> This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
> completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
> assassination.
>
> If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
> it is an abysmal failure.
>
> Would it really matter if multiple gunmen were used?
What a goofy argument. Countless mob hits and modern terrorist attacks
have used multiple assassins. The reasoning is that three shooters have
three times the chance of success as one.
How many were involved in the attack on Truman, David?? Look it up.
Robert Harris
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you really believe this fairy tale? All the physical evidence says
otherwise. Everyone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to
the medical evidence agrees JFK was shot in the back of the head. Of
course, you are not among that group.
Thalia
> I know some folks that lived under the yoke of communism and they
> wouldn’t agree with this “good bad” statement of yours.
I am talking with specific reference to how each side played the Cold
War, not how the system treated its citizens.
Thalia
> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote innews:u2ntf5tjc5l92q03a...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Nov 2009 23:56:11 -0500, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 14, 12:16 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> >>A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of
> >>the Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear
> >>holocaust due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to
> >>get along (and there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides
> >>were as bad as the other)
>
> > Terribly revealing comment.
>
> > I wonder if she would insist on the same view about WW II.
>
> > Or the conflict over slavery in the U.S.
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not a leftist, I have never voted left-wing, nor can I imagine
ever doing so. I am a member of a right of centre political party.
But, it clearly suits your sensibilities to believe I am.
Whether you like it or not, The United States killed millions
(inclusing 58,000 of it's own poor and politically powerless) during
its Vietnam War pursuit, a war now considered to have been a huge
"mistake", but you insist on calling yourselves the good guys. Maybe
you should visit Vietnam, like I have, and see all the beggars in the
street with horrific burns from the Americans dropping bombs on them.
Or, vist the "American War" museum with photo ofter photo of dead
villagers killed by Americans. Real perspective is required to
understand such things, not a blind belief in your country's moral
superiority.
Thalia
>
> The plan was not to start the shooting from the grassy knoll. That shot
> was not supposed to be taken unless the TSBD shooter had failed, which he
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes, I agree, this is what the dark complected man was indicating -
hand up as JFK was not mortally wounded.
Clark
> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> There would be two critical elements of the conspiracy.
>
> 1. Kill Kennedy.
>
> If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
> terminating his administration would not be achieved.
There is no such requirement that JFK be killed. In fact, the use of
FMJ ammunition would indicate a plan to wound, versus kill, the
President.
>
> 2. Do not get caught.
>
> This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
> completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
> assassination.
Unless you want to direct the assassination (attempt) at Castro - In
which case you'll have to leave some evidence behind to that effect
(i.e. Oswald).
>
> If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
> it is an abysmal failure.
Your inititial argument is flawed as an "abysmal failure".
There is an historical precedent that counters everything you say. In
1898 the American battleship, Maine, blew up in Havana harbor due to
the apparent negligence of its commanding officer. Yet it was claimed
the accident was deliberately perpetrated by Spain, resulting in the
invasion of Cuba by the US which was looking for any excuse to invade
anyway.
In 1963, anyone interested in overthrowing Castro only has to have JFK
shot by a "Castro agent" to have the US ready to invade Cuba all over
again, using the exact same excuse. Was there an effort made to make
it appear that Oswald was a Castro agent? If so, you have created a
scenario in which JFK must be shot (not necessairly killed) and
evidence left behind (Oswald caught) blaming Castro.
I suggest everything you say after this is severely flawed. I would
also suggest you try again as, from time to time, LNer's have been
known to make arguments without obvious blatant errors and this may
represent one such rare opportunity.
::Clark::
Bud
> On 11/13/2009 10:16 PM, davidemerling wrote:
>
> > Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> > There would be two critical elements of the conspiracy.
>
> > 1. Kill Kennedy.
>
> > If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
> > terminating his administration would not be achieved.
>
> > 2. Do not get caught.
>
> > This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
> > completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
> > assassination.
>
> Doesn't follow. You think Oswald was the shooter and he was caught
> immediately and then let go.
Oswald wasn`t caught immediately. He had time to hide the murder
weapon and distance himself from where he shot from. The cop who
detained him never saw a shooter.
>The grassy knoll shooter was caught
> immediately and then let go.
Had there been a person caught immediately with a rifle, he wouldn`t
have been let go.
> > If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
> > it is an abysmal failure.
>
> Not really. Even when they are caught redhanded they can depend on
> people like you to make excuses for them.
Nobody was caught redhanded.
> > Would it really matter if multiple gunmen were used? Would it really
> > matter if it was obvious that a conspiracy was involved? As long as
> > Kennedy died and the nature of the conspiracy was not revealed - it
> > doesn't matter.
>
> Well, if you try hard enough you can claim that multiple gunmen does not
> equal conspiracy.
It doesn`t. Kennedy had more than one person who would like to see him
dead, and Dealy Plaza might be the best place along the whole route to
take a shot at him.
> > The investigators could spin their wheels for eternity trying to
> > figure out WHO the gunmen were and WHO hired them and WHO the
> > masterminds were. As long as nobody is caught - it doesn't matter.
>
> > Yet, nearly every conspiracy theory seems to suggest that the MOST
> > important aspect of the assassination plan was to falsely implicate
> > Oswald. Further, that tremendous lengths were taken to achieve this -
> > often at great risk and in very convoluted manner. At any point in
> > time, if anybody was caught trying to fabricate evidence against
> > Oswald - that could very well unhinge the entire conspiracy.
>
> > After the president is assassinated - why continue with all these
> > shenanigans enlisting the services of so many people and agencies over
> > such a protracted period of time? It multiplies, many fold, the
> > opportunity for it to all come unraveled. Certainly the CIA would
> > *never* have drawn it up in this manner.
>
> Maybe if it were an official CIA project. Look at how successful and
> professional they were in their attempt to assassinate Castro.
>
> > Just kill him and be done with it!
>
> > Nobody would possibly sit down and draw up a plan like all these
> > conspiracy theories suggest.
>
> The CIA does all the time.
>
> > It's as if the conspirators spent 5 minutes discussing how they were
> > going to kill the president and planned the framing of Oswald for
> > YEARS - as if *that* was the most critical element.
>
> They may have had several possible patsies.
Yah, keep multiplying the complexity.
> > You don't need a patsy if the authorities can't catch the actual
> > gunmen - no matter how many there were ... no matter where they shot
>
> They did catch Oswald and then they let him go.
By "they", you mean Truly and Baker?
> > from ... no matter what kind of weapon they used. It wouldn't matter
> > if Kennedy was hit with a dozen different bullets from a dozen
> > different directions. So?
>
> You'd think of a way to call it an accidental shooting. Like the white
> police officer "accidentally" shooting the black homeless man while
> "cleaning his gun." 147 times.
Marsh is pulling out all the stops, even trotting out the "racist cop"
liberal boogeyman.
> > It's a game of "catch me if you can."
>
> > Everybody knows the BEST plan is the simplest one - involving the
> > fewest number of people.
>
> The old tricks are the best tricks.
And it seems that according to conspiracy theorists, the impossibly
complex tricks are best of all.
> > Mausers ... faked photos ... faked autopsy ... lying investigators ...
> > police officers planting evidence ... homicide detective lying about
> > the defendant's statements ... a conniving district attorney ...
> > corrupt FBI ... corrupt CIA ... corrupt Secret Service ... corrupt
> > vice president ... forged documents ... mafia complicity ... right
> > wing estremists ... coerced witnesses ... murdered witnesses ...
>
> > IT'S INSANE!
>
> > 46 years later - no credible person has ever come forward with a any
> > regrets. No whistle blowers. No smoking gun. Just a bunch of wild
>
> Just a deathbed confession which you ignore.
How much weight should extraordinary information that can`t be
verified be given?
davidemerling
> In article
> <9285ee1f-4d21-4152-8c2f-bcdeeac69...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Didn't I say that it wouldn't matter how many shooters there were - as
long as none of them got caught?
If it was determined that three shooters were necessary - then use
three shooters!
So what if it is obvious that the president was shot by multiple
gunmen. That would be a conspiracy, by definition. But as long as the
gunmen were not captured ... as long as the masterminds of the
assassination were never revealed ... SO WHAT!
1. Kill the president.
2. Don't get caught.
Simple!
There would be no need for all these pre- and post-assassination
gyrations. There would be no need to plant evidence, fake photographs,
and coerce witnesses.
Just walk away into the shadows and leave it at that.
The history books will read. The president 35th president was
assassinated as a result of some kind of conspiracy, the nature of
which was never determined. End of story.
Wasn't that basically the HSCA conclusion? Even with a finding of a
conspiracy there are apparently no adverse repercussions to the guilty
party.
Setting up Oswald as a patsy is completely unnecessary and only
represents a needless risk. If that was the plan, then you can
eliminate the CIA as its brainchild, I can tell you *that* much.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
> In article
> <9285ee1f-4d21-4152-8c2f-bcdeeac69...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, three shooters improves the odds much better than that. If each
shooter had a 90% chance of success firing alone, there would be only 1
chance in 100 that two shooters would both miss and 1 in 1000 that three
shooters would miss. Three shooters would have 100 times the probability
of success as a single shooter. Of course, that wasn't a choice Oswald
could make. He had to go it alone.
bigdog
>
> > 46 years later - no credible person has ever come forward with a any
> > regrets. No whistle blowers. No smoking gun. Just a bunch of wild
>
> Just a deathbed confession which you ignore.
>
If you are talking about Hunt, it was a deathbed accusation.
jas
I have to step in here---
You're beginning to tread on thin ice by starting with the 'ol USA-
bashing. As is normal for many JFK conspiracists, you enjoy steering the
JFK assassination debate into cheap, hit-below-the-belt politics.
Might I remind you that when there's an international crisis, and a
call-to-arms is needed to protect Western countries and their interests --
one of which being Australia -- the U.S. is usually the first to respond
by sending troops (usually Marines) in, and is the country in a coalition
whose soldiers suffer the most KIAs and wounded, and spends the most
money.
I'd be very careful which country you start placing the blame on in a
military conflict.
Anthony Marsh
Silly. So, in your mind everyone who was waving at the President was
sending a secret signal to the shooters? His hand was up before Kennedy
was shot. Stop falling for silly ideas.
Anthony Marsh
I seem to remember some Australians also fought in Vietnam. Were you
part of the anti-war movement?
d.wigg
> On Nov 15, 2:58 am, slats <o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote innews:u2ntf5tjc5l92q03a...@4ax.com:
>
> > > On 13 Nov 2009 23:56:11 -0500, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>On Nov 14, 12:16 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> > >>A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of
> > >>the Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear
> > >>holocaust due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to
> > >>get along (and there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides
> > >>were as bad as the other)
>
> > > Terribly revealing comment.
>
> > > I wonder if she would insist on the same view about WW II.
>
> > > Or the conflict over slavery in the U.S.
>
> > > .John
> > > --------------
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> > No kidding. But remember, she's not a Leftist. Just ask her. LOL.
>
>
> ever doing so. I am a member of a right of centre political party.
> But, it clearly suits your sensibilities to believe I am.
>
> Whether you like it or not, The United States killed millions
> (inclusing 58,000 of it's own poor and politically powerless) during
> its Vietnam War pursuit, a war now considered to have been a huge
> "mistake", but you insist on calling yourselves the good guys. Maybe
> you should visit Vietnam, like I have, and see all the beggars in the
> street with horrific burns from the Americans dropping bombs on them.
