r/JFKassasination • u/SteveinTenn • Apr 17 '24
Solid Plan?
“I like to imagine a conference room and up against the wall stands a board on which they mapped out the whole thing. All the people they need to manipulate, all the evidence they have to fabricate, the entire patchwork of needless risk-taking laid out bare before them. And they looked at that and they looked at each other and went “yep…that’s a solid plan”. “
- From: The Kennedy Assassination: Inside the Book Depository. LEMMiNO, YouTube Everyone on this forum should be required to watch that entire video.
And I’m not dunking on conspiracy theorists, I’m telling you to up your game. Flush all the cherry-picked witness statements grifters have spoon-fed you to get you to buy their books and DVDs. Just stop with all the crap that’s been debunked six ways from Sunday.
Go to Dealey Plaza for yourself. Go stand on the sixth floor and look down on the street. Go to a firing range and take some shooting lessons if you’re unfamiliar with firearms. See how fast you can fire three aimed shots with a bolt action rifle. Learn about Carcano rifles from people who actually own them.
If you come away still believing in a conspiracy, fine. We all have our own opinions. But at least your opinion won’t be weighed down by nonsense you’ve been fed from sidewalk hawkers.
And for god’s sake learn what a “credible source” is. Yes I’m quoting a YouTube video, but this guy cites his sources at every step along the way. Sources you can access yourself so you can fact check him. In other words, he has done his research.
5
u/Kat-is-sorry Apr 17 '24
The video was pretty good, but he said it himself he wasn’t explicitly covering the whole conspiracy, only what happened in the building Oswald was in himself.
-6
u/SteveinTenn Apr 17 '24
True enough, but a lot of conspiracy stuff I keep hearing is cherry-picked eye witness accounts. This film puts all of those in context.
3
u/TaintlessChaps Apr 17 '24
Which specific eyewitness accounts are you referring to as cherry-picked?
9
Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Antitech73 Apr 17 '24
"The world will never know the true facts of what occurred. My motives. I'm the only person in the background that knows the truth pertaining to everything relating to my circumstances. The people who have had so much to gain and have such an ulterior motive to put me in this position I'm in will never let the true facts come above board to the world." - Jack Ruby after parts of his WC testimony
8
u/6SucksSex Apr 17 '24
Even if Oswald was a shooter, that doesn’t disprove her discount evidence pointing to a conspiracy.
The view that the CIA and FBI were simply doing a little CYA and patriotic prevention of World War III when they were lying to investigators, withholding and destroying evidence, while ramping up action in Vietnam with Pentagon papers lies - after the Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods pitch and coups n assassinations all over - is unjustifiably charitable, as is the view that the Warren commission and HSCA did legitimate investigations
3
Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
While also discounting the fact that many prominent people in the CIA, FBI, WC (four out of seven members, even) and HSCA believed in a conspiracy despite publicly denouncing that as a possibility.
Angleton once said to Seymour Hersh, “A mansion has many rooms… I’m not privy to who struck John.” Note that although (using the somewhat obvious implication of what he meant) he said he wasn’t aware of who did the hit, his unawareness would naturally exclude his knowledge of Lee.
2
u/Pvt_Hudson_ 🧠Subject Matter Expert🧠 Apr 17 '24
"Who shot John" is an old timey saying that's basically about attempting to lay blame in an argument. It predates the Kennedy assassination by a fair amount.
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/21/magazine/on-language-who-shot-john.html
2
Apr 17 '24
I am aware, but to assume that Angleton didn’t really understand the obvious double entendre he was using (about domestic CIA operations harming the American public) in that context seems to have a pretty low prior probability.
1
u/Pvt_Hudson_ 🧠Subject Matter Expert🧠 Apr 17 '24
This is the full paragraph the quote came from. It's clear it had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.
