Conspiracy Bomb - Home



gettingrichscience
chickenmcnugget
newsandentertainment
hotlinkheaven
politicsdefined
freewebmasterarticles

The Convenient Deaths associated with the JFK Assassination Part 3

Article: 10056 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!asuvax!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <4010.27f1d606@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 16:39:50 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Lines: 33

In article <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>> Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
>> statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
>>
> The FBI interviewed 25,000 people, attempting to find everyone remotely
> involved in the case. Many people were connected who were not a threat
> to the conspirators, either because they lacked damaging information or
> they kept their mouths shut. The thing to look at is how many people died
> who had damaging information, how many were willing to share the information
> with the public, and how many of them would you expect to die during a given
> period. And, how many of those deaths would you expect to be by "natural
> causes", accidents and murders, neglecting for the moment that the first
> two causes can be faked.
The list is interesting. I think though that it points more to the convoluted
theory required to support the conspiracy. One of the implications of this
theory is that everything has gone *exactly* right for the alleged conspiracy
over the years, while all attempts to investigate it have been sidetracked, or
eliminated. What is the size of the conspiracy required to interview 25K
people, filter all their reports, exclude the "nuts" and only eliminate only
those right ones, while keeping all of the "good guys" in the police, FBI,
Congress, and Warren commission at bay and in the dark, unless all of those
groups were in on it from the beginning completely.

Look - thanks for actually posting the data - it sure indicates you're serious,
but right now....I are still skeptical. Why? See above. Forgot Alvarez
again. After Easter.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer

> those people died suspiciously? Too many for me to not be *skeptical* about
> the official version of events.
>


Article: 10057 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 18:50:44 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu><10479@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 157
In-Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu's message of 27 Mar 91 19:47:46 GMT

>If you have one death without proof of assassination,and then you find another
>death without proof of assassination, what you now have is two deaths without
>proof of assassination.
If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
If you have two such deaths, the probability that either or both were related
is higher than the probability of each being related.
>
>Pointing to "suspiciousness" as evidence has the same problem as pointing to
>deaths as evidence: in 25000 people, just like you could expect a certain
>number of deaths, you could expect a number of deaths that occur under unusual
>circumstances. You can then select those people for special consideration and
>say "look how suspicious these are" when in a group of that size you should
>really expect events that appear suspicious but have nothing behind them.
>
The selection of these people is hardly arbitrary. If other people who didn't
die lived to provide as damaging information as those who did die, we'd
have alot of evidence that was damaging to somebody. But we don't have that
because they were silenced. Let me elaborate.

Of the 25000, let's categorize as follows:

1. People who had no information to contradict official version.
2. People who had information to contradict official version.
a. those who were blunted, i.e. ignored or tricked.
b. those who changed their story.
c. those who kept their story but didn't have
threatening info to would-be conspirators.
d. those who kept their story which was damaging to would-be
conspirators.
i. those who had talked, were talking, or were about to talk.
ii. those who kept their mouths shut.

This is simplistic, but I can still make my point. Now, we have alot of
information available to suggest what kind of breakdown would be reasonable
as far as the number of people in each category. For example, most people in
Dealey Plaza who had contradictory testimony contradicted it by saying they
were sure that shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll or from behind the
picket fence, etc. These kinds of contradictions were easily dealt with by
the Warren Commission, and although they were never fully squashed, they're
not considered conclusive. Even if they were, they wouldn't threaten anyone
enough to cause a murder, since they didn't identify any people who might
have been involved. Other kinds of contradictory stories were dealt with
similarly, as documentation shows, for example, the woman who had to wait in
traffic behind a van under the Triple Underpass while a man took a long
brown bag possibly with a rifle in it and headed toward the Grassy Knoll.
(11:30am 11/22/63). Many such stories were left out of the report, or
the witnesses were not even called. There is ample evidence to suggest
that many people were convinced to change their story. So we can say that
categories 1 and 2a-c are sizeable. 2d is made up of people who have
threatening information to conspirators if they exist. We are assuming
for the moment that they do. To have threatening information means that
personal relationships are understood and verified by the witness which
connect people, with critical knowledge, or actions connected with the
assassination. For example, a waitress who can verify or at least
corroborate a story that shows that Ruby and Oswald knew each other well
before the assassination. If many pieces of info of this kind are
found, the situation for conspirators is hurt. What kind of people
would have such information? Not the average guy or gal in Dealey Plaza
on his/her lunch break. These would be people who would have had prior
contact with conspirators in some way. People who found themselves on
the periphery of the plot somehow. For example, an FBI official who
smells a rat, a reporter who has the right connections, a man who can
verify that Oswald was not where he was said to be at such and such time,
etc. Knowing how gangland business happens, threats often preceed
action. Therefore we can also say that of the people in 2d, many would
have good reason to not talk. "JFK is not coming back from the dead, why
should I join him?"

