Thanks for the lecture, but I am pretty well-informed about the case. There are indeed aspects I find problematical and even troubling, but I'm satisfied I'm as well-informed about the case as a human can reasonably be and, as you suggest, I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it except in the broadest epistemological terms. Epistemology is the last place most CTers want to go. Most of them don't even seem to CARE whether what they say makes any logical sense, which suggests to me they aren't dealing with "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate" (as famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga insists is necessary for beliefs to be epistemologically justified).
It wasn't a lecture and there's no need to be so sensitive, it was merely a presentation of evidential points undermining the interpretation that Oswald took the shots and, as someone who espouses the value of "logical sense", I'm sure you'll agree it's a valid approach to this puzzle.
Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.
Your "perfectly plausible and simple" theory does involve direct involvement by LBJ, with LBJ conceiving the plot and instigating and organizing the Dallas trip ... David Harold Byrd agreeing to make it happen in return for a massive LTV contract ... Jack Cason of the TSBD being brought into the plot ... Cason knowing of Bill Shelley's (highly dubious and unlikely) CIA connections and bringing him into the loop to make it happen ... and Shelley finding a sniper and somehow doing the patsy thing with Oswald.
Hello? Perhaps not so simple? LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think? There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me. On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms - i.e, all the issues raised by my goofy original post. What the hell happened - did Shelley completely drop the ball? Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway? Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation? By the time this was put through a thought exercise like my original post, I think you'd find it would have had to involve far more than five people and would scarcely look "simple and perfectly plausible."
Let's refresh our memory of the criteria that
you laid out in the OP:
1. Keep this as simple as possible. JFK dies and all signs point to our patsy. Mission accomplished, neat and clean. Nobody gets executed.
2. Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination.
3. A plausible assassination weapon must be easily connected to our patsy.
4. If the actual assassination weapon is a different one, it must be of the same type and caliber.
5. The ammunition must be a common type and easily obtainable. Nothing exotic - no Bruno Magli shoes, if you get my drift.
6. From wherever the fatal shot is fired, the trajectory must not be wildly different from a shot fired from the patsy’s location.
7. Our patsy cannot survive the assassination.
Point #7 is debatable but the fact of the matter is that Oswald doesn't last 48 hours after the assassination.
Other than that, all criteria that you have laid out are met with the conspiracy I've outlined.
LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper?
In the scenario I proposed:
The conversation between LBJ and Byrd was completely private.
After this private conversation LBJ is no longer linked with the assassination in a way that exposes him to any degree.
Cason doesn't know about LBJ. Shelley doesn't know about LBJ and Byrd.
All LBJ has to do is press for a visit to Dallas, something viewed as purely political. The route through Dallas takes care of itself. JFK followed this exact route, passing by the TSBD building, in 1960.
LBJ has zero exposure.
"Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think?"The conversation between Byrd and Cason is completely private.
There is no record of it.
After this conversation Byrd has zero involvement and has zero exposure.
Even so, Byrd thought it was wise to leave the country and go on safari in Africa at the time of the assassination, so he must have still been concerned about some kind of blowback. Maybe it was Byrd who asked his friend and associate, Georges De Morenschildt (the flamboyant millionaire socialite and "uncle" to Jackie Kennedy) to befriend the penniless, low-life Commie defector and future fall-guy, Oswald. An unlikely pairing if there ever was one.
If he did, Byrd's exposure would still be minimal and would not have required him to reveal the ultimate plan to De Morenschildt.
There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me.
This is interesting as there is zero evidence that Oswald actually took the shots and a lot of evidence indicating that he didn't but you don't seem to mind that.
Exactly what type of evidence would you expect to find from a handful of completely private conversations? The answer to this question is that there would be zero evidence. Not even the faintest trace. That's the beauty of such a simple conspiracy.
And what is blowing your mind about a few private conversations? What do you find so "fantastically improbable"?
On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world termsNothing has been side-stepped. You have answered this issue with your own stipulation #2 - "Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination."
The patsy's "role" is to be a patsy. As long as he does what he's told that's all that matters. Oswald may have believed he had some specific function which required him to keep a low profile during the lunch break but that was not his real "role"
Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway?He's an active member of the conspiracy involving 5 people. Why shouldn't he live? Who's going to kill him? LBJ? Byrd? Cason? None of these men have any traceable tie to the assassination so why should they be concerned? There is no reason to create the kind of complexities you are suggesting by killing Shelley. Not when everything has gone so smoothly. This is the beauty of such a simple conspiracy theory.
Do you really think Shelley might go running to the authorities considering how involved he is?
"Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation?"They hated Kennedy and truly thought they were doing the right thing. By some of the far-right religious, Kennedy was viewed as the Anti-Christ. His death was their reward.
Idiotic, perhaps?
Now, now Lance.
Play nice.
Any plausible conspiracy theory is going to have Oswald as at least one of the gunmen, simple as that. You can have him duped into thinking he's conspiring with fellow pro-Castroites when in fact they are anti-Castroites, but the patsy-framed-duped thing just goes nowhere IMO.
Talking of idiotic...how does a plausible conspiracy theory involve more than one shooter?
You have literally gone against everything you were originally proposing!
Keep it simple - one shooter, one patsy.
If patsy #1 fails then the shooter becomes the patsy #2.
But patsy #1 didn't fail and was killed before his story could be told. The subsequent investigations all focused on Oswald as the shooter, no other option was considered, not even for a second.
5 people
A handful of private conversations.
A patsy who's dead before the investigation really gets going.
Now that's neat.