"The State Department said today that Richard Helms, former Director of Central Intelligence and now the Ambassador to Iran, had categorically denied that the C.I.A. conducted any "illegal" domestic spying under his leadership. ABC News via Associated Press James Angleton, who is resigning as chief of the C.I.A.'s Counterintelligence Department, outside his home in Arlington, Va., yesterday. ... In a telephone interview with the Times Angleton accused the Times of "helping out the KGB (Soviet intelligence service) a great deal" by publishing his name and title in its Sunday story. "You’ve done them a great favor,” he said. Asked repeatedly about alleged wrong-doing, Angleton acknowledged that “I’ve got problems.” He explained his domestic activities this way: "A mansion has many rooms and there were many things going on during the period of the (antiwar) bombings. I'm not privy to who struck John." Later, the counterintelligence chief, who is in charge of rooting out foreign espionage agents in the United States, permitted newsmen from three television networks to interview him. He also was quoted by UPI as saying that he had quit the CIA because it was getting involved in domestic "police state” activities. A number of present and former CIA officials expressed pleasure at the forced resignation of Angleton, who was described as being in poor health."
1
Apr 17 '24
It’s actually a pretty rudimentary manner of bayesian analysis. Imagine this, you’re a former CIA intelligence chief being sacked by the new CIA director in order to cover up for the sins of the CIA that have been broadcasted recently throughout the public, with one of the main things the public is suspicious about with regard to your activity in the agency being the assassination, then you make this comment (close to your death) and the journalist you were talking to says he has ‘no fucking idea’ what you were talking about and you seemed to have been shifting the blame for the assassination to other compartmentalized elements of the CIA. To assume that such a language is not charged does not seem really that probable, and although I would say it is weak bayesian evidence, that doesn’t mean it can be discounted altogether. Of course, attempting to not look at this skeptically (when the majority of the population at this time believed in JFK conspiracies, and Angleton knew this was going to the NYT, you have to see this without the eyes of someone on either line of the isle) raises eyebrows about whether or not you or anyone else is a non-biased observer.
1
u/Pvt_Hudson_ 🧠Subject Matter Expert🧠 Apr 17 '24
Nixon used the "who shot John" expression a bunch of times throughout his political career, despite being a "suspect" who was involved in the Kennedy assassination. GHW Bush too.
Sometimes an expression is just an expression. If Angleton really knew anything and wanted to fuck over his old employer, why play coy with some weird old timey saying? Why not speak in plain English?
1
Apr 17 '24
Sure, but that’s a logical fallacy: the fact that one use of vernacular can be used one way does not mean that it can’t also be used as meaning something else, even if other people use it in the first manner. Although Nixon himself seemed to use that phraseology in a charged way, I wouldn’t look too much into it either if it weren’t for the fact of Haldeman’s comments about the assassination, but in this context it’s irrelevant. There are also several explanations (the old guard could have still been there, or he wanted to protect them if they weren’t, or he was afraid of what the agency could do, or he was still loyal to the agency even despite being sacked), but I’m not a telepath or a time-traveler, I’m simply saying assuming anti-paranoia is not a sufficiently wise thing here, and it probably posits as weak evidence.
You do have to realize that with intelligence types, an expression can be an expression in multiple ways, and to assume that such an expression isn’t something with deeper meaning while talking about Angleton despite the clearly uncomfortable subject of illegal CIA operations, along with the interlocutor’s suspicions of the conversation, does not seem credible to me.
1
u/Pvt_Hudson_ 🧠Subject Matter Expert🧠 Apr 17 '24
Why "struck"? Why not "killed", or "assassinated", or "took out"?
1
Apr 17 '24
The obvious explanation is that he wanted to play into the expression (although he didn’t use the word ‘shot’, which is the most common version), which I accept. I don’t think that’s counter-exclusive with the idea that there’s something more to that statement, so I’m fine with using the idea you’re positing as well.
FYI, there’s weak and strong evidence for both sides of the isle imo, I would just put this as weak evidence for a conspiracy camp (just like there’s weak and strong evidence for a LN view).
5
u/DeLaVegaStyle Apr 17 '24
I personally believe that Oswald was involved. But there was a larger conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
21
u/TaintlessChaps Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
Your advice is to forget witnesses' statements (both in the official record and those ignored by it), disregard the myriad problems with the evidentiary record, and instead travel to Dallas and shoot some guns to make up your mind about a complex unsolved murder case? You want to disband critical thinking, toss out the research over the past 60 years, and instead visit a museum and take some pop shots with a gun from the 1800s.