Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[John Mytton]

To sum up "Mytton's" kooky theory:

A "vast conspiracy" (tm) would have planted evidence that was actually convincing.  Therefore we should assume that this unconvincing evidence proves that Oswald did it.

Huh? The physical evidence that links Oswald to the crime has always been rock solid but listen carefully, the OP is all about the CT's multiple unagreed theories that attempt to extrapolate disparate insignificant pieces of evidence into an unexplained contradictory narrative that could never possibly make logical sense, for instance having a triangulated shooter in front of Kennedy when your patsy is behind, has and always will be straight up ridiculous, but undeterred 55+ years later we still have naïve CT's pushing this lunacy.

JohnM

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Huh? The physical evidence that links Oswald to the crime has always been rock solid but listen carefully, the OP is all about the CT's multiple unagreed theories that attempt to extrapolate disparate insignificant pieces of evidence into an unexplained contradictory narrative that could never possibly make logical sense, for instance having a triangulated shooter in front of Kennedy when your patsy is behind, has and always will be straight up ridiculous, but undeterred 55+ years later we still have naïve CT's pushing this lunacy.

JohnM

The questions you asked in the original post reveal a sort of "motivated incuriousness" on the part of the Oswald defenders in general and the conspiracy advocates specifically. Motivated, deliberate, willful lack of curiosity.

As in: if there was a large scale conspiracy done by powerful groups behind the event then "Why didn't they plant witnesses in Dealey Plaza to say they saw Oswald shoot JFK?" Isn't that obvious? Or "Why didn't they make Marina say Oswald hated JFK?"

Wouldn't a curious person about this matter ask those questions? Wouldn't someone looking at the conspiracy claims raise them? Out of curiosity?

There's a motivated and deliberate lack of curiosity about these areas that expose the good faith questioners about the evidence from the bad faith questioners. This is an example of one.

But if one wants to be a sort of Mark Lane here defending Oswald (Lane did it to for ideological and personal reasons; why are others doing it?) then never mind.

[Robert Reeves]

for instance having a triangulated shooter in front of Kennedy when your patsy is behind, has and always will be straight up ridiculous, but undeterred 55+ years later we still have naïve CT's pushing this lunacy.

JohnM

Not if the first shot misses, and the second shot doesn't have the desired effect, JFK appears to be still alive after two shots!

You now have a problem. And one problem a military-style assassination would have already accounted for, and to overcome.Then you go into emergency mode. Issue orders to stop the limo. Leave nothing to chance, just have to kill the target. The cover-up story will hold tight because the people now in charge don't have the motivation to get down the truth.

[John Iacoletti]

NOW??? What the hell do you mean NOW ??

Strawman “Smith” doesn’t pay attention to what anybody says. He’s too busy building strawmen to argue with.

[John Iacoletti]

Huh? The physical evidence that links Oswald to the crime has always been rock solid

LOL

[Richard Smith]

So now you are citing the WC's evidence that links Oswald to rifle!

NOW??? What the hell do you mean NOW ??   I've always accepted the evidence presented....     But I certainly don't accept the various interpretations of that evidence.....   The evidence is solid that Captain Fritz had a BY photo in his possession....   He admitted it, and described what appeared in that photo BEFORE the Photo was officially "discovered" in the Paine's garage. 

I thought all this evidence was deemed fake or insufficient by CTers to connect Oswald to the MC rifle? 

If you had a functioning brain you would not attempt to bind all CT's together as an amalgamation ......The one thing that CT's have in common is their refusal to accept that a dog turd ( the Warren Report)is a candy bar....   Unlike the LNers who have bitten off some of that " candy bar" and are contentedly chewing.....while arguing that it's genuine..

So the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor belonged to LHO?  And the WC evidence linking him to this particular rifle is authentic?  Wow that will come as a shock to your fellow contrarians with their "Oswald's rifle - LOL." 

[Jon Banks]

Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

The logical fallacy of your post is the assumption that there is consensus around one single conspiracy theory.

In reality, there is only consensus around the idea of JFK being killed by a conspiracy plot. The "who" and "how" depends on whom you talk to.

But I've also found over the years that Lone-nut narrative folks don't agree on everything as well. There's no consensus on "how" Oswald alone killed JFK or what his motive was.

[Walt Cakebread]

So the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor belonged to LHO?  And the WC evidence linking him to this particular rifle is authentic?  Wow that will come as a shock to your fellow contrarians with their "Oswald's rifle - LOL."

I don't know if that carcano belonged to Lee Oswald......  I've always thought that George De M was the owner.  He bought the MO and had Lee order the rifle from Kleins......     Lee didn't have the money necessary to buy the rifle.