Let's assume that given a conspiracy, the conspirators would only murder
people in the 2.d.ii. category. Let's also assume that when someone
known to have info mysteriously dies, others who know of the
circumstances are less likely to talk. We know that rumors were indeed
rampant about these deaths. We also know of individual cases like Ruby's
waitress who was in fact quite bold, was killed, and whose two
waitress friends respectively disappeared and refused to utter a syllable,
understandably.

Now regardless of the exact numbers we assign to each category, and
I can assure you that 2.d.ii. is small compared to the total, how
could we decide on the likelihood that a conspiracy took place?
We have to try to isolate the set of data which would be affected by
the presence of a conspiracy or lack thereof. We cannot know who
is in 2.d.i. However, we can estimate who is in 2.d.ii. by
realizing that a relationship exists between those in 2.d.ii. and
those whose stories we find out about. By definition of "telling
a story" we can figure that someone is listening. Given that several
researchers have spent years digging up such stories and investigating
these deaths, we can figure that almost all of these stories have
been told in at least partial detail. The question then becomes
how to estimate the number of people in 2.d.ii with a given level
of confidence given a conspiracy. Then, having established the
relevant population, find the expected number of deaths for such a group
given no conspiracy and hence no JFK related deaths, and compare it to
the actual number of deaths for this group.

I have not done this analysis, nor am I aware of anyone doing such
an analysis. But let's assume that of 25000, 95% fall into categories
1, 2a, 2b, and 2c, leaving 5% in 2d. We assume that most people are
smart enough not to make trouble for themselves and don't talk, esp.
after a threat or rumor. However, let's say that 1% of people in
2d go the dumb route and try to cross powerful people who are scared
for their own lives. Then of the 25000, we are down to 125 who need
to be dealt with. Let's assume that the conspirators are smart, don't
want to have to kill 125 people and make things look too suspicious,
so they kill critical ones, threaten the others, kill some more who
haven't stopped talking, threaten some more, etc. Perhaps 50
out of the total had to be killed. This is exactly the kind of
scenario described in the list. How do you tell this scenario from
the null hypothesis? By scrutinizing the individual cases to ascertain
who was causing trouble for would-be conspirators, and how many of them
got killed or shut up in other ways. SINCE ALL OR MOST OF THOSE KNOWN
TO BE TROUBLE WERE SILENCED, WE CAN ASSUME THAT IN THAT POPULATION,
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE NORMALLY ALL DIED. Hence we are "suspicious".

What I have just postulated is that
1. The use of a complete population, say 25000, to base an analysis
is misguided since the majority of these people would not be affected
either way by the proof or disproof of the hypothesis under discussion.
2. We know which segment of the population to focus on; the task is
determine the likelihood that they were affected.
3. That group of people died in high numbers because we have not heard
of much seriously damaging testimony from people who survived and
continued to provide substantiation to investigation authorities.


The other way of looking at this is to note the following.

If one certain JFK-related death equals conspiracy, then if we assign a .5
probability that each of three deaths are JFK-related, the probability that
a JFK-related death occurred, i.e. that at least one of 3 was JFK-related,
is Pconsp=(2^3-1)/(2^3) = 0.875. Now, our dispute is over how to
pick our sample space. If the probability that Milteer was killed because of
what he said and was about to say is accepted as high, say .7, than there
is nothing wrong with saying that there is a .7 probability or better that
*anyone* was killed for said reason. You could assign a 0 probability to
the other 24,999 people, and Pconsp would still be .7.
Finding the most likely cases to be JFK-related in no way invalidates my
claim that there are such cases! Nor is it diminished in importance by
the fact that there were other people who died in unrelated ways.

You argue that there would have been suspicious deaths anyway, but you
disregard individual cases. You are concocting arguments which ignore reams
of information gathered over a number of years by many people, all for
the purpose of supporting your gut feeling. There are other very supicious
facts and behavior that add to the total suspicion and go beyond a first course
in probability.
--

Steve Feinstein

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Article: 10062 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!umd5!emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <10486@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 19:52:55 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 96

In article <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:

[Lots of stuff, most of which is true only under the assumption that the
conspiracy exists, and which therefore cannot be used as proof _for_ the
conspiracy.]

