If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[John Mytton]

What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?

Are all those self-serving arguments why a conspiracy, in your opinion, could or would not have worked, supposed to somehow justify the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gun man?

You claim to be an ex-lawyer, so you should understand that the best way to disprove a conspiracy is by presenting a solid, conclusive case against Oswald.
So, why not do that instead of constantly arguing that a conspiracy is improbable or even impossible?

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
 

[Martin Weidmann]

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

The one who is missing the point is you.

If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.

Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.

Well, can you?

[John Mytton]

The one who is missing the point is you.

If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.

Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.

Well, can you?

The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.

Oswald defects to the enemy

Oswald says in his Historic Diary that because he was denied entry to Russia he attempted suicide therefore it seems that human life was meaningless to Oswald

Oswald bashes his wife

Oswald is a staunch dedicated Marxist who just a couple of months prior tried to enter Cuba by way of Mexico and just after Oswald received his Carcano, Oswald tried to kill Walker who just BTW hated Castro and then a few days before the JFK assassination, Kennedy is trying to oust Castro and this headline is Dallas front page news.

Oswald against his usual procedure, goes home mid week.

Oswald tells Frazier that he was picking up curtain rods but tells the Police he only had his lunch.

Oswald tells the Police that he kept his lunch with him in the front seat yet Frazier questions Oswald about the long package on the back seat of his car.

No curtain rods are ever found.

A long empty package with Oswald's prints is recovered in the Sniper's nest.

The shells from Oswald's rifle are found on the floor of the Sniper's nest.

The recovered fragments recovered from the Limo are exclusively matched to Oswald's rifle.

60+ years later there is still no evidence that Oswald's' rifle was planted.

Oswald uncharacteristically leaves behind his wedding ring.

Oswald leaves the majority of his money with Marina.

Oswald walks suspiciously 50 feet ahead of Frazier as the walk to the depository.

Oswald has no alibi at the time of the shots.

Oswald's relatively fresh prints are on the rifle rest and the box used as a seat in the snipers nest.

Oswald who was a political fanatic and supposedly liked Kennedy said he was in the lunchroom and there is no evidence that he didn't ask anyone what happened?

Outside there was screaming and commotion yet at that precise point in time, Oswald wants a coke?

Oswald flees the scene within a few minutes.

Instead of waiting at the bus stop at Houston and Elm, Oswald in his frenzied flight walks past the bus stop and bashes on a door of a bus stuck in traffic.

Oswald continues his panicked flight as gets on and off a bus stuck in traffic.

Oswald gets out of Whaley's cab way past his Rooming house.

Oswald's leaves his rooming house zipping up a jacket, frugal Oswald is arrested without his zipper jacket?

A jacket which Marina says is Oswald's jacket is recovered from a car park which Oswald is seen entering.

Oswald who looks like he's been running and looks like he's scared to Shoe store Manager Johnny Brewer and appears to be hiding in the shoe store lobby as Police sirens can be heard and as the sirens grew fainter, Oswald looks over his shoulder and leaves.

Oswald enters the Texas Theatre without paying.

Oswald punches the approaching Police Officer in the Texas Theatre.

Oswald for some reason is carrying his revolver in the middle of the day in the Texas Theatre and tries to pull the trigger.

Oswald the devout Marxist holds up his fist to reporters.

Oswald refuses a lie detector test.

Oswald lies about ownership of the Murder Weapon.

Oswald lies about holding the Murder weapon in the Neely Street backyard photos and says that someone put his head on someone else's body.

Oswald leaves out Neely street as a place he rented and alters the date of the previous rental to fit.

Oswald's handwriting is on the Money Order for an amount equalling the price of the rifle plus postage.

Kliens has completed internal paperwork for a rifle(C2766) being sent to Oswald's PO Box.

Oswald receiving a 40 inch Italian Carcano and being photographed with a 40 inch Italian Carcano not long after.

Marina sees the butt of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage which is not there when checked on the afternoon of the assassination.

Frazier in his testimony states numerous times that he never paid attention to a long package that Oswald took to work.

The same rifle that Kliens sent to Oswald's PO box was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace.

Howard Brennan's description in his affidavit on the day of the assassination is a close match to Oswald.

Lt. Day testifies that he removed Oswald's palm print from the Barrel of Oswald's rifle.

The FBI takes a print from the same section of Oswald's rifle and the area matches the same area that is on Day's palm print card.

ETC. ETC.


JohnM

[Tom Mahon]

If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.

Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.

Given the configuration and confusing echo characteristics of Dealey Plaza, the elevation of the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window, the fact that most of the witnesses were either watching charismatic JFK and his beautiful wife or other dignitaries in the motorcade, if a sniper fired all three shots from said window is it reasonable to expect that more than one person (i.e., someone in addition to Howard Brennen) would have seen that person while he or she was firing at JFK, and see him or her so well that they'd be able to identify him or her later?

Is it reasonable to expect that more than one person (i.e. someone in addition to Wesley Buell Frazier) would notice and remember seeing TSBD employee and "loner" Oswald walking away from the TSBD (from the rear of the building) a few minutes after the assassination? 

[Richard Smith]

Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.

You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.

Martin from "Europe" doesn't accept the implication of any of the thousands of doubts he has expressed about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It begins and ends with nitpicking the evidence and then taking the discussion down the rabbit hole.  As he has done once again here.  As you note, he has posted thousands of times on this forum always interpreting the evidence in the most improbable way possible to lend itself to Oswald's innocence.  Which, of course. would mean that there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald but he "doesn't care either way" about who did it!  He just suggests all the evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery, planting, lies, or chance.  If only Roger Collins were here to lend us his guidance.

[Martin Weidmann]

The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.

JohnM

I stopped reading after this.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin from "Europe" doesn't accept the implication of any of the thousands of doubts he has expressed about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It begins and ends with nitpicking the evidence and then taking the discussion down the rabbit hole.  As he has done once again here.  As you note, he has posted thousands of times on this forum always interpreting the evidence in the most improbable way possible to lend itself to Oswald's innocence.  Which, of course. would mean that there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald but he "doesn't care either way" about who did it!  He just suggests all the evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery, planting, lies, or chance.  If only Roger Collins were here to lend us his guidance.

Says a guy who is willing to accept at face value any "evidence" as long as it points to Oswald's guilt, without ever wondering if it is authentic or not.
Typical LN stuff; whining and complaining about questions being asked regarding the evidence without ever being able to answer any of those questions.

Pathetic

[Lance Payette]

What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?

Are all those self-serving arguments why a conspiracy, in your opinion, could or would not have worked, supposed to somehow justify the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gun man?

You claim to be an ex-lawyer, so you should understand that the best way to disprove a conspiracy is by presenting a solid, conclusive case against Oswald.
So, why not do that instead of constantly arguing that a conspiracy is improbable or even impossible?

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.