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

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

No. Let's not.... let's examine it closely and see if it really supports the LN claim of guilt.

What's the counter explanation?

Why does there have to be a counter explanation? Can you prove Oswald's guilt conclusively or not?

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.

More and more I see LNs going down the shaky path of claiming that people who do not share their opinion (because that's what it is) are anti-government, wish to destroy democracy and/or are a threat to freedom. It's all BS of course, but, and I could be wrong, I am beginning to get the impression that this paranoid LN belief somehow motivates them into clinging to the lone gun man scenario, because a possible alternative scares the sh*t out of them. 

So please be more specific. Who exactly has a grudge against who?

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.

Is this just something you keep telling yourself to somehow validate your own feelings or do you have some actual evidence for these idiotic claims?

A wise man once said that the biggest fool of them all is the one who thinks others are the fools......

[Martin Weidmann]

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.
 

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.

I agree. The multitude of opinions and theories amongst the CTs makes it impossible to achieve any kind of united point of view, which btw is exactly why there is no such thing as a CT nation or whatever you want to call it. Your generalizations are simply pathetic.

I also agree that a large part of the CT theories are simply unlikely, stupid, pathetic and/or crazy, but not all of them are. In any event, when you seal the evidence away for many years it is to be expected and inevitable that there will be speculation and some of that will be ideology driven rather than based on fact. Having said that, the CTs don't have the comfort of a prescripted narrative like the LNs do.

Your request for an alternative narrative and/or shooter is just a cheap trick to divert attention away from the weakness of your case against Oswald.

[Richard Smith]

Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be.  That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.  So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened.  That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case.  That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.  Mainstream historians have put the matter to rest.  Oswald is the assassin.  The issue of whether there is more to learn about him including any connections to specific groups is a somewhat more open matter based on never being able to disprove the negative with absolute certainty.  However, I have seen zero credible evidence to link Oswald to any group.  He was frankly a kooky guy.  The kind who might decide to assassinate the president when chance dropped the opportunity in his lap.  His political nuttiness lends itself to conspiracy theories but also to just being what he was.  A murderous nut job.  I'm completely open to a conspiracy conclusion if there is evidence presented to support it.  I have no bias or self-interest in Oswald's lone guilt.  There have been plenty of conspiracies proven in history such as the plot to assassinate Lincoln.  I think some CTers believe those who accept Oswald's guilt have a bias against conspiracies per se or undue trust in the government.  It is simply not the case.  It is the evidence that dictates what conclusion is to be drawn.  Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.  And round and round we will go.

[Andrew Mason]

Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be.  That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.  So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened.  That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case.  That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.  Mainstream historians have put the matter to rest.  Oswald is the assassin.  The issue of whether there is more to learn about him including any connections to specific groups is a somewhat more open matter based on never being able to disprove the negative with absolute certainty.  However, I have seen zero credible evidence to link Oswald to any group.  He was frankly a kooky guy.  The kind who might decide to assassinate the president when chance dropped the opportunity in his lap.  His political nuttiness lends itself to conspiracy theories but also to just being what he was.  A murderous nut job.  I'm completely open to a conspiracy conclusion if there is evidence presented to support it.  I have no bias or self-interest in Oswald's lone guilt.  There have been plenty of conspiracies proven in history such as the plot to assassinate Lincoln.  I think some CTers believe those who accept Oswald's guilt have a bias against conspiracies per se or undue trust in the government.  It is simply not the case.  It is the evidence that dictates what conclusion is to be drawn. Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.  And round and round we will go.

Well said. While I agree with everything you have stated, LNs are not immune from failing to follow evidence.

[Richard Smith]

Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.

No need to ask any more since you repeatedly failed, and will fail, to deliver.

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

Bingo.

I like to bring up Caro's work on LBJ. He's a distinguished serious historian and scholar who's spent more than two decades on Johnson's life. And he's found nothing indicating LBJ's involvement in the assassination. Not a thing.

Does the conspiracy crowd accept this? Of course not. Caro is corrupt or he's incompetent. Or both. Even though you know and I know they haven't read his work. Could he be wrong? Of course. But those saying he's wrong have to show us. But they don't. Actually, they can't. Because, for them, LBJ just did it. No proof is needed.

The conspiracy crowd is a religion. Have you ever noticed how ferociously they attack one another if that person doesn't follow the conspiracy catechism? It's like a sect that will not allow reason to enter their worldview.

I used to be a conspiracy believer (SBT, Oswald's defection to the USSR) but, damned, I wasn't this far gone.

[Bill Chapman]

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

"Right on cue"

Good one

[John Iacoletti]

Your request for an alternative narrative and/or shooter is just a cheap trick to divert attention away from the weakness of your case against Oswald.