> Or, vist the "American War" museum with photo ofter photo of dead
> villagers killed by Americans. Real perspective is required to
> understand such things, not a blind belief in your country's moral
> superiority.
The United States has stood on the correct side in aggression against the
spread of communism. The war in Vietnam was fought by incorrect means &
tactics by the U.S.. Attempting to stop the spread of communism by war,
if necessary, was not a mistake. Millions were killed in the effort to
stop communism. Liberty & freedom does not come without a cost if there
are those wanting to take it, from it's citizens. Civilian deaths are
obviously a cost in trying to preserve freedom during times of war. No
war has ever been fought where this has not occurred & it is not unique
only to the wars fought by the U.S.. Many millions more were killed by
the communist victors, yet you do not make any mention of this (they were
non-conformers or anti- communist so their lives do matter?). Nor do you
mention the millions killed under prior communist rule in the U.S.S.R.,
China, North Korea & other communist controlled countries. The U.S. is
not a perfect country but it would be an error to try to equate its'
shortcomings with those of the before mentioned nations & any other
communist or marxist ruled nations. The U.S. has a history helping other
countries when in need whether it be in humanitarian terms or by use of
its' military to preserve democracy or liberty of its' citizens. If you
prefer to "cherry pick" U.S. history, go ahead, it won't be the first
time. "Real perspective is required to understand such things, not a
blind belief in your country's moral superiority". This quote is perfect
in the context of this form & what is known of Oswalds' marxists beliefs &
blame America first ideology.
Anthony Marsh
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is a perfect example. Several
assassins along the route, each tasked with a different job. The earliest
assassins mucked it up and the Archduke got away alive, but upon returning
to the area the mastermind who was farther along the route finished the
job personally.
Anthony Marsh
The FACT is that the grassy knoll shooter did not start shooting at the
same time as the TSBD, but waited until there was a 5-second pause. He
thought something had gone wrong with the TSBD shooter, and it had. The
rifle had jammed. And if the grassy knoll shooter had not taken the
insurance shot JFK might have escaped alive.
Anthony Marsh
Not according to some of your fellow WC defenders. They say that
multiple guns could just be an amazing coincidence, not necessarily
conspiracy.
> gunmen were not captured ... as long as the masterminds of the
> assassination were never revealed ... SO WHAT!
>
Even if the gunmen were captured that may not reveal the masterminds.
The guy who assassinated Trotsky was captured, tried, convicted and
imprisoned, but never revealed the masterminds.
> 1. Kill the president.
> 2. Don't get caught.
>
1. Kill the President.
2. GET caught.
3. Blame it on the Communists.
> Simple!
>
> There would be no need for all these pre- and post-assassination
> gyrations. There would be no need to plant evidence, fake photographs,
> and coerce witnesses.
>
> Just walk away into the shadows and leave it at that.
>
> The history books will read. The president 35th president was
> assassinated as a result of some kind of conspiracy, the nature of
> which was never determined. End of story.
>
That's what some do read. And leaving it like that is ok with you?
You don't care who did it?
> Wasn't that basically the HSCA conclusion? Even with a finding of a
> conspiracy there are apparently no adverse repercussions to the guilty
> party.
>
No, the HSCA named names. Accused the Mafia.
> Setting up Oswald as a patsy is completely unnecessary and only
> represents a needless risk. If that was the plan, then you can
> eliminate the CIA as its brainchild, I can tell you *that* much.
>
As if you are an expert on the CIA. Look at how well they did with their
plans to assassinate Castro.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 13, 7:16 pm, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>>
>> There would be two critical elements of the conspiracy.
>>
>> 1. Kill Kennedy.
>>
>> If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
>> terminating his administration would not be achieved.
>
> There is no such requirement that JFK be killed. In fact, the use of
> FMJ ammunition would indicate a plan to wound, versus kill, the
> President.
>
You know nothing about ballistics. FMJ ammunition is not designed to
just wound instead of kill. It is designed to wound or kill humanely, as
opposed to Dum-Dum bullets which are designed to cause horrific wounds
sure to stop the enemy in his tracks.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. Do not get caught.
>>
>> This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
>> completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
>> assassination.
>
>
> Unless you want to direct the assassination (attempt) at Castro - In
> which case you'll have to leave some evidence behind to that effect
> (i.e. Oswald).
>
The CIA had propaganda assets in place who immediately claimed that
Oswald was working for Castro.
>
>
>>
>> If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
>> it is an abysmal failure.
>
> Your inititial argument is flawed as an "abysmal failure".
>
> There is an historical precedent that counters everything you say. In
> 1898 the American battleship, Maine, blew up in Havana harbor due to
> the apparent negligence of its commanding officer. Yet it was claimed
> the accident was deliberately perpetrated by Spain, resulting in the
> invasion of Cuba by the US which was looking for any excuse to invade
> anyway.
>
Wasn't it mainly Hearst and his yellow journalism which stoked the
conspiracy rumors then?
> In 1963, anyone interested in overthrowing Castro only has to have JFK
> shot by a "Castro agent" to have the US ready to invade Cuba all over
> again, using the exact same excuse. Was there an effort made to make
> it appear that Oswald was a Castro agent? If so, you have created a
> scenario in which JFK must be shot (not necessairly killed) and
> evidence left behind (Oswald caught) blaming Castro.
>
Please, don't try to create a theory that they only intended to wound
the President.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cfba986-c7f7-4bbc...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
WRONG bigdog;
It was a "Confession" of "Prior Knowledge"
bigdog
I guess if you are going to invent a phantom shooter on the GK then you
get to read his mind as well. When you write fiction, there are no rules.
You can make up anything you want. What I find amusing is that you try to
pass yourself off as the voice of reason on the CT side when in truth the
things you dream up are as wacky as anything anybody else has ever come up
with, with the exception of David Lifton. When it comes to wackiness, the
rest of you are fighting over second place.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is so bad about communism and who makes us the judge of what kind of
government countries should have? If they want to br communist or Markist,
let them. You can see how well our attempt to foist democracy on the rest
of the world is working. It won't work everywhere and the middle east is
probably one of those spots.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
What was so bad about Nazism and who makes us the judge of what kind
of government countries should have?
>If they want to br communist or Markist,
>let them.
OIC. Countries got to be communist because people voted for it.
>You can see how well our attempt to foist democracy on the rest
>of the world is working. It won't work everywhere and the middle east is
>probably one of those spots.
>
I supposed it didn't work in the early 40s either, eh?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
<735f41c0-4fea-47ab...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Would you mind sharing the evidence with us that convinced you of that?
Robert Harris
Coondog
> On Nov 15, 2:58 am, slats <o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote innews:u2ntf5tjc5l92q03a...@4ax.com:
>
> > > On 13 Nov 2009 23:56:11 -0500, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>On Nov 14, 12:16 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> > >>A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of
> > >>the Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear
> > >>holocaust due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to
> > >>get along (and there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides
> > >>were as bad as the other)
>
> > > Terribly revealing comment.
>
> > > I wonder if she would insist on the same view about WW II.
>
> > > Or the conflict over slavery in the U.S.
>
> > > .John
> > > --------------
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> > No kidding. But remember, she's not a Leftist. Just ask her. LOL.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm not a leftist, I have never voted left-wing, nor can I imagine
> ever doing so. I am a member of a right of centre political party.
> But, it clearly suits your sensibilities to believe I am.
>
> Whether you like it or not, The United States killed millions
> (inclusing 58,000 of it's own poor and politically powerless) during
> "mistake", but you insist on calling yourselves the good guys. Maybe
> street with horrific burns from the Americans dropping bombs on them.
> Or, vist the "American War" museum with photo ofter photo of dead
> villagers killed by Americans. Real perspective is required to
> understand such things, not a blind belief in your country's moral
I visited Vietnam for most of a year and saw the horrifying results of
the communist assassinating village chiefs, school teachers and
killing innocent children with their booby traps. Your communist host
didn’t show you any of that did they?
Unfortunately I never got to visit the American War museum in Hanoi
but I bet that was a hoot. Did you see John Kerry’s photo there?
Bill Clarke
davidemerling
> > Actually, three shooters improves the odds much better than that. If each
> > shooter had a 90% chance of success firing alone, there would be only 1
> > chance in 100 that two shooters would both miss and 1 in 1000 that three
> > shooters would miss. Three shooters would have 100 times the probability
> > of success as a single shooter. Of course, that wasn't a choice Oswald
> > could make. He had to go it alone.
>
> Would you mind sharing the evidence with us that convinced you of that?
The evidence is the mathematics of the laws of probability!
As an example, he said "If each shooter had a 90% chance of success."
Given that probability, his statement that three shooters would only
have a 1-in-1000 chance of missing is accurate.
Each shooter has a 10% chance of missing.
10% x 10% x 10% = .001 /or/ 1:1000
What is it you are challenging?
1. That 3 shooters do not have a greater chance of success than 1
shooter?
2. That 90% chance of success for a single shooter is too high (that
was a guess). What - you want to use a different number?
3. That, given a 90% chance of success for a single shooter, that 3
shooters would only have 1-in-1000 chance of failure?
I don't understand what you are challenging and demanding evidence
for.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d.wigg
Communism does not allow for the belief of Unalienable Rights, among these
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone can judge for
themselves the merits of a Democracy vs. Communistic rule by specifying
which of the rights mentioned above would they choose to do without?
Although, under Communistic rule, you wouldn't even get to choose which
rights you would be willing to live without. This debate can only occur
in a Democracy where we are free to discuss such topics openly without
fear of reprisal. Under no threat, it is easy to compare & equate the
merits of Communism to those of Democracy. "It won't work everywhere and
the middle east is probably one of those spots." Unalienable Rights are
just that, it is right of the people in those countries to decide, through
elections how they will be governed, rather than the control they had been
under with Saddam Hussein & the Baathists in Iraq & under the Taliban in
Afghanistan. Whether they succeed or not with a Democracy, these people
still have Unalienable Rights, that previously were being kept from them
by their oppressive governments. Let's not debate the fact that they were
oppressive to it's people.
jbarge
> On Nov 14, 11:24 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I keep wishing that there's no reason to dig further, but unfortunately
> > the more I research it the more things pop up. Why the FBI didn't properly
> > investigate the shooting is an open question, but there it is.
>
> You confuse your ability to criticize the investigation with
> establishing that a proper investigation was not done. Any investigation
> could be criticized, no matter who ran it.
True, and the criticism might be valid. So what?
>
> > One example: On November 22nd Texas law officer A. Richardson telephoned
> > the Dallas FBI office and informed them white supremacist Jimmy George
> > Robinson should be considered a suspect.
>
> > On November 23rd the FBI office report of this telephone conversation was
> > filed away with the hand-written notation "Not necesarry to cover as true
> > suspect located."
>
> And so he was. With indications of Oswald`s guilt coming in from
> every direction, why would they look elsewhere?
It's called "investigating".
>
> > Or as J. Edger told RFK at 4:01 pm EST on 11/22/1963, "We had the man."
>
> And in all the days from that day to this, no one else can be shown
> to be involved except Oswald.
Who discussed assassinating JFK with Oswald and told Sylvia Odio about
it?
>
> > Oh, they solved the case in a 150 minutes - what took them so long?
> > Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
> > or even 5?
>
> It was a simple case.
If you don't investigate it, yes.