>>If you have one death without proof of assassination,and then you find another
>>death without proof of assassination, what you now have is two deaths without
>>proof of assassination.
>If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
>you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
>If you have two such deaths, the probability that either or both were related
>is higher than the probability of each being related.

This assumes independence of events.

If the events were not independent--if, for instance, you found one such event
by looking for the most suspicious handful from 25000 (or even 100) cases and
found the second event the same way--this does not apply.

"Without proof" means exactly that--it means you can't rule out some other
explanations, and those other explanations may apply to both events in a way
which prevents just combining probabilities like you wish to.

>>Pointing to "suspiciousness" as evidence has the same problem as pointing to
>>deaths as evidence: in 25000 people, just like you could expect a certain
>>number of deaths, you could expect a number of deaths that occur under unusual
>>circumstances. You can then select those people for special consideration and
>>say "look how suspicious these are" when in a group of that size you should
>>really expect events that appear suspicious but have nothing behind them.
>The selection of these people is hardly arbitrary. If other people who didn't
>die lived to provide as damaging information as those who did die, we'd
>have alot of evidence that was damaging to somebody. ...

What do you mean "provide as damaging information as those who did die"? You
mean that the people who died first provided damaging information? If you
meant that, surely you would have _shown_ us some of the information that
those people provided before they died.

No, what you mean is that these people did not provide any information, but
_if_ they had lived, they would have provided it. That's different.
Saying that someone "would have provided damaging information", and therefore
that there death is suspicious, is no better than just saying that their
death was suspicious; you can always point to _someone_ and say that they
_could_ have provided damaging information, since you have 100 people from
whom to choose that "someone" from.

>... How do you tell this scenario from
>the null hypothesis? By scrutinizing the individual cases to ascertain
>who was causing trouble for would-be conspirators, and how many of them
>got killed or shut up in other ways. SINCE ALL OR MOST OF THOSE KNOWN
>TO BE TROUBLE WERE SILENCED, WE CAN ASSUME THAT IN THAT POPULATION,
>THEY WOULDN'T HAVE NORMALLY ALL DIED. Hence we are "suspicious".

"Known to be trouble" is not well-defined. If there are 100 people who died,
you can always define "known to be trouble", after the fact, as just happening
to be that 100 people, and then the fact that all the deaths were of potential
troublemakers can be used to "prove" your case.

If you have some way to determine that a person is a potential troublemaker
independent of the fact that they died, you can then legitimately say that
more troublemakers died than expected. You haven't done this, though.

>1. The use of a complete population, say 25000, to base an analysis
>is misguided since the majority of these people would not be affected
>either way by the proof or disproof of the hypothesis under discussion.

Yes, they would. If the "hypothesis" is that you looked through the
cases and did a pick-and-choose to find the most suspicious looking cases,
the size of the complete population matters because the larger it is, the
more "suspicious" a case you could find this way.

>2. We know which segment of the population to focus on; the task is
>determine the likelihood that they were affected.

No, we do not know which segment.

>3. That group of people died in high numbers because we have not heard
>of much seriously damaging testimony from people who survived and
>continued to provide substantiation to investigation authorities.

It seems to be a persistent Usenet trait for people to join two otherwise
unrelated sentence by the word "because".

Not hearing damaging testimony from survivors proves nothing. Sure, if
people who could reveal a conspiracy all got killed, the survivors would
not give damaging testimony. But if there was no conspiracy, the survivors
_also_ would not give damaging testimony. In either case there is no
damaging testimony, and thus the lack of damaging testimony does not
distinguish between them.
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)


Article: 10063 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!ejaska
From: ejaska@msd.gatech.edu (Esko A. Jaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <25163@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:52:12 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 12

In <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> ( Steve Feinstein) writes:

>If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
>you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
>If you have two such deaths, the probability that either or both were related
>is higher than the probability of each being related.

If several people saw a co-worker in your office, and later you found a book
on the floor, you can assign a probability of that person having thrown the
book on the floor. But, if the whole bookcase is dumped you can be absolutely
certain that particular person is guilty.
--


Article: 10064 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!ejaska
From: ejaska@msd.gatech.edu (Esko A. Jaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <25168@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 91 21:08:23 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <10477@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 14

In article <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:

>To repeat my earlier comments, the list does not prove that a
>conspiracy exists/existed. What it proves is that there were
>a number of deaths which are *suspicious* for some combination
>of reasons, not all of which are elaborated on, obviously.

