A Topic for LN's: What is a CT?

[John Iacoletti]

Good. But it is common for CTers (in regard to the JFK assassination) to be CTers in other fields.

This is poisoning the well.  What somebody believes about some other issue has nothing to do with what they believe about another issue.  They can either support what they believe with evidence or they cannot.

Also, we have posters at this forum who hold Pro CT believes and a belief in other large secret conspiracies. I know of no LN on this forum, or a major LN spokesman, who does.

You keep assuming that a conspiracy is necessarily a "large secret conspiracy".  A conspiracy could be two people.

[John Iacoletti]

The irony here of course is that the "Oswald did it and did it alone" crowd chides the skeptical crowd for not agreeing on a single narrative, when they can't agree on what "conspiracy theorist" means.

Both terms are really not good representations.  Would a person who believed that a lone nut did it, but it wasn't Oswald still be called an LNer?

Would a person who isn't convinced by the available evidence that Oswald was involved, but who also doesn't see any convincing evidence of any other particular person being involved still be considered a CTer?

How about-

1a) Convinced that Oswald did it and did it alone

1b) Not convinced that Oswald did it

2a) Convinced that more than one person was involved before the fact

2b) Not convinced that more than one person was involved before the fact

[Joe Elliott]

You keep assuming that a conspiracy is necessarily a "large secret conspiracy".  A conspiracy could be two people.

But the conspiracy that CTers really mean is not a conspiracy of two people but a much large conspiracy.

The CIA was in on it.

But the FBI investigated it and found the evidence went against Oswald. That?s not problem, the FBI was in on it.

But the Dallas Police Department collected the rifle, a handgun (wrestled out of Oswald?s hand), shells, statements by Oswald showing he lied about owning a rifle and bringing a long bag to work and other evidence. But that?s no problem because the Dallas Police Department was in on it.

But the autopsy shows all the shots came from behind. But that?s no problem because the autopsy doctors were in on it.




If CTers want me to believe that they believe in a small conspiracy, they need to tell me what evidence is real and what is faked. And how many people would be needed to make it fake. How many FBI agents. How many Dallas Policemen. And how the conspiracy arranged that always one of the conspirators would evaluate the evidence and prevent an honest investigator from being brought in.

[John Iacoletti]

But the conspiracy that CTers really mean is not a conspiracy of two people but a much large conspiracy.

Good thing they have a spokesman like you to define what they "really mean".

[John Iacoletti]

Planted the handgun on Oswald?

Removed Oswald?s rifle from the garage?

Planted a rifle on the sixth floor?

Planted a bullet on a stretcher at the Parkland hospital?

Swapped in the bullet fragments into the limousine?

I don't believe anybody did any of these things.

Next question?

[Wesley Johnson]

I don't believe anybody did any of these things.

Next question?

What exactly is it that you believe John? You question most of the evidence related to Oswald. So what exactly are you saying you believe happened? You really have no opinion? You just question the evidence against Oswald? You really have no opinion other than you question the evidence? I don't believe you. You have called me lazy John and that is just what you are. At least I'm not hesitant to state that I believe the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved. And I'll save the the trouble of asking what that evidence is, because you have accused me of not stating it. I believe the rifle C2766 a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm MADE IN ITALY rifle was linked to one Lee Harvey Oswald, I believe that the bullet CE399 was linked to said rifle C2766 to the exclusion of all others. I believe the fragments recovered from the limo were matched to that bullet. Clear enough for you John? And I know all of your lame information to try and prove otherwise and I will save you some typing John. I do not believe any information has shown the evidence in the case to be false. Now can you tell me what you think happened?   

[John Iacoletti]

What exactly is it that you believe John?

I believe that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.

You have called me lazy John and that is just what you are. At least I'm not hesitant to state that I believe the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved.

What's lazy is that you refuse to explain how "the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved" proves that Oswald did it.

I believe the rifle C2766 a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm MADE IN ITALY rifle was linked to one Lee Harvey Oswald,

Why?  And what does "linked to" mean, exactly?

I believe that the bullet CE399 was linked to said rifle C2766 to the exclusion of all others.

Why do you believe that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination?

I believe the fragments recovered from the limo were matched to that bullet.

To what bullet?  CE 399?  Not even Robert Frazier claimed that.  But what does any of that have to do with Oswald?

Clear enough for you John?

What's clear is that you really don't have any idea why you think Oswald did it.

[Wesley Johnson]

I believe that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.

What's lazy is that you refuse to explain how "the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved" proves that Oswald did it.

Why?  And what does "linked to" mean, exactly?

Why do you believe that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination?

To what bullet?  CE 399?  Not even Robert Frazier claimed that.  But what does any of that have to do with Oswald?

What's clear is that you really don't have any idea why you think Oswald did it.

Not going to play your game John. I've stated what I believe. Now one more time, what other choices are there for you in the case?