>
>
>
>
>
> > C'mon people - time's a'wasting!
>
> > And another oddity - shall I call it a loose end?
>
> > Yes, I shall.
>
> > The oddball Richard Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot to assassinate JFK.
>
> > There's a debunking article on a site connected with this site, and it
> > does a very nice job of showing why we should ignore Richard Nagell - I
> > found it very convincing.
>
> > But in reviewing the circumstances of Nagell's story I find one fact that
> > I find hard to wrap my mind aroound.
>
> > When Nagell was arrested on September 20th, 1963 his possessions were
> > inventoried by the police, and contained cameras, notebooks, and whatnot.
>
> > One item - found in his wallet - was "...a mimeographed
> > newsletter....addressed to Richard Case Nagell from....the Fair Play For
> > Cuba Committee."
>
> Saying what?
Metaphorically or specifically?
>
> > 2 months later after Dealey Plaza Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot
> > involving Oswald, who of course was a member of the FPCC. So.....this
> > crazy guy who is just making all of this up just manages by total
> > coincidence to be carrying a newsletter from the same organization that
> > LHO had joined?
>
> > Wow - now that's something to ponder.
>
> > Imagine the odds - here is a crazy person who improvises a connection with
> > the assassination also JUST HAPPENS to have in his wallet an FPCC
> > newsletter 2 months before Dealey Plaza.
>
> Both were interested in politics. Nagell himself would have to
> explain why he had that item, that is the only real place to start.
Well, he claimed to investigating Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with
a plot to assasinate JFK.
>
> > A hundred to one?
>
> > A thousand to one?
>
> > A hundred thousand, a million, how high?
>
> That a poor use of statistics.
And grammer on your part, hee hee. But really it should be a rather easy
mathematical formula. How many people carry around FPCC literature in
their wallet or purse on a regular basis, how many people rob banks, how
many bank robbers thus carry FPCC literature in their wallets and then how
many accused presidential assassins are member of the FPCC.
Both Nagell and Oswald suffered self-
> inflicted bullet wounds. What are the chances that this would be true, how
> many people shoot themselves, and to have both shooting themselves would
> be in the hundreds of thousands to one, right? Does that establish a
> connection between Oswald`s bullet wound and Nagell`s? Is it a spook
> initiation rite or something?
Ah, I was unaware of a self-inflicted wound - I knew of the purple
hearts, plane crashes, etc. but not of a self inflicted wound.
Source, please.
>
> This kind of "connecting" isn`t as significant as it seems, look at all
> the connections between Lincoln and Kennedy. And Oswald wasn`t the only
> ex-marine to shoot people with a military rifle, Charles Whitman also
> murdered in Texas from a high structure. Do the similarities make for a
> connection (or a loose end)?
Oh, it is only my opinion that 2 months before FPCC member Oswald was
accused of assassinating JFK that a ex-military person was incarcerated
carrying FPCC literature in his wallet, and then the ex- military person
claimed prior knowledge of the alleged plot. If the ex-military person had
been carrying a G-Man decoder ring it wouldn't have made any impact on me.
Yeah, I think it is a striking coincidence, much more striking then the
examples you give above.
>
> > After all - Nagell's crazy, right?
>
> > Why would he have an FPCC newsletter - why not a torn cereal box top
>
> Interesting, a torn cardboard box top was found on Oswald when
> arrested. See "Cox`s Fort Worth" below...
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/16/1630-001.gif
>
> What are the chances you would pick an item so close to what Oswald
> was actually carrying, a hundred to one, a thousand?
Hyuk hyuk - I just had finished posting this 2 weeks ago: "Of course
there's that half a box top LHO had on him when arrested at the Texas
Theatre - nawwwwww, couldn't be." I chose it deliberately, to see if any
LN would rise to the bait. ZING.
>
> >or a
> > G-Man Spy Decoder ring?
>
> > Well, that Nagell fellow sure was lucky - and my loose ends just keep
> > piling up.
>
> Your inability to take them anywhere is vindication of the original
> investigation.
What investigation?
I was unaware that either the Warren Commission or the HSCA had
deposed Nagell.
bigdog
Well, it's nice to see the extreme left weigh in. What's so bad about
communisim? Why don't you ask the countries that had been part of the
Soviet Union. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't it. It was such a
total failure it collapsed upon itself. Communism can only survive through
totalitarianism. Free peoples will never knowingly choose communism. They
can be duped into allowing a communist regime to come into power and by
the time they realize what they bargained for, it is too late to do
anything about it. Even in Red China (why did we quit using that term?)
where they have accepted a certain measure of capitalism, they still must
rule with an iron hand as they demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, where
liberty was given a breath of life only to be brutally crushed.
bigdog
David, thank you for posting the explaination so I did not have to.
I picked 90% out of the air for two reasons. One, it makes sense that if
you are going to plot an assassination of the POTUS, you are going to use
the best riflemen you can get to do the job. Second, it made the math
easier. But we can change the number to further illustrate the point.
Let's say they picked 3 guys who didn't even qualify as marksmen in the
Marines and these guys each only had a 50-50 chance of success by
themselves. By using two such shooters, there is only a 1 in 4 chance both
will miss and if you use 3 shooters, there is only a 1 in 8 chance of
success, so in that event using three shooters increases your chances for
success from 50% to 87.5%. So three bad shooters would significantly
increase your chances of success. I know you understand the probabilities
involved, but thought I'd give another example to illustrate the point.
Chuck Schuyler
> I visited Vietnam for most of a year and saw the horrifying results of
> the communist assassinating village chiefs, school teachers and
> killing innocent children with their booby traps. Your communist host
> didn’t show you any of that did they?
>
> Unfortunately I never got to visit the American War museum in Hanoi
> but I bet that was a hoot. Did you see John Kerry’s photo there?
>
> Bill Clarke
Bill,
The Kerry photo is probably right next to the Hanoi Jane Fonda manning
the anti-aircraft gun photo.
Sandy McCroskey
Neither the USSR nor China ever had a communistic society. In the Soviet
Union, the official line of the Communist Party was that the country was
building *socialism.* Communism was supposed to arrive much later, with
the "withering away of the state."
Not that I think it would ever have gotten there by the route it had
taken.
/sandy
Doug Reese
> the communist assassinating village chiefs, school teachers and
> killing innocent children with their booby traps. Your communist host
> didn’t show you any of that did they?
>
> Unfortunately I never got to visit the American War museum in Hanoi
Wouldn't make any difference if you did get to Hanoi, Bill, as that museum
is in Saigon
It is the War Remnants Museum.
Kerry's photo is there, right next to his commander, Adm Zumwalt.
fonda's photo is not in that particlar museum.
Doug
Anthony Marsh
No, you may be limited to the best rifleman you can trust to keep it
secret. Try to enlist the best qualified conspirator and he'll run and
tell the Secret Service.
> easier. But we can change the number to further illustrate the point.
> Let's say they picked 3 guys who didn't even qualify as marksmen in the
> Marines and these guys each only had a 50-50 chance of success by
Why don't you actually select the top marksmen that the WC selected who
got about 66%?
Anthony Marsh
>>> are those wanting to take it, from it's citizens. Civilian deaths are
>>> obviously a cost in trying to preserve freedom during times of war. No
>>> only to the wars fought by the U.S.. Many millions more were killed by
>>> the communist victors, yet you do not make any mention of this (they were
>>> non-conformers or anti- communist so their lives do matter?). Nor do you
>>> mention the millions killed under prior communist rule in the U.S.S.R.,
>>> not a perfect country but it would be an error to try to equate its'
>>> communist or marxist ruled nations. The U.S. has a history helping other
>>> countries when in need whether it be in humanitarian terms or by use of
>>> its' military to preserve democracy or liberty of its' citizens. If you
>>> prefer to "cherry pick" U.S. history, go ahead, it won't be the first
>>> time. "Real perspective is required to understand such things, not a
>>> blind belief in your country's moral superiority". This quote is perfect
>>> blame America first ideology.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> What is so bad about communism and who makes us the judge of what kind of
>> government countries should have? If they want to br communist or Markist,
>> let them. You can see how well our attempt to foist democracy on the rest
>> of the world is working. It won't work everywhere and the middle east is
>> probably one of those spots.
>>
>> JB
>
>
> Well, it's nice to see the extreme left weigh in. What's so bad about
> communisim? Why don't you ask the countries that had been part of the
> Soviet Union. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't it. It was such a
What's so bad about capitalism? Why don't you ask the millions of Native
Americans who were slaughtered by the US? Why don't you ask the millions
of blacks who suffered as slaves. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't
it??
> total failure it collapsed upon itself. Communism can only survive through
> totalitarianism. Free peoples will never knowingly choose communism. They
Capitalism can only survive through totalitarianism. Free people will
never knowingly choose capitalism? Give all their money to Bernie Maddoff?
> can be duped into allowing a communist regime to come into power and by
> the time they realize what they bargained for, it is too late to do
> anything about it. Even in Red China (why did we quit using that term?)
Too late? Well they finally did do something about it if you didn't
notice it.
> where they have accepted a certain measure of capitalism, they still must
> rule with an iron hand as they demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, where
> liberty was given a breath of life only to be brutally crushed.
>
We no longer call it Red China because it is now our largest trading
partner and creditor. A handful of Americans become super rich by using
Chinese slave labor.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Extreme Socialism (Communism) and extreme Capitalism are systems both
doomed to failure (unless the capitalists who are "too big to fail"
hoodwink the government to give them lots of taxpayer money- that should
only happen once, hopefully!)
Thalia
Sorry, the wave idea is not a concrete one, but I suspect this guy,
due to his funny wave, his actions afterwards, his chat to TUM, and
his disappearance afterwards, plus the photos of him with a walkie
talkie. Strange.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is true, people have to fight for their own freedom, and some
countries are not advanced enough to have democracy (yet). Each
society must follow the steps towards democracy, it cannot be forced,
what is the point when most people are not even literate, or when
these "democratically" elected leaders just rig it anyway? When a man
like Hitler comes along, then it becomes morally and strategically
imperitive to fight. You got to pick your battles, and you cannot have
a large part of your economy designed for war, ie the present set up
of the United States, it means you go looking for war and enemies.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
I totally get the "domino theory." There was a lot of merit to it.
Unfotunately not taking the time to understand a countries culture and
circumstances and why communism might appeal to them was a grave
error, and it seems to be repeating itself.
Thalia
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:58 am, slats<o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote innews:u2ntf5tjc5l92q03a...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On 13 Nov 2009 23:56:11 -0500, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 14, 12:16 pm, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
> >>>> A lot of INSANE things were going on in that era. It was the middle of
> >>>> the Cold War, and there was the very real probability of a nuclear
> >>>> holocaust due to the United States and the Soviet Union refusing to
> >>>> get along (and there was no "good" side or "bad" side - both sides
> >>>> were as bad as the other)
>
> >>> Terribly revealing comment.
>
> >>> I wonder if she would insist on the same view about WW II.
>
> >>> Or the conflict over slavery in the U.S.
>
> >>> .John
> >>> --------------
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ever doing so. I am a member of a right of centre political party.
> > But, it clearly suits your sensibilities to believe I am.
>
> > Whether you like it or not, The United States killed millions
> > (inclusing 58,000 of it's own poor and politically powerless) during
> > its Vietnam War pursuit, a war now considered to have been a huge
> > "mistake", but you insist on calling yourselves the good guys. Maybe
> > you should visit Vietnam, like I have, and see all the beggars in the
> > street with horrific burns from the Americans dropping bombs on them.
