If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Richard Smith]

Martin is much like another famous detective from "Europe" named Inspector Clouseau whose mantra was "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."  The game goes like this.  He asks for evidence of Oswald's guilt (which he already knows), the evidence is provided for the millionth time, he suggests each of the hundreds of pieces of evidence is somehow lacking based on his own subjective and often improbable interpretation that miraculously always lends itself to Oswald's innocence (i.e. the evidence is planted, faked, lacks chain of custody etc.).  He then claims he "doesn't care" who did it.  It's just a coincidence that his interpretation of the evidence always - no matter how improbable and lacking in common sense - lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.  He ignores the implications of any of his doubts having validity by denying that he is suggesting a conspiracy even though a conspiracy is the ONLY way to explain how this evidence was fabricated or planted as he himself suggests that it was.  It's an endless circle of lunacy taking us down the rabbit hole again and again.

[Royell Storing]

You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories and if you and your fellow conspiracy believers want to solve the case then you must discover new and more believable alternatives.

For instance as most LNers have told you,

1) A frontal sniper is ridiculous.
2) Oswald roaming around the building before 12:30 is crazy
3) Having Oswald escaping and possibly blabbing is silly
4) Planting a war surplus rifle(which was actually very accurate) when other rifles could have been planted is insane
5) Having to alter a vast amount of evidence to fit a different conspiratorial outcome is pure lunacy.
ETC. ETC....

JohnM

         I know you are better than your, "ridiculous", "crazy", "silly" labeling shows you to be. Trot out your Evidence and put away that water cooler chatter. 

[Lance Payette]

FWIW, here is a recent (December 2023) scholarly article on the conspiracy-prone mindset, "The Role of Cognitive Biases in Conspiracy Beliefs," https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12604.

I do strongly believe confirmation bias is often a driving factor in many of our beliefs. In the case of the JFKA, I think it can be a driving factor for both fanatical LNers and fanatical CTers. I think I actually have an easier time understanding a fanatical CTer than a fanatical LNer, just as I have an easier time understanding a fanatical religious believer than a fanatical atheist. What would be the confirmation biases in play in the case of a fanatical LNer? We know all the usual suspects involved in the assorted conspiracy theories were and are capable of evil deeds apart from the JFKA, so maintaining a Pollyanna-ish view of the world wouldn't seem to be the operative confirmation bias.

That would be an interesting thread: Have those who seem to be emotionally invested in defending the LN position explain why they think it's worth so much time and effort.

[Lance Payette]

         I know you are better than your, "ridiculous", "crazy", "silly" labeling shows you to be. Trot out your Evidence and put away that water cooler chatter.

This is backwards, isn't it?

The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor, bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine, Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated, Oswald vanished from the TSBD after the shooting, no frontal shooters have been proven to exist, etc., etc. The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. For the inference that the rifle was planted to be reasonable, you need actual evidence. "Well, it could have been and I think it was" is not evidence or even an inference from evidence.

Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, golly, what to say? CTers in every area of Weirdness in which I have encountered them are the most relentlessly humorless folks on earth. A CTer's pet conspiracy theory is the functional equivalent of a fundamentalist religion.

I morphed over the decades from being mildly interested in the JFKA when it occurred (I was 13) ... to being a True Conspiracy Believer in my 20's and 30's as I gobbled up books like Best Evidence ... to just assuming the existence of a Huge Conspiracy with no particular involvement during most of my legal career ... to becoming more involved, still as a True Believer, in my mid-60s, but this time with the research and analytical skills of a seasoned, academically-oriented lawyer ... to gradually having the scales fall from my eyes as I began to see the absurdity of Conspiracy World ... to reaching a strong conviction that, alas, boring as it may be, the Warren Commission basically got things right.

