No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD

[John Iacoletti]

The idea that plotters in a conspiracy had him "placed" at the TSBD is impossible. No "placement" means no "plot". There was no conspiracy.

That's a leap of astronomical proportions.  Why was Kennedy required to be assassinated at 12:30 PM (CST) on 22 November 1963?

This is a favorite LN strawman (employed particularly often by "Richard" "Strawman" "Smith").  Assume that a conspiracy necessarily means that every minute detail of what happened that day and every day leading up to it had to be meticulously planned in advance and it could only have happened that way.

[Gerry Down]

That's a leap of astronomical proportions.  Why was Kennedy required to be assassinated at 12:30 PM (CST) on 22 November 1963?

This is a favorite LN strawman (employed particularly often by "Richard" "Strawman" "Smith").  Assume that a conspiracy necessarily means that every minute detail of what happened that day and every day leading up to it had to be meticulously planned in advance and it could only have happened that way.

Well you're veering off point here. Having Oswald placed in the TSBD is not the same as planning the assassination down to the very last minute.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well you're veering off point here. Having Oswald placed in the TSBD is not the same as planning the assassination down to the very last minute.

Well, it's a permanent LN talking point that "placing LHO at the TSBD" would indeed be part of planning the assassination to it's smallest detail.

[John Iacoletti]

The silliness is "no placement, no plot".  Like that's the only possible plot.

[Ross Lidell]

That's a leap of astronomical proportions.  Why was Kennedy required to be assassinated at 12:30 PM (CST) on 22 November 1963?

This is a favorite LN strawman (employed particularly often by "Richard" "Strawman" "Smith").  Assume that a conspiracy necessarily means that every minute detail of what happened that day and every day leading up to it had to be meticulously planned in advance and it could only have happened that way.

You miss the point John... not surprisingly.

Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).

Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.

Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.

[Martin Weidmann]

You miss the point John... not surprisingly.

Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).

Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.

Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record. Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.

After reading this, I asked myself what in the world anybody can do to counter superficial and speculative thinking (if that's what it is) like this, that is not a waste of time?

I don't have the answer. A brick wall would probably understand what John and I have been saying faster than you, but so be it. It does make it easier to understand though why you are a WC defender.... You simply lack the capacity to be anything else....

[John Iacoletti]

You miss the point John... not surprisingly.

Not surprisingly, your point is a bogus non-sequitur.

Most of the conspiracy books (and internet JFK Conspiracy pundits) posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators. This is so he could be framed as the assassin of President Kennedy (on 22 November 1963).

And that would be a strawman. You don’t speak for most authors or “pundits”.

Oswald being an employee due to happenstance (or coincidence if you like) fits with him being the sole shooter who assassinated President Kennedy.

“Fits”? It would also “fit” with him not having anything to do with it.

Incidentally: If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive. Don't give me that "a backup plan was in the works" nonsense. We can only deal with the historical record.

The nonsense is that your “historical record” is just what you happen to believe happened.

Accordingly, "No coffee for Randle, no job for Oswald -- at the TSBD" means that President Kennedy would have lived to complete his first term and probably would have been elected to a second term as President of the United States.

That’s just a silly reiteration of your silly idea that JFK had to be killed at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.

[Ross Lidell]

Not surprisingly, your point is a bogus non-sequitur.

And that would be a strawman. You don’t speak for most authors or “pundits”.

“Fits”? It would also “fit” with him not having anything to do with it.

The nonsense is that your “historical record” is just what you happen to believe happened.

That’s just a silly reiteration of your silly idea that JFK had to be killed at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.

Not surprisingly, your point is a bogus non-sequitur.

Which point is a bogus non-sequitur?

And that would be a strawman. You don’t speak for most authors or “pundits”.

The conspiracy books (written by authors) exist and there are numerous "prominent pundits": Michael T. Griffiths is one.

I never said JFK "had to be killed" at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963 or not at all.

There is zero evidence for an assassination plot after 22 November 1963 if JFK had not been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. If you know of one or more--please provide details.