> > Or, vist the "American War" museum with photo ofter photo of dead
> > villagers killed by Americans. Real perspective is required to
> > understand such things, not a blind belief in your country's moral
> > superiority.
>
> part of the anti-war movement?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I wasn't alive then. There were many Australians against it, we
had protests all the time, however our governments insist on fighting
every ill-thought-out war the Americans choose, because you we love
you guys like a big brother and we want you to help when/if the
baddies invade us. I personally know five families who had a loved one
killed, or get cancer, or totally lose the plot due to Vietnam.
davidemerling
> What a goofy argument. Countless mob hits and modern terrorist attacks
> have used multiple assassins. The reasoning is that three shooters have
> three times the chance of success as one.
>
> How many were involved in the attack on Truman, David?? Look it up.
>
> Robert Harris
Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that
any conspiracy to kill the president should -or- should not use
multiple gunmen. What I AM saying is that it wouldn't matter if there
was one or a hundred gunmen as long as 1) the president ended up dead
AND 2) nobody connected with the assassination (which would include
the gunmen) got caught.
Using more than gunmen would be far less convoluted than the silly
prior set-up of Oswald as a patsy and all the post-assassination crap
(alleged by most conspiracies) to cover-up the conspiracy - up and
including some mysterious hit squad that is still killing people off
over 15 years later.
Kill him and vanish. Done!
Then sit back and watch the investigators spin themselves into the
ground trying to find leads.
So what if they find bullets. There are no guns to match them to. So
what if they find fingerprints. They have no suspects. So what if it
is obvious that it was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen. Who are
they? Who hired them? What was there objective in killing the
president. No answers to ANY of those questions leads you nowhere.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
Not imagination. Physical facts.
Anthony Marsh
>>> are those wanting to take it, from it's citizens. Civilian deaths are
>>> obviously a cost in trying to preserve freedom during times of war. No
>>> only to the wars fought by the U.S.. Many millions more were killed by
>>> the communist victors, yet you do not make any mention of this (they were
>>> non-conformers or anti- communist so their lives do matter?). Nor do you
>>> mention the millions killed under prior communist rule in the U.S.S.R.,
>>> not a perfect country but it would be an error to try to equate its'
>>> communist or marxist ruled nations. The U.S. has a history helping other
>>> countries when in need whether it be in humanitarian terms or by use of
>>> its' military to preserve democracy or liberty of its' citizens. If you
>>> prefer to "cherry pick" U.S. history, go ahead, it won't be the first
>>> time. "Real perspective is required to understand such things, not a
>>> blind belief in your country's moral superiority". This quote is perfect
>>> blame America first ideology.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> What is so bad about communism and who makes us the judge of what kind of
>> government countries should have? If they want to br communist or Markist,
>> let them. You can see how well our attempt to foist democracy on the rest
>> of the world is working. It won't work everywhere and the middle east is
>> probably one of those spots.
>>
>> JB
>
> Communism does not allow for the belief of Unalienable Rights, among these
> are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone can judge for
Capitalism does not allow for the belief of Unalienable Rights, among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under capitalism
only the rich have any rights.
> themselves the merits of a Democracy vs. Communistic rule by specifying
We don't have a Democracy in the US.
> which of the rights mentioned above would they choose to do without?
> Although, under Communistic rule, you wouldn't even get to choose which
> rights you would be willing to live without. This debate can only occur
> in a Democracy where we are free to discuss such topics openly without
We don't live in a Democracy.
> fear of reprisal. Under no threat, it is easy to compare& equate the
> merits of Communism to those of Democracy. "It won't work everywhere and
> the middle east is probably one of those spots." Unalienable Rights are
> just that, it is right of the people in those countries to decide, through
Unalieable Rights are not at the whim of the ruling class. They are in
defiance of the ruling class.
> elections how they will be governed, rather than the control they had been
> under with Saddam Hussein& the Baathists in Iraq& under the Taliban in
> Afghanistan. Whether they succeed or not with a Democracy, these people
What are you mumbling about? They had elections under those systems,
just as they had an election in Afghanistan recently, which the
President rigged to stay in power, just as we had an election in 2000
which Bush rigged with threats of mob violence.
> still have Unalienable Rights, that previously were being kept from them
> by their oppressive governments. Let's not debate the fact that they were
> oppressive to it's people.
>
Let's not debate the fact that our government is oppressive to its [sic]
people.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 15, 11:12 pm, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, three shooters improves the odds much better than that. If each
>>> shooter had a 90% chance of success firing alone, there would be only 1
>>> chance in 100 that two shooters would both miss and 1 in 1000 that three
>>> shooters would miss. Three shooters would have 100 times the probability
>>> of success as a single shooter. Of course, that wasn't a choice Oswald
>>> could make. He had to go it alone.
>>
>> Would you mind sharing the evidence with us that convinced you of that?
>
> The evidence is the mathematics of the laws of probability!
>
Misused.
> As an example, he said "If each shooter had a 90% chance of success."
>
It depends on how you define success. Do you mean 1 hit out of three or
three hits out of three? Even the marksmen hired by the WC could only on
get two shots out of three.
> Given that probability, his statement that three shooters would only
> have a 1-in-1000 chance of missing is accurate.
>
> Each shooter has a 10% chance of missing.
>
Missing all three shots or missing any shot?
> 10% x 10% x 10% = .001 /or/ 1:1000
>
> What is it you are challenging?
> 1. That 3 shooters do not have a greater chance of success than 1
> shooter?
> 2. That 90% chance of success for a single shooter is too high (that
> was a guess). What - you want to use a different number?
> 3. That, given a 90% chance of success for a single shooter, that 3
> shooters would only have 1-in-1000 chance of failure?
>
There are a lot of false assumptions in your scenario and wrong formulae.
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Doug, I didn’t know that. But they never let me go to Saigon
either. They sent me where they had some big hills. <G>
Bill Clarke
Chuck Schuyler
> What's so bad about capitalism? Why don't you ask the millions of Native
> Americans who were slaughtered by the US?
Cite? Your numbers are horribly wrong (gee....what a shock). You make
it sounds as if the US had a policy of genocide toward Indians.
Why don't you ask the millions
> of blacks who suffered as slaves. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't
> it??
Slavery was, sadly, a universal institution. The United States ended
slavery---it had been around for thousands of years. Most of the western
bound slave trade didn't come to the colonies...it went to other countries
in South America and the elsewhere. Slavery was destined to disappear in
this country, and soon, because it wasn't productive (free men who have a
stake and ownership in their labor and the goods it produces are more
productive than the indentured...imagine that), and because a majority of
Americans, especially fervent Christian abolitionists, were bringing the
institution to its knees.
>
> > total failure it collapsed upon itself. Communism can only survive through
> > totalitarianism. Free peoples will never knowingly choose communism. They
>
> Capitalism can only survive through totalitarianism.
More silly Marshisms from the Cliff Clavin of aaj. There isn't a
totalitarian society where capitalism flourishes, Tony. You need an
Economics 101 course. Here's Milton Friedman schooling uber-Lefty Phil
Donahue on this point a few decades ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Free people will
> never knowingly choose capitalism? Give all their money to Bernie Maddoff?
More silliness from Marsh, who sometimes seems to write out of a
compulsion to sprinkle his Marshisms on as many threads as possible. Was
Bernie a capitalist? He looks like a garden variety con-man to me, albeit
a very successful one.
>
> > can be duped into allowing a communist regime to come into power and by
> > the time they realize what they bargained for, it is too late to do
> > anything about it. Even in Red China (why did we quit using that term?)
>
> Too late? Well they finally did do something about it if you didn't
> notice it.
>
> > where they have accepted a certain measure of capitalism, they still must
> > rule with an iron hand as they demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, where
> > liberty was given a breath of life only to be brutally crushed.
>
> We no longer call it Red China because it is now our largest trading
> partner and creditor. A handful of Americans become super rich by using
> Chinese slave labor.
More silliness. I'll bet the Chinese man or woman who now works at a
Walmart, Burger King or Hilton Hotel in Beijing, or the entrepreneur who
manufactures some good for export to western markets, would laugh in your
face. Tens of millions of Chinese have been freed from back breaking,
menial, dangerous work, and lifted to the Chinese version of middle class.
It's good for China, and it's good for the world. Communism collapses with
a thud like it did with the Berlin Wall, or it fades with the sound of
ringing cash registers, as is the case in China.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 10:10=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> What's so bad about capitalism? Why don't you ask the millions of Native
>> Americans who were slaughtered by the US?
>
>Cite? Your numbers are horribly wrong (gee....what a shock). You make
>it sounds as if the US had a policy of genocide toward Indians.
>
>Why don't you ask the millions
>> of blacks who suffered as slaves. Gee, that really worked out well, didn'=
>t
>> it??
>
>Slavery was, sadly, a universal institution. The United States ended
>slavery---it had been around for thousands of years. Most of the western
>bound slave trade didn't come to the colonies...it went to other countries
>in South America and the elsewhere. Slavery was destined to disappear in
>this country, and soon, because it wasn't productive (free men who have a
>stake and ownership in their labor and the goods it produces are more
>productive than the indentured...imagine that), and because a majority of
>Americans, especially fervent Christian abolitionists, were bringing the
>institution to its knees.
>
And it's worth noting that blacks in Africa, and Muslims in east
Africa, were quite enthusiastic participants in the slave trade.
But unlike Western Christians, they didn't lead the charge to abolish
it.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
> On Nov 14, 6:25 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 11:24 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I keep wishing that there's no reason to dig further, but unfortunately
> > > the more I research it the more things pop up. Why the FBI didn't properly
> > > investigate the shooting is an open question, but there it is.
>
> > You confuse your ability to criticize the investigation with
> > establishing that a proper investigation was not done. Any investigation
> > could be criticized, no matter who ran it.
>
> True, and the criticism might be valid. So what?
Tends to put claims like "the FBI didn`t investigate" in the proper
perspective.
> > > One example: On November 22nd Texas law officer A. Richardson telephoned
> > > the Dallas FBI office and informed them white supremacist Jimmy George
> > > Robinson should be considered a suspect.
>
> > > On November 23rd the FBI office report of this telephone conversation was
> > > filed away with the hand-written notation "Not necesarry to cover as true
> > > suspect located."
>
> > And so he was. With indications of Oswald`s guilt coming in from
> > every direction, why would they look elsewhere?
>
> It's called "investigating".
Investigation is what was turning up all the indications of Oswald`s
guilt.
> > > Or as J. Edger told RFK at 4:01 pm EST on 11/22/1963, "We had the man."
>
> > And in all the days from that day to this, no one else can be shown
> > to be involved except Oswald.
>
> Who discussed assassinating JFK with Oswald and told Sylvia Odio about
> it?
Dunno, but Oswald talking about assassinating JFK would only be
further indication of his guilt, right?
> > > Oh, they solved the case in a 150 minutes - what took them so long?
> > > Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
> > > or even 5?
>
> > It was a simple case.
>
> If you don't investigate it, yes.
Oswald made it so easy, a child could. Leaving pictures of himself
holding the murder weapon amongst his belongings, killing a cop in front
of a bunch of people, attack the police who tried to arrest him, what else
do you need?
