The number two CT nightmare question ...

[Jorn Frending]

The basement shooting of Oswald ...

This question can seem less important, but think about it, we are considering a big scale conspiracy ...

This could certainly not have happened according to a carefully elaborated plan, it was definitely too risky, just being able to get near Oswald and that nobody else got hurt is by itself sheer luck ...

Oswald may not have died, he could have proven his innocence after probably getting better protection ...

No doubt, a big scale conspiracy would have done a better job ...

Yes, it looked like another lone nut job by a Jack Ruby who was never silenced !?

[Martin Weidmann]

The basement shooting of Oswald ...

This question can seem less important, but think about it, we are considering a big scale conspiracy ...

This could certainly not have happened according to a carefully elaborated plan, it was definitely too risky, just being able to get near Oswald and that nobody else got hurt is by itself sheer luck ...

Oswald may not have died, he could have proven his innocence after probably getting better protection ...

No doubt, a big scale conspiracy would have done a better job ...

Yes, it looked like another lone nut job by a Jack Ruby who was never silenced !?

In other words; just because you can not figure out or even imagine how a small scale conspiracy (and a massive cover up) could have done it, it didn't happen..... Got it!

What exactly is the "nightmare" part? You start out with the speculative assumption that "we are considering a big scale conspiracy ..." and after that it only goes downhill fast

[Jorn Frending]

In other words; just because you can not figure out or even imagine how a small scale conspiracy (and a massive cover up) could have done it, it didn't happen..... Got it!

What exactly is the "nightmare" part? You start out with the speculative assumption that "we are considering a big scale conspiracy ..." and after that it only goes downhill fast

If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him. Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.

If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?

In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...

[Martin Weidmann]

If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him. Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.

If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?

In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...

If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him.

In your opinion, that is... right? The question is easily countered by this one: why take the risk that somebody might believe him?

Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.

Again, in your opinion, right? And how do you know this? If it was a mob hit as some suggest it was (and btw I'm not claiming it was, as I wasn't involved and don't know) couldn't it be that Jack Ruby was far easier to control than Oswald would have been?

If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?

If there were no conspirators, then Jack Ruby would have been the only person who could have answered that question.

In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...

Excuse me, but the biggest creator of conspiracy theories was the WC, who left so many crucial questions unanswered and jumped to conclusions not supported by the evidence that IMO it was inevitable that there would be conspiracy theories.... and who knows, one of those might actually be true or very close to the truth.

I get that you find these things implausible, but it could very well be that you, like the rest of us, are simply not privy to all the facts and it isn't easy to solve a puzzle when some pieces are missing. Things sometimes happen that at first don't make any sense, yet once everything is out in the open suddenly make perfect sense.

But by all means keep asking questions... who knows what you may end up learning some day.

[Jorn Frending]

You may be surprised but I actually appreciate your answers, thank You Martin 

[Walt Cakebread]

If he was set up, why shoot him? Regardless of what Oswald would have said nobody would have believed him.

In your opinion, that is... right? The question is easily countered by this one: why take the risk that somebody might believe him?

Not silencing Jack Ruby would have been a bigger threat.

Again, in your opinion, right? And how do you know this? If it was a mob hit as some suggest it was (and btw I'm not claiming it was, as I wasn't involved and don't know) couldn't it be that Jack Ruby was far easier to control than Oswald would have been?

If Oswald was a lone nut, why shoot him? If there were no conspirators?

If there were no conspirators, then Jack Ruby would have been the only person who could have answered that question.

In fact, shooting Oswald created non necessary conspiracy theories ...

Excuse me, but the biggest creator of conspiracy theories was the WC, who left so many crucial questions unanswered and jumped to conclusions not supported by the evidence that IMO it was inevitable that there would be conspiracy theories.... and who knows, one of those might actually be true or very close to the truth.

I get that you find these things implausible, but it could very well be that you, like the rest of us, are simply not privy to all the facts and it isn't easy to solve a puzzle when some pieces are missing. Things sometimes happen that at first don't make any sense, yet once everything is out in the open suddenly make perfect sense.

But by all means keep asking questions... who knows what you may end up learning some day.

it isn't easy to solve a puzzle when some pieces are missing.

IMO It's worse than simply some pieces missing.....(Although there's no doubt that you're right about that)  The authorities actually dumped pieces from other puzzles into the pile ( misinformation and disinformation) and that creates an even bigger problem.

[Jorn Frending]

My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent 

[Walt Cakebread]

My point is that if Oswald was the lone killer, why finishing him off and if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen, why then taking such risk instead of doing it later if at all. Had he been an ordinary citizen, he could have just gone to jail (like Sirhan in the RFK murder).
.
Unless, of course, that he was not TOTALLY innocent 

 if he was in fact a totally innocent and unaware citizen

I think that you know that Lee was NOT an "UNAWARE CITIZEN".....   Anybody who has studied his actions and movements after he joined the Marine Corps until the time of his death will discern that Lee Oswald was a US  intel agent.  Like any intel agent he was a chameleon, and able to appear as something that he was not.
Like a  communist revolutionary, for example.   However he was a bit egotistical and full of himself, and not quite the accomplished undercover agent that he fancied himself to be.
In the summer of 63 and up until the time of the coup d e'tat he thought that he was working undercover for the FBI.   And in fact  one of his handlers. Warren De Brueys, was an FBI agent.
The Back Yard Photo ( CE133A) is a good example of his naive and inept attempt to portray himself as something that he was not.  That BY photo is supposed to depict a heavily armed, communist revolutionary who is ready to fight for the cause.  But close examination reveals the absurdity of the photo. It's like one of those gag photos that are taken at carnivals that show a person in striped pajamas like a jail bird might wear.
Marina said that she took that photo at Lee's request ( she thought that he was nuts, for posing like that) and I believe that she did take the photo.  At any rate the photo reveals the naive mind behind that staged photo.    ( It amazes me that many many highly intelligent people can't see through transparent subterfuge )
But that phenomenon might be explained by the fact that their minds are closed and they are focused on the idea that the photo proves that Lee Oswald owned a carcano like the one that was discovered in the TSBD after the murder.  They simply don't want to see that the photo is an hilarious caricature.....created by a naive fool.