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

[Matt Grantham]

 There are of course many layers of whether this event qualified within a reasonable context for a suspected conspiracy Certainly the the arrival of the national security state apparatus just 15 years earlier was a development, for many, that cast a new shadow on events such as this Eisenhower's 'unwarranted influence warning just two days before JFK's swearing in certainly set a context for concern. and then their are the Operation Northwoods, Bay of Pigs, and all those other issues that we can agree to disagree on So I remain a little unclear what criteria it is that you are looking at in any kind of general terms You have your list I know, and it may or may not be a shorthand for something that can be explained in terms of more overarching narratives So far I am not understanding, so far if you can place your arguments amidst such narratives, or if you are just looking at the particular applications

[Matt Grantham]

Let me put this another way, if you "Matt Grantham" was going to set up a Patsy how would you go about it and what sort of rules would you have in place i order to make the public believe? For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

 Well I think they did a beautiful job if Oswald was indeed a patsy Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK when he was basically a low level agent of some sort I am not trying to be sarcastic or patronizing, but, if that was true it was a great job I cannot think of anything much to improve on it

 Killing him however, I believe was a mistake Maybe a plan like this had to have had that eventuality if he knew a little too much And it was only a mistake if you were really concerned about what the American people would think and what further ramifications it might have If you jsut wanted JFK dead and did not want any direct ramifications it worked out just fine

[Matt Grantham]

For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

 OK Sorry I lost track of this part This pretty nuts and bolts This is a little hard to follow My first reaction is it seems like an absurd proposition but I assume you are serious Maybe drug the patsy, have him out front leaning out window if possible and then have the real killer operate the gun from behind him not really sure where we are going with this

[John Mytton]

Well I think they did a beautiful job if Oswald was indeed a patsy Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK when he was basically a low level agent of some sort I am not trying to be sarcastic or patronizing, if that was true it was a great job I cannot think of anything much to improve on it

 Killing him however, I believe was a mistake Maybe a plan like this had to have had that eventuality if he knew a little too much

Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK

Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

when he was basically a low level agent of some sort

Why setup a man who has direct links to your own organisation?

Killing him however, I believe was a mistake

Being devils advocate here but if Oswald was a "patsy" with absolutely no knowledge then perhaps you're right but even if Oswald had the slightest inkling wouldn't killing him be the perfect answer because a dead man tells no tales?

JohnM

[Matt Grantham]

Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

 Well then perhaps they should have done a better jo on that score I think the american public believed he did based on his supposed views

Why setup a man who has direct links to your own organisation?

 To get him to do things you want him to do Bring a rifle to work etc

Being devils advocate here but if Oswald was a "patsy" with absolutely no knowledge then perhaps you're right but even if Oswald had the slightest inkling wouldn't killing him be the perfect answer because a dead man tells no tales?

JohnM

  Yes As I stated it was a good strategy unless you cared about the fact a good percentage of the american public would not go for it

[Walt Cakebread]

Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Why setup a man who has direct links to your own organisation?

Being devils advocate here but if Oswald was a "patsy" with absolutely no knowledge then perhaps you're right but even if Oswald had the slightest inkling wouldn't killing him be the perfect answer because a dead man tells no tales?

JohnM

there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Do you think the act of blowing JFK's brains out was an act of love and admiration?   Or do you acknowledge the obvious ...That whoever murdered JFK despised him....   

It's been obvious since 12:30 11/ 22/ 63 that whoever was responsible for blowing JFK's brains out did not love or admire him...   

[Richard Smith]

there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Do you think the act of blowing JFK's brains out was an act of love and admiration?   Or do you acknowledge the obvious ...That whoever murdered JFK despised him....   

It's been obvious since 12:30 11/ 22/ 63 that whoever was responsible for blowing JFK's brains out did not love or admire him...

Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.  Thus, the lack of any rational motive doesn't raise doubt as to guilt of the assassin.  And Oswald's motive can only be known to himself.  So it's the old impossible standard of proof trick being applied to raise false doubt.  The evidence confirms that Oswald did it.  Why is something that we have some insight based on what we know about him but just because no one can ever confirm his motive with scientific precision is not the basis for any doubt of his guilt.   I don't believe that Oswald had any personal animosity for JFK.  Rather, JFK was a symbol, as the President, of a system that Oswald detested.  He would have shot Nixon, LBJ, or whomever drove down Elm that day as the President.  Opportunity knocked for a nut job with a penchant for political assassination.

[Walt Cakebread]

Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.  Thus, the lack of any rational motive doesn't raise doubt as to guilt of the assassin.  And Oswald's motive can only be known to himself.  So it's the old impossible standard of proof trick being applied to raise false doubt.  The evidence confirms that Oswald did it.  Why is something that we have some insight based on what we know about him but just because no one can ever confirm his motive with scientific precision is not the basis for any doubt of his guilt.   I don't believe that Oswald had any personal animosity for JFK.  Rather, JFK was a symbol, as the President, of a system that Oswald detested.  He would have shot Nixon, LBJ, or whomever drove down Elm that day as the President.  Opportunity knocked for a nut job with a penchant for political assassination.

Complete and utter BS!......   Most rational people recognize the  murder of President Kennedy as the act of a person who despised him.....     And as Mr M stated.....   LHO did not hate JFK.