> > > C'mon people - time's a'wasting!
>
> > > And another oddity - shall I call it a loose end?
>
> > > Yes, I shall.
>
> > > The oddball Richard Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot to assassinate JFK.
>
> > > There's a debunking article on a site connected with this site, and it
> > > does a very nice job of showing why we should ignore Richard Nagell - I
> > > found it very convincing.
>
> > > But in reviewing the circumstances of Nagell's story I find one fact that
> > > I find hard to wrap my mind aroound.
>
> > > When Nagell was arrested on September 20th, 1963 his possessions were
> > > inventoried by the police, and contained cameras, notebooks, and whatnot.
>
> > > One item - found in his wallet - was "...a mimeographed
> > > newsletter....addressed to Richard Case Nagell from....the Fair Play For
> > > Cuba Committee."
>
> > Saying what?
>
> Metaphorically or specifically?
Topic of the newsletter might explain why Nagell kept it.. If it was
about the CIA, he might keep it because that is something he was
interested in.
> > > 2 months later after Dealey Plaza Nagell claimed knowledge of a plot
> > > involving Oswald, who of course was a member of the FPCC. So.....this
> > > crazy guy who is just making all of this up just manages by total
> > > coincidence to be carrying a newsletter from the same organization that
> > > LHO had joined?
>
> > > Wow - now that's something to ponder.
>
> > > Imagine the odds - here is a crazy person who improvises a connection with
> > > the assassination also JUST HAPPENS to have in his wallet an FPCC
> > > newsletter 2 months before Dealey Plaza.
>
> > Both were interested in politics. Nagell himself would have to
> > explain why he had that item, that is the only real place to start.
>
> Well, he claimed to investigating Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with
> a plot to assasinate JFK.
He should produce the extraordinary support for that extraordinary
idea then.
> > > A hundred to one?
>
> > > A thousand to one?
>
> > > A hundred thousand, a million, how high?
>
> > That a poor use of statistics.
>
> And grammer on your part, hee hee. But really it should be a rather easy
> mathematical formula. How many people carry around FPCC literature in
> their wallet or purse on a regular basis, how many people rob banks, how
> many bank robbers thus carry FPCC literature in their wallets and then how
> many accused presidential assassins are member of the FPCC.
It`s still not a connection until you can show a connection. And Nagell
is the one to make that connection, he`d be the one who knew why he
carried it, and he is the one who failed to produce anything of substance
in support of his claims.
> Both Nagell and Oswald suffered self-
>
> > inflicted bullet wounds. What are the chances that this would be true, how
> > many people shoot themselves, and to have both shooting themselves would
> > be in the hundreds of thousands to one, right? Does that establish a
> > connection between Oswald`s bullet wound and Nagell`s? Is it a spook
> > initiation rite or something?
>
> Ah, I was unaware of a self-inflicted wound - I knew of the purple
> hearts, plane crashes, etc. but not of a self inflicted wound.
> Source, please.
The article on McAdams site on Nagell. He hinted his wife shot him, but
the doctor who treated felt it was self-inflicted.
> > This kind of "connecting" isn`t as significant as it seems, look at all
> > the connections between Lincoln and Kennedy. And Oswald wasn`t the only
> > ex-marine to shoot people with a military rifle, Charles Whitman also
> > murdered in Texas from a high structure. Do the similarities make for a
> > connection (or a loose end)?
>
> Oh, it is only my opinion that 2 months before FPCC member Oswald was
> accused of assassinating JFK that a ex-military person was incarcerated
> carrying FPCC literature in his wallet, and then the ex- military person
> claimed prior knowledge of the alleged plot. If the ex-military person had
> been carrying a G-Man decoder ring it wouldn't have made any impact on me.
> Yeah, I think it is a striking coincidence, much more striking then the
> examples you give above.
It isn`t coincidence, they are pre-disposed political crackpots
traveling in self-created realms of intrigue. If they were both baseball
fans, you wouldn`t be shocked if they had the same baseball card, would
you?
> > > After all - Nagell's crazy, right?
>
> > > Why would he have an FPCC newsletter - why not a torn cereal box top
>
> > Interesting, a torn cardboard box top was found on Oswald when
> > arrested. See "Cox`s Fort Worth" below...
>
> > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/16/1630-001.gif
>
> > What are the chances you would pick an item so close to what Oswald
> > was actually carrying, a hundred to one, a thousand?
>
> Hyuk hyuk - I just had finished posting this 2 weeks ago: "Of course
> there's that half a box top LHO had on him when arrested at the Texas
> Theatre - nawwwwww, couldn't be." I chose it deliberately, to see if any
> LN would rise to the bait. ZING.
What is "Cox`s Fort Worth", though? A hardware store, maybe?
Hardware stores used to sell ammo.
> > >or a
> > > G-Man Spy Decoder ring?
>
> > > Well, that Nagell fellow sure was lucky - and my loose ends just keep
> > > piling up.
>
> > Your inability to take them anywhere is vindication of the original
> > investigation.
>
> What investigation?
The one that found the murderer decades ago.
> I was unaware that either the Warren Commission or the HSCA had
> deposed Nagell.
Nagell had the chance to support his claims.
Robert Harris
<ee8edcd7-db72-48d4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 8:54?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What a goofy argument. Countless mob hits and modern terrorist attacks
> > have used multiple assassins. The reasoning is that three shooters have
> > three times the chance of success as one.
> >
> > How many were involved in the attack on Truman, David?? Look it up.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that
> any conspiracy to kill the president should -or- should not use
> multiple gunmen. What I AM saying is that it wouldn't matter if there
> was one or a hundred gunmen as long as 1) the president ended up dead
> AND 2) nobody connected with the assassination (which would include
> the gunmen) got caught.
>
> Using more than gunmen would be far less convoluted than the silly
> prior set-up of Oswald as a patsy and all the post-assassination crap
> (alleged by most conspiracies) to cover-up the conspiracy - up and
> including some mysterious hit squad that is still killing people off
> over 15 years later.
JFK's killers wanted Oswald to take the blame because his communist
legend and apparent connection to the FPCC would make it appear that
Castro was behind it.
The coverup was done by the government and (mostly) for different
motives than the assassination.
Only a few people were killed to protect the mob. Certainly, Trafficante
and Roselli, and very likely, David Ferrie.
>
> Kill him and vanish. Done!
Well, that's pretty much what happened.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<50f98f4c-cae6-48bd...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:12?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, three shooters improves the odds much better than that. If each
> > > shooter had a 90% chance of success firing alone, there would be only 1
> > > chance in 100 that two shooters would both miss and 1 in 1000 that three
> > > shooters would miss. Three shooters would have 100 times the probability
> > > of success as a single shooter. Of course, that wasn't a choice Oswald
> > > could make. He had to go it alone.
> >
> > Would you mind sharing the evidence with us that convinced you of that?
>
> The evidence is the mathematics of the laws of probability!
>
> As an example, he said "If each shooter had a 90% chance of success."
>
> Given that probability, his statement that three shooters would only
> have a 1-in-1000 chance of missing is accurate.
>
> Each shooter has a 10% chance of missing.
Nonsense.
Without benefit of hindsight, the killers would have expected the limo
to take evasive action and for JFK to drop down in his seat.
The natural expectation is that three shooters in different positions
had a vastly better chance of success than one.
Robert Harris
bigdog
That wasn't capatilism, that was thievery. Capitalism is a sytem that
operates on transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. It
started out well when the Dutch bought Manhattan for $24.
> Why don't you ask the millions
> of blacks who suffered as slaves. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't
> it??
>
Again, that was thievery. Slaves were not giving their services
voluntarily in exchange of compensation which they felt was just.
> > total failure it collapsed upon itself. Communism can only survive through
> > totalitarianism. Free peoples will never knowingly choose communism. They
>
> Capitalism can only survive through totalitarianism. Free people will
> never knowingly choose capitalism? Give all their money to Bernie Maddoff?
>
Free market capitalism was the system upon which the founding fathers
started this country and the knew fell well what they were choosing. Your
reference to Bernie Madddoff is another example of thievery, not
capitalism.
> > can be duped into allowing a communist regime to come into power and by
> > the time they realize what they bargained for, it is too late to do
> > anything about it. Even in Red China (why did we quit using that term?)
>
> Too late? Well they finally did do something about it if you didn't
> notice it.
>
> > where they have accepted a certain measure of capitalism, they still must
> > rule with an iron hand as they demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, where
> > liberty was given a breath of life only to be brutally crushed.
>
> We no longer call it Red China because it is now our largest trading
> partner and creditor. A handful of Americans become super rich by using
> Chinese slave labor.
Are the Chinese workers being force to perform labor against their will or
are the willingly performing the work for wages which are acceptable to
them? The former would be thievery and the latter is the free market at
work.
bigdog
>
> > What is it you are challenging?
> > 1. That 3 shooters do not have a greater chance of success than 1
> > shooter?
> > 2. That 90% chance of success for a single shooter is too high (that
> > was a guess). What - you want to use a different number?
> > 3. That, given a 90% chance of success for a single shooter, that 3
> > shooters would only have 1-in-1000 chance of failure?
>
> There are a lot of false assumptions in your scenario and wrong formulae.
>
hypothetically?
John Blubaugh
> > > are those wanting to take it, from it's citizens. Civilian deaths are
> > > obviously a cost in trying to preserve freedom during times of war. No
> > > only to the wars fought by the U.S.. Many millions more were killed by
> > > the communist victors, yet you do not make any mention of this (they were
> > > non-conformers or anti- communist so their lives do matter?). Nor do you
> > > mention the millions killed under prior communist rule in the U.S.S.R.,
> > > not a perfect country but it would be an error to try to equate its'
> > > communist or marxist ruled nations. The U.S. has a history helping other
> > > countries when in need whether it be in humanitarian terms or by use of
> > > its' military to preserve democracy or liberty of its' citizens. If you
> > > prefer to "cherry pick" U.S. history, go ahead, it won't be the first
> > > time. "Real perspective is required to understand such things, not a
> > > blind belief in your country's moral superiority". This quote is perfect
> > > blame America first ideology.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What is so bad about communism and who makes us the judge of what kind of
> > government countries should have? If they want to br communist or Markist,
> > let them. You can see how well our attempt to foist democracy on the rest
> > of the world is working. It won't work everywhere and the middle east is
> > probably one of those spots.
>
> > JB
>
> are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone can judge for
> Although, under Communistic rule, you wouldn't even get to choose which
> rights you would be willing to live without. This debate can only occur
> in a Democracy where we are free to discuss such topics openly without
> merits of Communism to those of Democracy. "It won't work everywhere and
> the middle east is probably one of those spots." Unalienable Rights are
> just that, it is right of the people in those countries to decide, through
> Afghanistan. Whether they succeed or not with a Democracy, these people
> by their oppressive governments. Let's not debate the fact that they were
>
> - Show quoted text -
If those values are not important to a country, who are we to say that
must have a democracy?
JB
aeffects
> On Nov 14, 8:54 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What a goofy argument. Countless mob hits and modern terrorist attacks
> > have used multiple assassins. The reasoning is that three shooters have
> > three times the chance of success as one.
>
> > How many were involved in the attack on Truman, David?? Look it up.
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that
> any conspiracy to kill the president should -or- should not use
> multiple gunmen. What I AM saying is that it wouldn't matter if there
> was one or a hundred gunmen as long as 1) the president ended up dead
> AND 2) nobody connected with the assassination (which would include
> the gunmen) got caught.
