Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?

[Jack Trojan]

This is fascinating in its illogic.

Let's see, Trump and his supporters say the "deep state" has conspired - and are conspiring - to bring his presidency down. As such they insist that elements of the FBI and NSA and CIA are working to expose collusion (faked) between Trump and Russia. And are covering up their actions (using fake intelligence) at the same time.

No, Trump supporters don't give a sh*t about conspiracies. They aren't even paying attention. They are rubes that back Trump because..he is orange..because he's GOP..because they ain't jumping ship until the boat's going down. Same as the LNers.

Meanwhile, the JFK conspiracy crowd believes what? Well, that the FBI and CIA (run, it's James Angleton!!) and NSA and others got together to remove JFK from office. And these elements have been covering up that act for more than half a century. And generations of people in government - presidents and others - have all gone along with the coverup.

Nope. Just an ordinary coup d'etat. Do you actually believe the US was incapable of a coup in 63? There were only 3 major players required to pull it off: Dulles, Hoover and Johnson. Nixon called them "animals" and they all had motives to at least comply with a coup. The big question is why you defend them in favor of the improbable idea that Oswald was a lone nut in a perfect storm?

But wait, there's more: there were two Oswalds, and two Marguerites, and two caskets, and two shooters, and two Z-films (at least). Witnesses were killed, rifles planted, bullets lost. Everyone from the Vice President to waitresses were involved. Steam fitters and used car salesmen and bus drivers and cab drivers and landladies. On and on and on...an endless number of people.

There were just as many Oswalds as it took to pull it off. JFK's motorcade was scheduled early Nov to go thru Chicago which ultimately got scrubbed in favor of Nov 22 in Dallas. Thomas Arthur Vallee was the patsy for plan A, Oswald for plan B.

On the other hand, the Oswald-as-sole-assassin side believes that an angry, radicalized man took his rifle and shot the president. As JFK said, "If someone wants to shoot me from a tall building there's nothing we can do about it." Yeah, Jack, that's what happened.

You mean the guy that coincidentally got a job 3 weeks before JFK's motorcade route took a strange right down Elm, delivering JFK to him on a silver platter? And a million other "coincidences" which you LNers conveniently dismiss and/or ignore. Fact is, you don't have a single smoking gun in this case. How could that be if you had the right guy?

So which of the two sides - the LNer or the CTers - think like Trump and his merry brand of paranoids?

Sorry, the Trumptard analogy lands squarely on you LNers. "Conspiracy" is not a dirty word and not all CTers wear tin foil hats, while all LNers have the Dunning-Kruger Effect in common.

[Bill Chapman]

What's particularly revealing is that the same people who express outrage over the supposed violations of Oswald's rights are big supporters of Jim Garrison and his investigation in New Orleans.

Garrison was, of course, a government official - the New Orleans District Attorney - and his abuses of the rights of people were tenfold more outrageous than anything done to Oswald, real or imagined.

To be fair, a number of conspiracy authors - Lifton for example - are critical of what Garrison did. But the rank and file conspiracy crowd seldom express any criticism of Garrison while at the same time finding violations of Oswald's rights everywhere. Even the WC somehow violated his due process rights.

Let's be blunt: these (not all; just this particular element) are simply Oswald defenders not people interested in determining, as best as we can at this date, what happened that November day in Dallas.

Jim Garrison arrives at the Pearly Gates The first question is obvious.
God replies 'Oswald was the killer, and did it alone'
Garrison exclaims 'WOW, I had no idea the conspiracy went this high!'

[Colin Crow]

What's particularly revealing is that the same people who express outrage over the supposed violations of Oswald's rights.....

You think that any violations might not have been established?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."

Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.

What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).

To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Dulles, Hoover and Johnson are bogeymen. And people would cover-up their conspiracy to murder a POTUS? This just gets better. There's Johnson a few months later having to be talked into running in the 1964 election. Dulles has retired to write crime fiction.

A target of opportunity that Oswald could not resist. "Strange right" turn? LOL.

What "smoking gun" have you great CT researchers revealed? The "Mauser"? The "smoke" on the knoll? The storm drain inlet? What "solid" evidence.

For CTs, not suffering from Dunning-Kruger seems to mean asking questions that require time-travel to "prove".

It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)

All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.

But remember, it was just three people.

And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?

[Martin Weidmann]

JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."

Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.

What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).

To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.

It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)

All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.

But remember, it was just three people.

And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?

Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.

It's all black and white for this guy.

[Bill Chapman]

Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.

It's all black and white for this guy.

Against claims so muddied & contradictory that after 54 years CTroll Nation cannot possibly form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.

A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.

Probably.
 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.

A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.

Probably.
 

But Bill, where's your nuance?

As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.

Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?

There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).

I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.