I would consider it suspicious if the people on the list died of old age or
some such natural causes. After all, what kind of people were associated
with the assassination: reporters, police, dancers, mobsters, etc. None of
these professionals were old enough to be retired, and thus not very likely
to die of old age. When younger people die, it's usually heart attacks, cancer,
murder, or some violent acccient.
--


Article: 10066 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maveroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!taco!ccvr1!hes
From: hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.230205.25830@ncsu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 23:02:05 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <25163@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Lines: 9

In article <25163@hydra.gatech.EDU> ejaska@msd.gatech.edu (Esko A. Jaska) writes:
>In <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>
>>If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
>>you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
Of course you can "assign" a probability, but what is the basis for
the value assigned?

--henry schaffer


Article: 10084 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!uunet!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utorvm!ryerson!syst8103
From: SYST8103@Ryerson.CA (Ron Wigmore)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <91088.093913SYST8103@Ryerson.CA>
Date: 29 Mar 91 14:39:13 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
<10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Lines: 37

In article <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
says:
>In article <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
>srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>> Here is the much requested list of people associated with the JFK
>>assassination whose deaths are called convenient. Bear in mind that
>
>Here's a project for you: Count how many people are associated with the JFK
>assasination, either dead or alive.

Here's an even bigger project for Steve: Let's assume Ken is a big time
crime and drug lord. Now, let's also assume Steve is running around
saying that Ken had JFK killed, even though Ken is innocent. Me, I say
Ken thinks for about 1.3 seconds and concludes "Gee, if Steve keeps
saying these things about me, there going to be even MORE cops (and FBI
and CIA) messing around, digging into my *illegal* operations. Time for
Steve to have a 'mysterious' death".

The result: We have a death directly related to the JFK assassination
at the same time it had nothing to do with the assassination. Part of a
conspiracy? No! Just Ken, the evil crime/drug lord he is (:-)), doing
what he has to to protect his operations, independent of JFK's assassination.

>Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
>statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.

You also need to make sure you consider that many of those involved were
people involved in high-risk (undercover cops, etc.) jobs.

>Now compare to the size of your list.

But not before we consider why it is that the FBI/CIA have not yet
killed off Steve, and the others who compiled these 'statistics'.

Ron,,,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When contemplating my opinions above, remember, *I* work for the government!


Article: 10075 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: JFK Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar29105150@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 91 16:51:50 GMT
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 77


I think we can agree on the following: A number of suspicious deaths occurred
of people who, if there was a conspiracy, were in the thick of it. There is
no absolute proof of conspiracy, yet there are a plethora of details, not
nearly all of which I have mentioned, which are disturbing, but in no way
conclusive. Those questions should have been investigated by the HSCA when
the issued came to them. They chose not to investigate them.


Now, I'm not going to relate here the incredible story of the HSCA. Suffice
it to say that the first committee head was a go-getter who hungered for
getting to the bottom of things. Plenty of money was allocated for the task,
but after revealing the scope of his plans, he was removed and the committee
budget drastically reduced. The whole thing was a fisco considered by most
people who look at the story to be very strange. My point is this:
the deaths are suspicious enough to warrant serious investigation and somebody
or bodies in our government shut the committee's life support system off
when it looked like they might actually accomplish something. Why?

Like I've said, it's not one thing. It's not *a* list of deaths, set of
connections, or some contraditory accounts. It's many things put together
that you can't put numbers on.

Oswald is picked up and he immediately tells police he's been manipulated into
being a patsy. Ruby shoots Oswald, begs the police and Warren Commission for
protection and to question him about the conspiracy he hints at, they refuse,
Ruby, due for further testimony later on mysteriously dies in prison. Ruby's
waitresses are terrorized and killed after speaking out about Ruby and Oswald
being together several times in the month prior to the assassination. The
reporter who gets the exclusive interview with Ruby and says she's going to
break the big story of the century dies after saying this, her best friend
who probably had her notes dies two days later. Ruby tried to talk, the
Warren Commission refused to listen. They needed a nice tidy story so they
made it up. It's laughable.

Now think about it. If proof of a crime were a criterion for doing a
thorough investigation, nothing would ever get investigated. Not only
were these deaths never investigated by our government, investigations
like the Garrison trial were thwarted. My disputatious friends, something
is awry here, and you cannot use thought games to deny it. Jack Ruby is
not being discussed arbitrarily. He killed the main suspect. He worked
for the Chicago mob who hated Kennedy. He knew Oswald before hand. He
was an FBI informant. He was in debt to the mob. If there was ever a line
of questioning for the commission, it was with Ruby. But they ignored him.
And Jack Ruby died of lung cancer due to stomach cancer cells in his lungs.
He had no stomach cancer. You have to go beyond labels like suspicious and
look at the details.