>
> Using more than gunmen would be far less convoluted than the silly
> prior set-up of Oswald as a patsy and all the post-assassination crap
> (alleged by most conspiracies) to cover-up the conspiracy - up and
> including some mysterious hit squad that is still killing people off
> over 15 years later.
>
> Kill him and vanish. Done!
>
> Then sit back and watch the investigators spin themselves into the
> ground trying to find leads.
>
> So what if they find bullets. There are no guns to match them to.
including C399 and the appropriate MC..... carry on, troll!
Anthony Marsh
What do you think should have happened to an agency which had tape
recorded Oswald threatening to kill President Kennedy? What do you think
should have happened to an agency which had a note from Oswald warning
them that he would assassinate President Kennedy? What do you think should
happen to a President who was warned about terrorist attacks and did
nothing to prevent them?
>>>> Oh, they solved the case in a 150 minutes - what took them so long?
>>>> Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
>>>> or even 5?
>>
>>> It was a simple case.
>>
>> If you don't investigate it, yes.
>
> Oswald made it so easy, a child could. Leaving pictures of himself
> holding the murder weapon amongst his belongings, killing a cop in front
> of a bunch of people, attack the police who tried to arrest him, what else
> do you need?
>
So, you think there is some way that Oswald could have planned to kill the
cop NOT in front of a bunch of people? You make a fundamental error in
logic to claim that killing Tippit PROVES that he killed Kennedy. That's a
Post Hoc Fallacy.
Nice innuendo. Got any facts?
Anthony Marsh
The slave business is still going on, but I never see you complaining
about it. YFI everyone everywhere participated in slavery. You seem to
have this reflex defensive mechanism to always protect the US against ANY
criticism, but the US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery and
it took a war to accomplish that.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 16, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> What's so bad about capitalism? Why don't you ask the millions of Native
>> Americans who were slaughtered by the US?
>
> Cite? Your numbers are horribly wrong (gee....what a shock). You make
> it sounds as if the US had a policy of genocide toward Indians.
>
Well, in fact it did. And what's wrong with my numbers? I did not say
100 million. I just said millions.
> Why don't you ask the millions
>> of blacks who suffered as slaves. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't
>> it??
>
> Slavery was, sadly, a universal institution. The United States ended
Here we go with yet another justification of slavery.
> slavery---it had been around for thousands of years. Most of the western
> bound slave trade didn't come to the colonies...it went to other countries
I guess this is supposed to be reassuring somehow to the descendants of
slaves here in America, but I don't think they'd be impressed by your
marginalizing the atrocity.
> in South America and the elsewhere. Slavery was destined to disappear in
> this country, and soon, because it wasn't productive (free men who have a
Oh, is that why you think Slavery ended? For purely economic reasons?
Guess you were sick the day they taught the lessons about the Civil War.
> stake and ownership in their labor and the goods it produces are more
> productive than the indentured...imagine that), and because a majority of
> Americans, especially fervent Christian abolitionists, were bringing the
> institution to its knees.
>
Silly, you think talking ended slavery?
>>
>>> total failure it collapsed upon itself. Communism can only survive through
>>> totalitarianism. Free peoples will never knowingly choose communism. They
>>
>> Capitalism can only survive through totalitarianism.
>
> More silly Marshisms from the Cliff Clavin of aaj. There isn't a
> totalitarian society where capitalism flourishes, Tony. You need an
Capitalism flourished in Nazi Germany and it flourishes here in the US.
> Economics 101 course. Here's Milton Friedman schooling uber-Lefty Phil
> Donahue on this point a few decades ago:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
>
> Free people will
>> never knowingly choose capitalism? Give all their money to Bernie Maddoff?
>
> More silliness from Marsh, who sometimes seems to write out of a
> compulsion to sprinkle his Marshisms on as many threads as possible. Was
> Bernie a capitalist? He looks like a garden variety con-man to me, albeit
> a very successful one.
>
One and the same thing. Why do you think they called them the Robber
Barons?
>>
>>> can be duped into allowing a communist regime to come into power and by
>>> the time they realize what they bargained for, it is too late to do
>>> anything about it. Even in Red China (why did we quit using that term?)
>>
>> Too late? Well they finally did do something about it if you didn't
>> notice it.
>>
>>> where they have accepted a certain measure of capitalism, they still must
>>> rule with an iron hand as they demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, where
>>> liberty was given a breath of life only to be brutally crushed.
>>
>> We no longer call it Red China because it is now our largest trading
>> partner and creditor. A handful of Americans become super rich by using
>> Chinese slave labor.
>
> More silliness. I'll bet the Chinese man or woman who now works at a
> Walmart, Burger King or Hilton Hotel in Beijing, or the entrepreneur who
> manufactures some good for export to western markets, would laugh in your
> face. Tens of millions of Chinese have been freed from back breaking,
More silliness. I was not talking about the Chinese-Americans working here
in the US for slave wages. I was talking about actual slavery. And of
course the upper class is not considered slavery. They employ slavery.
> menial, dangerous work, and lifted to the Chinese version of middle class.
Every society has some type of middle class. The problem is that the rich
limit that size of the middle class and try to push it into slavery, as
they are doing here in the US right now.
> It's good for China, and it's good for the world. Communism collapses with
> a thud like it did with the Berlin Wall, or it fades with the sound of
> ringing cash registers, as is the case in China.
Ok, I can understand your mindset. So you think that slavery is good for
China. Fine. But it's still a bad thing.
Are you claiming that China is not a Communist country and their people
are freer that here in the US? Maybe you missed Obama's speech, which the
Chinese people also missed due to government censorship.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 14, 8:54 pm, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What a goofy argument. Countless mob hits and modern terrorist attacks
>> have used multiple assassins. The reasoning is that three shooters have
>> three times the chance of success as one.
>>
>> How many were involved in the attack on Truman, David?? Look it up.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that
> any conspiracy to kill the president should -or- should not use
> multiple gunmen. What I AM saying is that it wouldn't matter if there
> was one or a hundred gunmen as long as 1) the president ended up dead
> AND 2) nobody connected with the assassination (which would include
> the gunmen) got caught.
>
> Using more than gunmen would be far less convoluted than the silly
> prior set-up of Oswald as a patsy and all the post-assassination crap
> (alleged by most conspiracies) to cover-up the conspiracy - up and
> including some mysterious hit squad that is still killing people off
> over 15 years later.
>
Maybe you missed the official CIA assassination manual that suggests
that it would be helpful to set up a patsy to take the fall so that the
conspiracy would not be as obvious.
> Kill him and vanish. Done!
Oh, you mean like Ruby killing Oswald?
>
> Then sit back and watch the investigators spin themselves into the
> ground trying to find leads.
>
Or plant stories leading to WWIII?
> So what if they find bullets. There are no guns to match them to. So
So, if you find two bullets of different calibers you would not suspect
conspiracy? Or the same caliber, but two different brand of bullets? You
do realize, I hope that Oswald was caught with two different brands of
bullets in his pockets.
> what if they find fingerprints. They have no suspects. So what if it
What if they did find fingerprints that they couldn't match to anyone?
Just ignore them.
Don't bother fingerprinting every cop and every TSBD employee to try to
eliminate them.
> is obvious that it was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen. Who are
> they? Who hired them? What was there objective in killing the
> president. No answers to ANY of those questions leads you nowhere.
>
Excellent, so why bother trying to solve any crime? It can't bring the
victim back to life so just move on and let the killer go on to kill
more and more.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Yes, everyone who talked to another person in Dealey Plaza is a suspect.
Actually I've always suspected that little old lady who calmly walks up
Elm in the opposite direction from everyone else.
BTW, there is no walkie talkie.
d.wigg
Yes we do. The U.S. was established as a representative democracy by
its' founders.
Wikipedia - "Democracy is a political government either carried out by
the people (direct democracy), or the power to govern is granted to
elected representatives (republicanism). The term is derived from the
Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "the power to the people",[1] which
was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in
the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political
systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens
following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]
"There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide
better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.
[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid
an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the
separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could
accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.[10][11]
[12]"
"Representative democracy involves the selection of government
officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is
also democratically elected is also called a democratic republic. The
most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a
majority or a plurality of the votes."
"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly
always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional
politicians."
— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary
Chuck Schuyler
> And it's worth noting that blacks in Africa, and Muslims in east
> Africa, were quite enthusiastic participants in the slave trade.
>
> But unlike Western Christians, they didn't lead the charge to abolish
> it.
>
> .John
Saudi Arabia didn't "officially" abolish slave holding/trading until
1962!
Unofficially, it continues to this day--an inconvenient truth that is
breezily overlooked by the rabid US/Israel haters in the UN.
d.wigg
Liberty & freedom are, IMO, rights of all people. I'm hard pressed to
know of any people knowingly or willingly, or by their vote as a
country, giving up their individual rights in favor of a dictatorship
or communistic control in modern times.
John McAdams
wrote:
>>
>> Communism does not allow for the belief of Unalienable Rights, among these
>> are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. �Everyone can judge for
>> themselves the merits of a Democracy vs. Communistic rule by specifying
>> which of the rights mentioned above would they choose to do without? �
>> Although, under Communistic rule, you wouldn't even get to choose which
>> rights you would be willing to live without. �This debate can only occur
>> in a Democracy where we are free to discuss such topics openly without
>> fear of reprisal. �Under no threat, it is easy to compare & equate the
>> merits of Communism to those of Democracy. �"It won't work everywhere and
>> the middle east is probably one of those spots." �Unalienable Rights are
>> just that, it is right of the people in those countries to decide, through
>> elections how they will be governed, rather than the control they had been
>> under with Saddam Hussein & the Baathists in Iraq & under the Taliban in
>> Afghanistan. Whether they succeed or not with a Democracy, these people
>> still have Unalienable Rights, that previously were being kept from them
>> by their oppressive governments. �Let's not debate the fact that they were
>> oppressive to it's people.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>If those values are not important to a country, who are we to say that
>must have a democracy?
>
>
I think you meant to say "if those values are not important to the
thugs running a squalid dictatorship, who are we to say that the
people get a vote?"
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
davidemerling
> > is obvious that it was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen. Who are
> > they? Who hired them? What was there objective in killing the
> > president. No answers to ANY of those questions leads you nowhere.
>
> Excellent, so why bother trying to solve any crime? It can't bring the
> victim back to life so just move on and let the killer go on to kill
> more and more.
I'm not saying you don't try. But all crime investigations, if unsolved,
reach a point whereby they become so cold, it hardly matters any more. Or,
they run into so many deadends, they make the practical decision to cease
wasting resources (i.e. tax dollars) to solve a crime this appears to be
unsolvable - even if they were afforded the luxury of unlimited time with
an unlimited budget.
There are plenty of unsolved crimes languishing in cold case files.
What I'm saying is that the Kennedy assassination plot (if one existed)
did not need to concentrate so intently on framing Oswald for a crime he
didn't commit. That is actually very risky because if you get caught
framing him, that is just another way to have the conspiracy unravel.
There is no need to take a risk like that.