For a while, as I've stated, I explored factoids of Conspiracy Gospel and discovered, time and again, that they had no factual basis. I observed the mental gyrations of CTers and became fascinated by the conspiracy-prone mindset, to the extent of delving deeply into the massive psychological and sociological literature establishing a profile of those who are prone to see conspiracies where others don't. I discovered that absolutely the last thing JFKA CTers want to hear is that they perhaps aren't thinking clearly, to put it mildly. Jim DiEugenio came almost completely unglued at my posts in this vein and my analogy between the JFKA community and the UFO community (take my word for it, the Roswell debate is a near-perfect parallel to the JFKA debate).

I fought the battle for a while at the Ed Forum, arguing the LN position (or at least the "Let's Deal With the Actual Oswald" position) and attempting to expose conspiracy factoids as the nonsense they are. I quickly realized it was pointless - an endless game of Whack-A-Mole and a complete waste of my time. I have a real life and better things to do. Why tne handful of LNers who persist with this year after year bother with it is a mystery to me. Apparently, the LN position is their own fundamentalist religion, so the whole JFKA game is basically LN Catholics and CT Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses pissing on each other. Yawn. To be honest, except as an academic exercise I really don't give a bowl of steaming bat guano who killed JFK.

Now, instead of a JFKA researcher I'm more of a JFKA philospher. I observe the scene from the 30,000-foot level and laugh. I laugh at the absurdity of every conspiracy theory in which Oswald was a mere patsy. Try to picture what it might actually have looked like and how it might actually have worked in the real world - the point of my silly OP - and the absurdity becomes obvious. Why would I waste my time taking any of it seriously? I'm much more fascinated by how CTers - some seemingly very intelligent and highly educated - can actually believe the stuff they purport to believe. This is true across the many areas of Weirdness  and even Theology in which I have been involved over the decades. It's an epistemology that is completely alien to me, where up is down, illogic is logic, and goofy inferences are preferred to rational ones.

Even the wackiest conspiracy theories can never be "disproved" to the satisfaction of their True Believers. How would anyone "prove" the late Queen wasn't a shape-shifting reptilian alien? I remember Budd Hopkins of "alien abduction" fame. He lost me when he finally resorted to the idea that we never see these occur because the aliens have a cloaking technology that renders everything invisible. So I don't even try to disprove anything - I merely observe, shake my head, and laugh.

A mountain of evidence has convinced government commissions, historians, independent researchers and little old me that the LN scenario is basically correct.  In every complex event, there are outliers, things that don't seem to fit neatly, and even things that seem damn near impossible. That's just life in the real world. "This was a routine 12 mph fender-bender. How on earth did that mirror from the Ford end up on the roof of that building over there?" Hell, I don't know, but it did.

I don't have to prove anything to anybody. If a CTer wants to overturn the verdict of history, provide an evidence-based alternative theory that is more compelling even to those who don't share the conspiracy-prone mindset and agenda. Publish it in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Stop asserting factoids that are demonstrably false and scenarios that don't even make internal sense. Simple as that.

You want folks like me to play on your turf in Conspiracy World, to argue endlessly about the SBT, the postal money order, Oswald as a false defector, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. It's fun for you, and you apparently delude yourselves that it's accomplishing something. I'll let Fred Litwin, DVP and others do that since they seem to enjoy it and think it's worthwhile. For me, it just brings to mind the old adage about wrestling with a pig.

I actually haven't posted anything JFKA-related in years. I bought The Oswald Puzzle on the basis of my respect for Larry Hancock and the hope that here at last might be something new. Years ago, I bought Greg Parker's books with the same hope. Nah, it's just the same old nonsense. It inspired my few posts here, but now I'm going back to working on my golf swing.

A mountain of evidence has convinced government commissions, historians, independent researchers and little old me that the LN scenario is basically correct.

So, it's the usual LN appeal to authority. Got it!

