NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/conspira/jfk/3850

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 8.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 01:02:17 CST
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: reposted theory - Small mob hit + cover-ups by non-killers = big c
References:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 122

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Philip Galanter) says:
>
>organizations will often react to stress...i.e. the cover-up is often much
>larger than needed, anticipated, or originally planned....
>
>Oswald, a marginal personality, was involved in a small conspiracy to
>kill JFK.  This plot was mostly mob inspired, with perhaps a few fourth
>rate CIA hanger's on and cuban freedom fighters left over from the
>anti-Castro plots, and perhaps a Dallas cop or two.  Oswald didn't realize
>he was the patsy until around the time JFK was shot, and was later also
>killed by a mob hit.
>
>The conspiracy had little to do directly with intelligence agencies, but
>multiple cover-ups, many independent of each other, were executed to:
>
   [a lot of excellent points omitted. read original post]

>The "power control group" theory is simply to big to be true...it would
>simply collapse of its own weight...besides, if the bad guys were really
>that smart, resourceful, powerful, etc. etc. they could have done much
>better...e.g. rig Air Force One to crash, use an undetectable poison,
>release pictures of Kennedy in bed with Marilyn Monroe, etc. etc.
>
>It is the wake of the multiple cover-ups and goof-ups by the non-killers
>that creates the illusion of a large scale conspiracy.
>
Phil, I couldn't agree with you more.  And it's a damn shame that someone
hasn't written about this scenario.  At least, I have never come across it.
When many former anti-WC people turn into pro-WC, its precisely on this
point that they turn.  They come to the same realization that I came to in
the 70's.  How in the world could you keep a major large conspiracy quiet
over a reasonable length of time?  Since you mention that you were living
in this times as I did, you know that so much dirt was dug up on the FBI
 and CIA in the 70's on what they were doing in the 60's.  This is usually
used as a banner cry that there has to be more behind the veil and complicity
in the JFK killing is there also.  While watching those that blew the
whistle and "defected" from these bodies, I came to believe that nothing
that big could have been kept behind those veils for so long.  The closer
I ventured into the case, the more I was convinced that there were clear
reasons for the coverup, reasons that you have stated in detail in your
post, reasons that had nothing to do with a conspiracy to kill JFK.  If one
places oneself in LBJ's position, taking over the presidency,  I can't see
how anyone could not come to the conclusion that whatever they suspected,
whatever they knew that we don't know,  LBJ and his advisors had no choice
but to coverup any conspiratorial traces.  And this shows up clearly to any
person who ventures into the 26 vols. of evidence and the revealed secret
WC sessions.  They were deathly afraid of finding anything that smelled
even remotely like LHO was not alone.  I think Todd wrote not long ago
that the WC didn't ignore evidence of conspiracy; they dealt with it in
a special section in the report.  If anything is clear in the 26vols., it
is that whenever a question could be asked that screamed for asking, that
whenever evidence pointed to more than one person,  they avoided asking
those questions or treating that evidence seriously.
  A diservice has been perpetrated by a lot of the anti-WC authors by
showing some irregularity in the evidence chain and either leaving the
reader to try to picture a conspiracy that comprises enough people to
populate a small country or blantantly stating the same.  And they leave
themselves open to pro-WC arguers like Joel Grant who states adamantly
for what reason would this person lie?  The problem is that there are
powerful, clear and much more reasonable reasons for any of these people
to lie.  They were pressured by their superiors who were in turn pressured
by their superiors, ending at the top with pressure by the circumstances.
  When I conceived this, as you did, I began to wonder whether LHO was
alone in that 6th floor window.  It made me look deeper into what the
anti-WC authors were saying as compared to what was in the record.
What I found was that they were still correct in pointing out that
the investigation steered clear of conspiratorial situations that cried
out in vain to be looked into and never were.
  I confess that for years in the 70's, I was not convinced of a Grassy
Knoll shooter.  I thought that a few witnesses could have been mistaken
for a variety of reasons.  I only had read of a witness here  or there and
it was only later that I found that the percentage of witnesses that
identified a GK shooter was greater than half of all those identified as
being present.  This pushed me to read their testimonies.  As a whole they
were not confused or vague in their descriptions.  Then the old videos
came out again, showing them speaking about their experience.  These people
were not the kind of people you reject as flighty or inconsequential.
They were solid, earthy people who were quite adamant about what they saw.
They were in perfectly good positions to see what they saw unhampered.
One can pose whether a GK shooter missed as the HSCA posed or argue for
tampering of the medical evidence, it doesn't matter.  It is clear as day
to me that there was someone there and that constitutes a conspiracy.
The main argument against this is so weak as to be laughable.  The pro
side argues that no casings, person or gun was found.  Without getting into
any complex counterarguments, you can basically respond with the casings
were picked up, the rifle was shoved into a car trunk and the person just
started flashing phony SS credentials.  Please explain why this person
was there?  No one has done so.
  So, we are left with a core conspiracy and a large, many faceted coverup
which the anti-WC authors continuously twist into an unbelievable huge
conspiracy that reasonable people can't have confidence in.  And it becomes
a target for anyone lacking imagination who merely ask simple questions.
In the mean time, the traces of what really happened grow so cold that I
despair we will ever find out the truth.  If that core conspiracy has a
tight vertical connection to anyone at a high level public position, I don't
think there will ever be any evidence left.  All we can do is speculate on
that level.  The immediate traces in Dallas and perhaps New Orleans
probably comprise leads and people that are now long dead.  Save for
a miraculous breakthrough, I despair that I will not see anything in my
lifetime to shed light on the case.  I have a glimmer of hope that, while
endeavoring to coverup, the agencies preserved enough pieces of the puzzle
locked away from public viewing, that may one day be given the light of day
and have enough weight to clarify who was involved.
  The scenario that you and I have come to believe and no one has written
upon, has sometimes teased me with thoughts of writing my own book.  But
I have come to the conclusion that those who might be interested in its
proposal would probably not buy the book and those who are interested in
wild sensational speculation would not even give it a glance.  I would
be marked as another CIA disinformation peddler.
PS. as long as I am again being verbose, I would like to point out that
    if the core was mainly Mafia as you posted and as wide spread public
    exposure to Raggano's story is pointing to, then it's going to be
    very hard for anyone to defend Hoover's innocence if this is true.
    Davis, Moldea and others have uncovered scads of formerly secret
    FBI memos and docs that show that Hoover and his staff had these
    Mafia guys bugged to the teeth.  Only by extraordinary circumstances
    could Hoover have missed these guys plotting the assassination.
    If they knew, then he knew and didn't lift a finger to stop it.
    And that gives us a clear way of interpreting the FBI part of the
    coverup which Mark North writes about in his "Act of Treason".

ALAN ROGERS