(PART 2)


>>> "Are you going to tell us some CTs [conspiracy theorists] think JFK was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate himself?" <<<


Guess so. After all, this silly book was published wasn't it?

>>> "Nonsense. Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow the law." Did she? No?" <<<

And Jackie didn't say "Take JFK to Walter Reed" either, did she? So
the CT after-the-shooting at-the-autopsy cover-up plot that many, many
CTers advocate requires Jacqueline Kennedy to be involved too.

Or: it requires another layer of PURE LUCK for those amazing plotters.
Lookie..."They" just GOT LUCKY once again when Jackie said "Bethesda".

Yes, JFK was a Navy man, so the plotters could have guessed right on
this one fairly easily. But how do they "control" Jackie AND O'Donnell
AND O'Brien AND Kilduff AND on and on?

How do "they" control all of these people who could have nixed a
Washington autopsy at any point in time?

They just GOT LUCKY (again), right?

Like I said, the horoscope for "Assassination Plotters" revealed this on
the morning of November 22, 1963:


>>> "More nonsense." <<<

You're picking up [Anthony] Marsh's habits. The "N" word is his favorite too.

>>> "O'Donnell was not involved in a conspiracy. The more you try to say other people think he was, the more silly your theory becomes. Your premises are all wrong." <<<

You still don't get my main point at all, do you?

Of course O'Donnell was not part of any conspiracy. Which means, by
default, that if the general type of conspiracy exists that many CTers
advocate, the plotters were the luckiest bums since Lucky Lindy in '27.

>>> "If JFK wanted the bubble top to stay on, it would have stayed on. If Jackie wanted the body to remain in Dallas, it would have remained in Dallas." <<<

Right. Which also indicates the whole day of Nov. 22 revolved around

I.E.: Nothing is being "controlled" by any evil forces on Nov. 22.
Jackie, O'Donnell, O'Brien, and Connally prove that to be the case.

Are you starting to get the whole drift of my "Happenstance" thread?
Or should I get Umbrella Man to beat it into you?


>>> "Are you now going to tell us that what JFK and JACKIE wanted was unimportant." <<<


I can only shrug. I think I will....


>>> "Do you believe O'Donnell would just walk all over JFK and Jackie?" <<<

Yet another ~shrug~ of bewilderment.

I guess you still really DON'T understand my main underlying point, do you?

Should I give up yet...or should I continue trying to talk to this brick wall
named Peter?

>>> "Then why try to pretend some people think he was, or that a conspiracy required his involvement when the facts are otherwise." <<<

If anyone is to believe anything in Oliver Stone's movie, or if they believe
anything uttered by Jim Garrison, then they have no choice but to believe
one of the following two things:

1.) Ken O'Donnell and John Connally and Jackie Kennedy must have been
part of the plot too.


2.) The plotters who were orchestrating the "Let's Kill JFK And Blame
Everything On Oswald" plot were the luckiest assholes on the planet
when the three above-named individuals did things that made the patsy
plot succeed to absolute perfection.

>>> "You are really on a wild tangent here." <<<

Another ~shrug~ needed here I see.

>>> "Trouble is NO ONE believes what you say they believe, nor is it necessary for them to believe what you say they believe to believe in a conspiracy." <<<

Depends on how deep into Absurdville a CTer wants to go. If a CTer is
in bed with Garrison or Groden or Stone (and a whole bunch of them
are), then YES such a CTer must believe in one of the two options I
offered above.

If you're in a CT camp of a lesser-kooky nature, then you're correct.
(But not by much really.)

But when I talk about "CTers", I have a habit of "aiming" my comments
at the more extreme kooks within that faction. It's a habit that's hard
to break.

And since gobs of people I've talked with DO sincerely believe that
Oliver Stone's "Triangulation Of Crossfire" craziness is the Gospel
re. the shooting scenario in Dealey Plaza...I tend, therefore, to aim
my comments at them more than the conspiracists who possess the
following mindset -- "Oswald Was A Shooter, But I Still Think There
Was A Conspiracy Even Though I Have No Bullets Or Other Hard Evidence
To Support That Belief".

>>> "More nonsense. No one needs O'Donnell to do anything. At any time his "arrangements" could have been altered by JFK or Jackie." <<<

LOL. Which is proving my MAIN POINT all the more, Pete.


>>> "Do you have a phobia over facts?" <<<

And do you have a phobia when it comes to common sense?