I don't have to prove anything to anybody. If a CTer wants to overturn the verdict of history, provide an evidence-based alternative theory

And there is the LN classic: "I am right unless you prove me wrong" with the silent part following that being: "but you can never prove me wrong, because I will never accept anything you say"

You want folks like me to play on your turf in Conspiracy World,

Nope... I don't have a turf in the Conspiracy World. In fact, I agree with you that most of the conspiracy theories are ranging from silly to idiotic.
What I actually want you to do is to simply provide a conclusive case that shows Oswald was indeed a lone gunman.
But somehow I get the impression you are not willing or able to do that, which makes you just another LN "true believer" in much the same way as a "true Christian" does never want to discuss Darwin's evidence for his evolution theory.

Have fun working on your golf swing. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin is much like another famous detective from "Europe" named Inspector Clouseau whose mantra was "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."  The game goes like this.  He asks for evidence of Oswald's guilt (which he already knows), the evidence is provided for the millionth time, he suggests each of the hundreds of pieces of evidence is somehow lacking based on his own subjective and often improbable interpretation that miraculously always lends itself to Oswald's innocence (i.e. the evidence is planted, faked, lacks chain of custody etc.).  He then claims he "doesn't care" who did it.  It's just a coincidence that his interpretation of the evidence always - no matter how improbable and lacking in common sense - lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.  He ignores the implications of any of his doubts having validity by denying that he is suggesting a conspiracy even though a conspiracy is the ONLY way to explain how this evidence was fabricated or planted as he himself suggests that it was.  It's an endless circle of lunacy taking us down the rabbit hole again and again.

Isn't it just hilarious how I can live a happy and healthy life rent free in your head for so long....   

[Martin Weidmann]

This is backwards, isn't it?

The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor, bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine, Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated, Oswald vanished from the TSBD after the shooting, no frontal shooters have been proven to exist, etc., etc. The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. For the inference that the rifle was planted to be reasonable, you need actual evidence. "Well, it could have been and I think it was" is not evidence or even an inference from evidence.

Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.

Oh boy, here we go...

The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor,

And what evidence would that be exactly?

As far as I can tell, there is only a photo copy of order form which an FBI expert claims was written by Oswald (since when do handwriting experts come to absolute conclusions based on a photo copy and comparison documents that may or may not be authentic?). Then there is another photo copy of an internal Klein's document that has a serial number of a rifle handwritten on it (but lacking confirmation of the person who wrote that number that the document is authentic). Then there are the backyard photos showing Oswald holding a rifle (which do not prove anything else but that Oswald was holding a rifle), and then there is a rifle which turns out to be a different one from the one ordered.

There are so many decrepancies in this part of the evidence alone that it is utterly beyond me how you, as the lawyer you say you were, can reach the conclusion that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine

Really? The actual evidence is that FBI expert Frazier arrived at the Secret Service garage for the purpose of examining the Presidential limousine only to learn that two utterly unqualified men (If I recall correctly a navy corpman and a secret service agent) had already searched destroyed the crime scene. Frazier was then given some bullet fragments that allegedly were found in the limousine. No photographs of the items in situ, no chain of custody prior to Frazier receiving the fragments!
And you accept that as reliable evidence? Really? No reasonable doubt whatsoever? Wow!

Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated

There is the LN thing again; "Oswald was on the 6th floor unless you can conclusively prove that he wasn't"..... Pathetic. You can't even provide a shred of evidence showing that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. You just assume he was.

The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "reasonable". What you've got here is nothing more than a self-serving assumption!

Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.

Of course, that is what you believe. It's also disingenuous, because if you accept that there is actually reasonable doubt about aspects of the evidence, you can not reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, which in turn makes what you believe questionable as it can not be based upon evidence that might have reasonable doubt attached to it.

Perhaps you're better off on the golf course!

[Lance Payette]

What I actually want you to do is to simply provide a conclusive case that shows Oswald was indeed a lone gunman.

Oh, dear, I have run into one of those. 

Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.

What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that Oswald alone was the assassin? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, the DRE and the Mafia cooperated in a conspiracy involving 987 participants?

There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history. If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.

(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)

Please, have the last word. It will make you feel better.