Isolate all the risk taking to the shooting. Shoot the president (with as
many gunmen as are deemed necessary) and get away ... and leave it at
that. Do not be concerned about any bullets left behind. Do not be
concerned about how obvious it was that he was hit multiple times from
multiple directions. JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Thalia
>
> Isolate all the risk taking to the shooting. Shoot the president (with as
> many gunmen as are deemed necessary) and get away ... and leave it at
> that. Do not be concerned about any bullets left behind. Do not be
> concerned about how obvious it was that he was hit multiple times from
> multiple directions. JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT!
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
The CIA were taking extreme risks at that time - and they thought they
were invincible. In their mind, any unsuccessful doings were the
result of the failings of others, ie the Bay of Pigs was JFK's fault.
They were toppling governments all over the place, assassinating
foreign leaders, and engaging in risky tactics with the Soviets.
Plus, the American public, and for the most part, the media, believed
they were the good guys.
Serious doubts about the CIA had started to grow in some minds, for
example President Truman wrote his essay on the CIA's excesses one
month after JFK's death. Rumours were sweeping Washington that the CIA
had orchestrated the assassination. You ignore such musings at your
peril.
Getting rid of Castro and his communist regime had become an obsession
with a hardcore group of CIA officers, and other like minded people in
high places. They knew they would never be caught, they might be
suspected, but they would never be caught. Everyone on the inside of
the case, including LBJ, did not want to make the CIA their enemy.
Manipulation of evidence, secrecy and fear, was used to stunning
effect.
The CIA still go to court to withhold documents relating to the
assassination - you have to ask, if it was just one little lone nut,
why?
Bud
> On 11/17/2009 1:49 PM,Budwrote:
Can you produce such a thing?
> What do you think
> should have happened to an agency which had a note from Oswald warning
> them that he would assassinate President Kennedy?
Or this?
> What do you think should
> happen to a President who was warned about terrorist attacks and did
> nothing to prevent them?
You think nothing was being done to fight terrorism before 9-11?
> >>>> Oh, they solved the case in a 150 minutes - what took them so long?
> >>>> Couldn't they cut that down to 130 minutes or maybe 80 or 70? How about 20
> >>>> or even 5?
>
> >>> It was a simple case.
>
> >> If you don't investigate it, yes.
>
> > Oswald made it so easy, a child could. Leaving pictures of himself
> > holding the murder weapon amongst his belongings, killing a cop in front
> > of a bunch of people, attack the police who tried to arrest him, what else
> > do you need?
>
> So, you think there is some way that Oswald could have planned to kill the
> cop NOT in front of a bunch of people?
Who said he planned to kill the cop? All you do is invent ideas and
attack them.
> You make a fundamental error in
> logic to claim that killing Tippit PROVES that he killed Kennedy. That's a
> Post Hoc Fallacy.
No, thats just another strawman fallacy employed by you, I never said it
PROVES anything. To a CTer, it wouldn`t even indicate anything, which is
why they are generally poor candidates to do any investigating at all.
No, I did some searching for "Cox`s Fort Worth", got a few recent
companies. Not unusual for a hardware store not to be still operating this
long after the event. Another possibility is that he had the cardboard to
shim up the scope on his rifle. It is an odd item to have in his pocket,
people tend to keep items useful to them in their pockets. Hard to see how
he would keep it to remind him of "Cox`s", it isn`t a hard name to
remember. Certainly he had opportunity to discard it. Maybe Oswald kept it
as a "let them figure it out" object.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks like a walkie talkie to me. Don't do what the Lone Nutters do and
seperate evidence so it looks inconsequential on its own when it is the
totality of evidence that is significant. BTW, I find TUM's testimony at
the HSCA completely and utterly unbelievable. Every time I read it, I
think, are they havin a laugh?? Especially the "they did shot them folks"
comment, apparently said by dark complected man to TUM. Please, stop!!!
tomnln
Read the CIA's own Inspector General's Report.
HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/I-G.htm
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acacf9fe-10c0-47dd...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
davidemerling
> The Failure at the Bay of Pigs was the TOTAL fault of the CIA ! ! !
Hey - we agree on something!
But, rightfully, Kennedy took responsibility for it. He was the
president and he had the authority to stop the invasion. He nearly
did.
This event, more than any other, resulted in Kennedy being a little
more skeptical about any military advice he received and to rely more
heavily on his PERSONAL evaluation of situations. This is why the
Cuban Missile Crisis played out the way it did. Kennedy handled things
HIS way and ignored the advice of many of his advisers.
History seems to indicate that Kennedy's way was the wiser route.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> The Failure at the Bay of Pigs was the TOTAL fault of the CIA ! ! !
>
I agree 100% except that JFK was wrong to go along with it.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 18, 1:45 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2009 9:17 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 4:09 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2009 11:59 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The plan was not to start the shooting from the grassy knoll. That shot
>>>>>> was not supposed to be taken unless the TSBD shooter had failed, which he
>>>>>> did.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> yes, I agree, this is what the dark complected man was indicating -
>>>>> hand up as JFK was not mortally wounded.
>>
>>>> Silly. So, in your mind everyone who was waving at the President was
>>>> sending a secret signal to the shooters? His hand was up before Kennedy
>>>> was shot. Stop falling for silly ideas.
>>
>>> Sorry, the wave idea is not a concrete one, but I suspect this guy,
>>> due to his funny wave, his actions afterwards, his chat to TUM, and
>>> his disappearance afterwards, plus the photos of him with a walkie
>>> talkie. Strange.
>>
>> Yes, everyone who talked to another person in Dealey Plaza is a suspect.
>> Actually I've always suspected that little old lady who calmly walks up
>> Elm in the opposite direction from everyone else.
>> BTW, there is no walkie talkie.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Looks like a walkie talkie to me. Don't do what the Lone Nutters do and
No, it looks nothing like a 1963 era walkie talkie.
> seperate evidence so it looks inconsequential on its own when it is the
> totality of evidence that is significant. BTW, I find TUM's testimony at
I don't care if you think he was some type of conspirator. Fine. But
don't fabricate things to make him fit a theory.
> the HSCA completely and utterly unbelievable. Every time I read it, I
Well, maybe you don't know Robert Cutler, but I did and he was convinced
they picked a stooge and not the real TUM to testify to the HSCA. He's
sure it wasn't the same umbrella. Of course the story is silly, but so
are some theories like the dart launching. I can see the guy as a nutty
protestor, but not as an assassin.
I was particularly incensed by the hoaxing done by Stokes and the
staffer pretending it was really a weapon and then disproving it by
intentionally opening it too far. Done for laughs.
> think, are they havin a laugh?? Especially the "they did shot them folks"
> comment, apparently said by dark complected man to TUM. Please, stop!!!
A lot of people said dumb things that day. Doesn't prove they were in on
it. Any more than Milteer.
Anthony Marsh
Silly speculation. The scope did not need shims until it was damaged. We
don't know when it was damaged, but cardboard would not work.
> people tend to keep items useful to them in their pockets. Hard to see how
> he would keep it to remind him of "Cox`s", it isn`t a hard name to
> remember. Certainly he had opportunity to discard it. Maybe Oswald kept it
> as a "let them figure it out" object.
>
Gee, you are not trying hard enough. Don't you remember the Rosenberg ring
of spies at Los Alamos? One favorite trick of the KGB was to have the
agent identify himself with a piece of cardboard torn from a box then
given the other agent to match as proof of how he was.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>
>> Isolate all the risk taking to the shooting. Shoot the president (with as
>> many gunmen as are deemed necessary) and get away ... and leave it at
>> that. Do not be concerned about any bullets left behind. Do not be
>> concerned about how obvious it was that he was hit multiple times from
>> multiple directions. JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT!
>>
>> David Emerling
>> Memphis, TN
>
> The CIA were taking extreme risks at that time - and they thought they
> were invincible. In their mind, any unsuccessful doings were the
> result of the failings of others, ie the Bay of Pigs was JFK's fault.
> They were toppling governments all over the place, assassinating
> foreign leaders, and engaging in risky tactics with the Soviets.
>
> Plus, the American public, and for the most part, the media, believed
> they were the good guys.
>
> Serious doubts about the CIA had started to grow in some minds, for
> example President Truman wrote his essay on the CIA's excesses one
> month after JFK's death. Rumours were sweeping Washington that the CIA
> had orchestrated the assassination. You ignore such musings at your
> peril.
>
> Getting rid of Castro and his communist regime had become an obsession
> with a hardcore group of CIA officers, and other like minded people in
> high places. They knew they would never be caught, they might be
> suspected, but they would never be caught. Everyone on the inside of
Caught? You mean for assassinating Kennedy, not Castro. No one would
"catch" the CIA for assassinating Castro.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 17, 8:52 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> is obvious that it was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen. Who are
>>> they? Who hired them? What was there objective in killing the
>>> president. No answers to ANY of those questions leads you nowhere.
>>
>> Excellent, so why bother trying to solve any crime? It can't bring the
>> victim back to life so just move on and let the killer go on to kill
>> more and more.
>
> I'm not saying you don't try. But all crime investigations, if unsolved,
> reach a point whereby they become so cold, it hardly matters any more. Or,
Right, so you've never picked up a newspaper or turned on the TV to learn
about a 40 year old cold case which was recently solved and prosecuted.
You think every case should be dismissed after a few days if no one
confesses? Just let the killer roam free to do it over and over again?
> they run into so many deadends, they make the practical decision to cease
> wasting resources (i.e. tax dollars) to solve a crime this appears to be
> unsolvable - even if they were afforded the luxury of unlimited time with
> an unlimited budget.
>
So, in your mind it is better to pay the Zapruder family $16M instead of
using that money to solve the JFK assassination? The DOJ couldn't even
find $50,000 to redo the acoustical studies? While $80B is taken out of
the Federal Reserve Bank and simply disappears?
> There are plenty of unsolved crimes languishing in cold case files.
>
> What I'm saying is that the Kennedy assassination plot (if one existed)
> did not need to concentrate so intently on framing Oswald for a crime he
We don't need to government to prove that it was a conspiracy.
> didn't commit. That is actually very risky because if you get caught
> framing him, that is just another way to have the conspiracy unravel.
> There is no need to take a risk like that.
They do every day.
>
> Isolate all the risk taking to the shooting. Shoot the president (with as
> many gunmen as are deemed necessary) and get away ... and leave it at
If you are talking about risk, why risk shooting at all? Just poison him
and everyone will think it was a natural death. Remember how successful
the KGB was with Viktor Yushchenko? Remember how successful the CIA was
with its SEVERAL attempts to poison Castro?
> that. Do not be concerned about any bullets left behind. Do not be
> concerned about how obvious it was that he was hit multiple times from
> multiple directions. JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT!
>
Jeez, they WERE caught, red-handed, and got away by flashing their genuine
Secret Service identification.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>>> are those wanting to take it, from it's citizens. Civilian deaths are
>>>>> obviously a cost in trying to preserve freedom during times of war. No
>>>>> only to the wars fought by the U.S.. Many millions more were killed by
>>>>> the communist victors, yet you do not make any mention of this (they were
>>>>> non-conformers or anti- communist so their lives do matter?). Nor do you
>>>>> mention the millions killed under prior communist rule in the U.S.S.R.,
>>>>> not a perfect country but it would be an error to try to equate its'
>>>>> communist or marxist ruled nations. The U.S. has a history helping other
>>>>> countries when in need whether it be in humanitarian terms or by use of
>>>>> its' military to preserve democracy or liberty of its' citizens. If you
>>>>> prefer to "cherry pick" U.S. history, go ahead, it won't be the first
>>>>> time. "Real perspective is required to understand such things, not a
>>>>> blind belief in your country's moral superiority". This quote is perfect
>>>>> blame America first ideology.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>> What is so bad about communism and who makes us the judge of what kind of
>>>> government countries should have? If they want to br communist or Markist,
>>>> let them. You can see how well our attempt to foist democracy on the rest
>>>> of the world is working. It won't work everywhere and the middle east is
>>>> probably one of those spots.