>>> "You mean when JFK wanted [the] bubbletop removed? You mean when Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?" <<<

More proving of my main "Happenstance, Not Conspiracy" point.

Thanks again.

>>> "The Trade Mart has nothing to do with the conspiracy." <<<

Sure it does. Per Stone's "Triangulation on Elm St." crap anyway.

If the limo wasn't headed to the Trade Mart, that Elm St. turn would
never have occurred...and Stone's/Garrison's whole PRE-PLANNED "Blame
It On The Patsy In The TSBD" and "Triangulation" theories are shot
down right there.

Garrison/Stone (and those who prop them up) definitely NEED the
luncheon site to be at the Trade Mart. Because they need the car on
Elm. Or else the shooting is much more difficult.

>>> "Oswald could have assassinated the President from any building." <<<

And could he have cleared himself as an employee from any building,

>>> "I hope Bugliosi uses better logic than you are." <<<

Do you really think that Vince Bugliosi WON'T be mentioning something
very similar in nature to what I've been saying here about "Pure Chance"
and "Happenstance" and "Those Plotters Sure As Hell Got Lucky", etc.?

If he doesn't mention a lot of stuff like that, I'll be severely disappointed,
because such arguments positively need to be made (with zeal). And such arguments, all by themselves, go a long way toward debunking many of
the conspiracy theories that have been offered up since 1963.

It seems as though you, Peter, are using CTer logic here. And that's
ALWAYS a fatal mistake.

In short -- Oswald shot the President mainly BECAUSE THE PERFECT
he could blend in with other employees and BE CLEARED AS AN EMPLOYEE,
which did occur.

The President probably lives past November 22nd if Oswald had not been
hired by Roy Truly on October 15th, 1963.

YMMV concerning that last declaration. And I will readily admit that's just
my own opinion. But since I know that Oswald was not suicidal in any
way (he proved that several times on 11/22/63; mainly on Tenth Street
when he encountered Officer Tippit), I have my doubts that he would have
attempted to kill the President if he had not been employed in a tall
building which he knew, days in advance, would overlook the motorcade

Again, allow me to repeat the proverbial "YMMV" here.

>>> "And if JFK didn't want it [the bubbletop roof on the limousine] removed?" <<<

Then he probably lives to see his 47th birthday. Or at least he's got
a much better chance of reaching it anyway. Oswald might very well
have shot through the bubbletop though; but it might have deflected a
fatal shot; nobody can know.

Plus: I also wonder if Oswald could have possibly known for certain
whether the bubbletop was bulletproof or not. Knowledge of that
important detail about the car's bubbletop roof would probably have
affected his decision to shoot, if he had seen the bubbletop on the
car as it approached the TSBD that day.

If he thought the bubbletop was bulletproof (which it wasn't of course),
there would obviously be no point in shooting at all.

>>> "And if Jackie didn't want the body moved?" <<<

Then David Lifton has to reconfigure his 700+ pages of body-stealing
idiocy. And a lot of other CTers must alter their "cover-up plots" too.
Because many CTers certainly have Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and
other military bigshots) up to no good at Bethesda.

No worries though....those same CTers can just accuse Dr. Rose of
phonying-up the autopsy, right?


>>> "A conspiracy depends on certain factors occurring in ADVANCE of the attempted assassination. If they don't, the assassination does not occur." <<<

Once again, you're proving my main point for me. Some of the important
"IN ADVANCE" stuff was done by people like Connally and O'Donnell. And
since nobody paints them as plotters...where do the CTers go from

Do you get it now?

>>> "Nonsense." <<<

Great. Marsh II.

>>> "You are looking in a rear view mirror and saying because things happened a certain way then it would have been impossible for them to happen another way with the same result." <<<

LOL. Sounds more like you're talking about the patsy-loving conspiracy
kooks here.

>>> "In other words, you are saying that if O'Donnell had not been present, the entire trip to Dallas would have unfolded differently." <<<

I'm saying that O'Donnell's decisions happened in a PERFECT way for
the so-called "plotters" who wanted things to happen in a certain
way....the exact way O'Donnell arranged them (or at least he was
deeply involved in making them happen and approving them, etc.).

And since O'Donnell was positively NOT A CONSPIRATOR ON NOV. 22....

Oh, what's the use.

Peter has put up his "I'M A BRICK WALL" sign today. So I guess I'll
just have to go around it and avoid it for now.

David Von Pein
April 2007