You say it's incredible that so many organizations had elements involved?
When we talk about elements in the CIA and FBI, LBJ, anti-Castro Cubans,
and certain oilmen like the Hunts, we're talking about people who have already
had years of working together. LBJ was basically a mobster himself. He
dealt with mobsters, took large sums of money from them, killed anti-mob
legislation, and allegedly ordered at least one killing himself. The mob
and CIA had already been collaborating for years on assassination plots.
The anti-Castro Cubans were involved in these plots. And all of these people
hated Kennedy and felt betrayed by him, either because of the Bay of Pigs,
the deportation of Carlos Marcello, the war against Jimmy Hoffa and other
mobsters, the oil depletion tax which would have killed huge oil comany
profits, or some combination of reasons. In a huge network of people, Kennedy
made bitter enemies of all of them.

Motives. Means. Opportunity. All three elements were there for a conspiracy.
Cover-ups. Destruction of evidence. Fabrication of evidence. Intimidation
of witnesses. Convenient deaths. Suspicious behavior...

Are you really telling me you don't smell a rat? I do.
--

Steve Feinstein

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Article 1217 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: ns-mx!uunet!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uci-ics!ucla-cs!pierce
From: pierce@florian.cs.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: 1977 FBI kill-off?
Message-ID: <33363@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 22 Mar 90 11:18:26 GMT
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce)
Distribution: alt
Organization: UCLA Computer Science
Lines: 33


According to _Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy_ by Jim Marrs, (1989,
Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York) pp. 564-565 here are six top FBI
officials that died shortly before they were scheduled to testify before the
House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977.

6/77 Louis Nicholas - Heart attack. Former number-three man in FBI, worked
on JFK case. [or Louis Nichols?] Hoover's liaison to
Warren Commission.

8/77 Alan Belmont - "Long illness". FBI official that testified to Warren
Commission. Special assistant to Hoover.

8/77 James Cadigan - Fall in home. FBI document expert that testified to
Warren Commission.

10/77 Donald Kaylor - Heart attack. FBI fingerprint chemist. Examined
prints from assassination scene.

10/77 J.M.English - Heart attack. Former head of FBI Forensic Sciences
Laboratory. Headed lab that tested Oswald's alleged
rifle and pistol.

11/77 William Sullivan - Hunting accident. Former number-three man in FBI,
headed Division 5, counterespionage and domestic
intelligence.

Sullivan was shot after attending a preliminary meeting with
investigators. He was shot near his home by a man that claimed to
have mistaken him for a deer. The man was charged with a misdemeanor
and released without further investigation.

-- Brad


Article 1223 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sco!hiramc
From: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 1977 FBI kill-off?
Message-ID: <5347@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 90 16:23:48 GMT
References: <33363@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
Distribution: alt
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 35

In article <33363@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce) writes:
>
>According to _Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy_ by Jim Marrs, (1989,
>Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York) pp. 564-565 here are six top FBI
>officials that died shortly before they were scheduled to testify before the
>House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977.
[...]
>
>-- Brad

While I agree with you Brad that there are many mysterious circumstances
surrounding the JFK murder and I have often seen these various
lists of people that died that were associated with the whole
story, I have to make a call for objectivity for a moment.

Let's suppose one could make up a list of ALL the people involved
in the story. Catagorize it if that would be helpful, but what
I'm looking for is all the other people that belong on the
list that are/were not dead at some point in time. Now, you
have the sample population, out of that, check the mortality
statistics of this sample group. Compare with general mortality
statistics to see if the JFK sample has a higher than expected
rate. Then I might be inclined to put more faith in these
lists of people that "mysteriously" died.

Another reference that I found to be credible:

Contract on America - The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy
David E. Scheim, introduction by John H. Davis
Zebra Books published by Kensington Publishing Corp. New York
Copyright (c) 1988
624 total pages, 380 pages text, 221 pages notes and appendix, 10 pages
bibliography, index


...PART 1
...PART 2

...PART 3

 

 

 

 

Contact us at admin@conspiracybomb.com if you have any questions, comments or suggestions. Or if you want to submit a conspiracy, no matter how inane, contrived or unbelieveable, send it to that address as well.
ConspiracyBomb.com
Copyright ©2003-2005 All Rights Reserved.
Conspiracy theories ranging from the Illuminati, to assasinations, war and the occult. ConspiracyBomb.com