>>
>>>> JB
>>
>>> Communism does not allow for the belief of Unalienable Rights, among these
>>> are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone can judge for
>>> themselves the merits of a Democracy vs. Communistic rule by specifying
>>> which of the rights mentioned above would they choose to do without?
>>> Although, under Communistic rule, you wouldn't even get to choose which
>>> rights you would be willing to live without. This debate can only occur
>>> in a Democracy where we are free to discuss such topics openly without
>>> merits of Communism to those of Democracy. "It won't work everywhere and
>>> the middle east is probably one of those spots." Unalienable Rights are
>>> just that, it is right of the people in those countries to decide, through
>>> elections how they will be governed, rather than the control they had been
>>> Afghanistan. Whether they succeed or not with a Democracy, these people
>>> still have Unalienable Rights, that previously were being kept from them
>>> by their oppressive governments. Let's not debate the fact that they were
>>> oppressive to it's people.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> If those values are not important to a country, who are we to say that
>> must have a democracy?
>>
>> JB
>
> know of any people knowingly or willingly, or by their vote as a
> country, giving up their individual rights in favor of a dictatorship
> or communistic control in modern times.
>
They do all the time. Look at 2000.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. It never said Democracy. It is a representative Republic.
Coondog
>
> The CIA were taking extreme risks at that time - and they thought they
> were invincible. In their mind, any unsuccessful doings were the
> result of the failings of others, ie the Bay of Pigs was JFK's fault.
> They were toppling governments all over the place, assassinating
> foreign leaders,
I hardly consider Iran and Guatemala as being all over the place so please
list these other governments that the CIA had overthrown at the time. A
list of other assassinations would be nice also.
and engaging in risky tactics with the Soviets.
>
> Plus, the American public, and for the most part, the media, believed
> they were the good guys.
>
> Serious doubts about the CIA had started to grow in some minds, for
> example President Truman wrote his essay on the CIA's excesses one
> month after JFK's death. Rumours were sweeping Washington that the CIA
> had orchestrated the assassination. You ignore such musings at your
> peril.
>
> Getting rid of Castro and his communist regime had become an obsession
> with a hardcore group of CIA officers, and other like minded people in
> high places.
I assume you include the Kennedy brothers in this group of like minded
people? You are aware that Bobby ran Operation Mongoose and many think he
also pushed the CIA in their attempts to assassinate Castro?
The brothers got a lot of egg on their face at the BOP and everyone would
have been better off if they had just wiped it off and moved on. I
believe the Missile Crisis was a product of Kennedy’s policy of
harassment of Castro after the BOP.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> The Failure at the Bay of Pigs was the TOTAL fault of the CIA ! ! !
>
> Read the CIA's own Inspector General's Report.
>
> HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/I-G.htm
>
The Commander in Chief doesn’t get to whine that the fault of a
failure lies with a subordinate. The buck stops at his desk.
As David points out, JFK stood up like a man and accepted
responsibility.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 17, 1:10 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What is it you are challenging?
>>> 1. That 3 shooters do not have a greater chance of success than 1
>>> shooter?
>>> 2. That 90% chance of success for a single shooter is too high (that
>>> was a guess). What - you want to use a different number?
>>> 3. That, given a 90% chance of success for a single shooter, that 3
>>> shooters would only have 1-in-1000 chance of failure?
>>
>> There are a lot of false assumptions in your scenario and wrong formulae.
>>
> How can you have a false assumption when you are speaking
> hypothetically?
>
I am not speaking hypothetically. I am pointing out facts.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 16, 11:10 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2009 3:18 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> communisim? Why don't you ask the countries that had been part of the
>>> Soviet Union. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't it. It was such a
>>
>> What's so bad about capitalism? Why don't you ask the millions of Native
>> Americans who were slaughtered by the US?
>
> operates on transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. It
> started out well when the Dutch bought Manhattan for $24.
>
You mean when they stole it. You are talking about a theoretical ideal,
much as Socialists talk about the ideal Communism as Utopia. The reality
is much different.
>> Why don't you ask the millions
>> of blacks who suffered as slaves. Gee, that really worked out well, didn't
>> it??
>>
>
> Again, that was thievery. Slaves were not giving their services
> voluntarily in exchange of compensation which they felt was just.
>
Right. Capitalism at work.
>>> total failure it collapsed upon itself. Communism can only survive through
>>> totalitarianism. Free peoples will never knowingly choose communism. They
>>
>> Capitalism can only survive through totalitarianism. Free people will
>> never knowingly choose capitalism? Give all their money to Bernie Maddoff?
>>
>
> Free market capitalism was the system upon which the founding fathers
> started this country and the knew fell well what they were choosing. Your
Not exactly. Are you claiming the British model was not capitalism?
> reference to Bernie Madddoff is another example of thievery, not
> capitalism.
>
>>> can be duped into allowing a communist regime to come into power and by
>>> the time they realize what they bargained for, it is too late to do
>>> anything about it. Even in Red China (why did we quit using that term?)
>>
>> Too late? Well they finally did do something about it if you didn't
>> notice it.
>>
>>> where they have accepted a certain measure of capitalism, they still must
>>> rule with an iron hand as they demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, where
>>> liberty was given a breath of life only to be brutally crushed.
>>
>> We no longer call it Red China because it is now our largest trading
>> partner and creditor. A handful of Americans become super rich by using
>> Chinese slave labor.
>
> Are the Chinese workers being force to perform labor against their will or
> are the willingly performing the work for wages which are acceptable to
> them? The former would be thievery and the latter is the free market at
> work.
>
They are in slave labor camps, for simply saying the word Democracy or
owning a Bible.
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <50f98f4c-cae6-48bd...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> davidemerling<davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 15, 11:12?pm, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually, three shooters improves the odds much better than that. If each
>>>> shooter had a 90% chance of success firing alone, there would be only 1
>>>> chance in 100 that two shooters would both miss and 1 in 1000 that three
>>>> shooters would miss. Three shooters would have 100 times the probability
>>>> of success as a single shooter. Of course, that wasn't a choice Oswald
>>>> could make. He had to go it alone.
>>>
>>> Would you mind sharing the evidence with us that convinced you of that?
>>
>> The evidence is the mathematics of the laws of probability!
>>
>> As an example, he said "If each shooter had a 90% chance of success."
>>
>> Given that probability, his statement that three shooters would only
>> have a 1-in-1000 chance of missing is accurate.
>>
>> Each shooter has a 10% chance of missing.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Without benefit of hindsight, the killers would have expected the limo
> to take evasive action and for JFK to drop down in his seat.
>
Not if the killers were professional and knew their target. They would
know that the President wore a stiff back brace and would not be ablt to
drop down in his seat.
> The natural expectation is that three shooters in different positions
> had a vastly better chance of success than one.
>
>
Duh!
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Clark
> On 11/15/2009 3:00 PM, Clark wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 7:16 pm, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Let's say that there was a conspiracy.
>
>
> >> 1. Kill Kennedy.
>
> >> If this fails then whatever objective the conspiracists had in mind by
> >> terminating his administration would not be achieved.
>
> > There is no such requirement that JFK be killed. In fact, the use of
> > FMJ ammunition would indicate a plan to wound, versus kill, the
> > President.
>
> You know nothing about ballistics. FMJ ammunition is not designed to
> just wound instead of kill. It is designed to wound or kill humanely, as
> opposed to Dum-Dum bullets which are designed to cause horrific wounds
> sure to stop the enemy in his tracks.
You have two wounds that disagree with you. Neither the back wound to JFK
or JBC were fatal owing to the use of FMJ ammunition. Meanwhile, Ruby's
one dum-dum round killed Oswald. Quoting people who know more than you:
Martin Jangowski: An FMJ (opposed to a softpoint or hollowpoint bullet)
doesn't expand inside a soft ('soft'= human) target. Even when hitting
bones it is will bend and deform, but not expand. On the other side,
softpoint and hollowpoints will expand and/or fragment.
The landwar convention from The Hague doesn't allow fragmenting bullets
for purposes of war, so every army in the world uses FMJ bullets. Usually
a hit from a conventional FMJ doesn't kill, but leaves a clean hole. No
hunter will use FMJ, since they want to kill, not to wound.
Clark Walker: This, in theory is better for two reasons -- one, it creates
a situation where instead of creating a dead enemy soldier it creates a
wounded one, which must be cared for by his buddy, thus taking two men out
of action with each hit. The second reason behind the idea is that it is
more humane to wound than to kill. This type of ammunition was agreed upon
by the Geneva convention, and both sides of the vietnam war agreed to it's
use. The irony is of course that men calmly agree on rules for
slaughtering one another and then stick to them.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/ammo.html
>
>
>
> >> 2. Do not get caught.
>
> >> This is critical! Even if the president is killed, the objective is
> >> completely undermined if it is discovered WHO was responsible for the
> >> assassination.
>
> > Unless you want to direct the assassination (attempt) at Castro - In
> > which case you'll have to leave some evidence behind to that effect
> > (i.e. Oswald).
>
> The CIA had propaganda assets in place who immediately claimed that
> Oswald was working for Castro.
>
As did the DRE.
>
>
> >> If either of the above two objectives are not successfully obtained -
> >> it is an abysmal failure.
>
> > Your inititial argument is flawed as an "abysmal failure".
>
> > There is an historical precedent that counters everything you say. In
> > 1898 the American battleship, Maine, blew up in Havana harbor due to
> > the apparent negligence of its commanding officer. Yet it was claimed
> > the accident was deliberately perpetrated by Spain, resulting in the
> > invasion of Cuba by the US which was looking for any excuse to invade
> > anyway.
>
> Wasn't it mainly Hearst and his yellow journalism which stoked the
> conspiracy rumors then?
It was the Sampson Commission which officially concluded the Maine had
been attacked. Hearst, like Hoover with his December preliminary
report, sought to direct the findings.
>
> > In 1963, anyone interested in overthrowing Castro only has to have JFK
> > shot by a "Castro agent" to have the US ready to invade Cuba all over
> > again, using the exact same excuse. Was there an effort made to make
> > it appear that Oswald was a Castro agent? If so, you have created a
> > scenario in which JFK must be shot (not necessairly killed) and
> > evidence left behind (Oswald caught) blaming Castro.
>
> Please, don't try to create a theory that they only intended to wound
> the President.
>
Then you need to explain the use of FMJ ammunition by a serious
assassin intending to kill the President.
Ruby knew how to do it.
just a thought.
::Clark::
tomnln
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:806bd651-64b6-47bc...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice to Finally see that you're "Teachable".
Because the CIA Lied to JFK about the B O P, JFK Fired the 3 top officials
of the CIA.
1. Alan Dulles who later served on the Warren Commission. (witholding
iformation)
2. Richard M. Bissell of my home State of Farmington CT. (Father of B
OP/U-2)
3. General Charles Cabel (brother of Dallas Mayor).
Here's what you SNIPPED>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/I-G.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------