If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Richard Smith]

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

Answer the question.

I did.  Even underlined it, explained it, and dumbed it down.  That's the best I can do for you.  You apparently believe that ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene "has nothing to do" with who committed the crime.  That is profoundly stupid. 

[Dan O'meara]

I did.  Even underlined it, explained it, and dumbed it down.  That's the best I can do for you.  You apparently believe that ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene "has nothing to do" with who committed the crime.  That is profoundly stupid.

Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

[Dan O'meara]

As I've previously said, CTers use a language all their own. In CT World, a "fact" is that which is established to a level of metaphysical ontology (i.e., a description of the actual, bottom-line reality, with which an all-knowing God himself could not disagree). A "theory" is that which is not established to a level of metaphysical ontology. If the entire Warren Commission had, for some reason, been sitting on the 6th floor of the TSBD watching Oswald fire the shots, the fact would still not be established to the level CTers insist upon. Maybe the WC were drugged or hypnotized. Maybe the shooter was Mac Wallace in an Oswald mask. Maybe the whole thing was a deceptive hologram generated by aliens. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Voila, we still have no more than a theory. We will never, at least this side of the hereafter, have anything more than a theory. You say the shooter was Oswald, I say it was an alien hologram.

"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory. Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory. This game is why there are such a multiplicity of diverse and irreconcilable conspiracy theories. It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion. Well, yes - duh. "But NOT all the evidence!" says Dan. "You just have a theory!"

Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation. That Oswald actually was elsewhere in the TSBD - zero evidence. What sense it makes for Oswald to have been elsewhere if he was being framed as a shooter on the 6th floor - none. What sense it makes for the patsy to be allowed to leave the TSBD and survive 48 hours - none. Indeed, Dan's theory raises all the unanswerable questions I asked in my thread about Hancock and Boylan's new book, which I am apparently the only one who has purchased and read. To their credit, Hancock and Boylan stay with the Lone Nut perspective on Oswald from childhood right up until immediately before the assassination because that is the rational, evidence-based perspective. Their bottom-line theory (Oswald thought he was part of a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba) is not woven out of whole cloth like Dan's LBJ-Byrd scenario, but it is highly speculative and based on dubious inferences from minimal facts. It's an ad hoc conspiracy theory based on little more than a wish to avoid the LN conclusion.

The key to these endless, round-and-round, foaming-at-the-mouth discussions is truly to be found in the professional psychological and sociological literature addressing the conspiracy-prone mindset. It just is. Alas, even the LN fanatics never want to go there, possibly because the fanatical LN mindset is not wildly different. Here's a recent article from the American Psychological Association website, "Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories," https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories. It has a link to the article in the APA Psychological Bulletin, "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf.

Since you won't read it, here ya go:

• People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

• "Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”

• The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.

• The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.

It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion.

My observation was that Nutters believe Oswald was the shooter as a fact when it's only a theory.
I understand why you've come to the conclusion that Oswald was the shooter. It's classic Nutter logic - Oswald's rifle was there, therefore he took the shots.
I really seem to have hit a nerve by pointing out that Oswald being the shooter is just a theory. At least you recognise this truth, unlike foaming-at-the-mouth Tricky Dicky.

"Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation."

It is amusing that LNers don't believe they speculate.
Maybe you could regale us with what you believe Oswald's movements were after he was seen/heard by the 6th floor workers when they broke for lunch.
Did Oswald follow them down to the first floor?
Did he head straight for the Sniper's Nest?
Was he hiding in the Sniper's Nest while Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch a few yards away?
Have you ever even thought about this?
Do you even need to think about it because you know for a fact that Oswald did it so you don't need to think about it?

PS: Try not to misrepresent what I post. It's good manners.

[John Mytton]

Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.

But let's hypothesize that Oswald's rifle was used by another assassin and evaluate the probabilities.

Q. Someone broke into the Paine garage and stole Oswald's rifle and took it to his work and did the deed?
A. Oswald didn't have many friends, so it's unlikely that anybody knew that the rifle was there and even if someone perchance broke in and stole the rifle, how the heck would they know where Oswald(who only visited on weekends), even worked? Possibility 0%   

Q. Oswald took his rifle to work for show and tell, and a fellow worker grabbed the rifle at lunch and assassinated JFK?
A. Oswald wouldn't take a loaded rifle to work and nobody said they saw a rifle. Possibility -10%

Q. Oswald took his rifle to work and gave it to an assassin?
A. Oswald was dumb but not stupid! Possibility 0%

I guess I could go on making up various scenarios but why bother?
All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!

JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.

But let's hypothesize that Oswald's rifle was used by another assassin and evaluate the probabilities.

Q. Someone broke into the Paine garage and stole Oswald's rifle and took it to his work and did the deed?
A. Oswald didn't have many friends, so it's unlikely that anybody knew that the rifle was there and even if someone perchance broke in and stole the rifle, how the heck would they know where Oswald(who only visited on weekends), even worked? Possibility 0%   

Q. Oswald took his rifle to work for show and tell, and a fellow worker grabbed the rifle at lunch and assassinated JFK?
A. Oswald wouldn't take a loaded rifle to work and nobody said they saw a rifle. Possibility -10%

Q. Oswald took his rifle to work and gave it to an assassin?
A. Oswald was dumb but not stupid! Possibility 0%

I guess I could go on making up various scenarios but why bother?
All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!

JohnM

C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.

It isn't a loaded questions at all, John, and I'm surprised you see it that way.
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer - NO.
It is obviously the case that Oswald's ownership of the rifle does not prove he took the shots.
A child can see that.

The point of the question is to reveal the mentality of people like Richard.
Because Richard believes that Oswald taking the shots is a proven fact he cannot answer the question.
He just cannot bring himself to answer it.
He cannot accept, on any level, that it is a theory.
It is exactly the same extreme mentality shown by members of the Tinfoil brigade.

And as for your list of scenarios...
It shows the same lack of imagination all LNers display when pretending to think about alternative narratives.
Maybe Oswald was duped into handing his rifle over. Maybe he was ordered to hand it over. Maybe he believed he was part of something he really wanted to be part of, like an assassination attempt on John Connally, so he handed his rifle over willingly.

All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!

All the evidence, John?
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Three eyewitnesses describe the man having a fair/light complexion, opposed to Oswald's dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
None of the other women who came out to the 4th floor storage area reported seeing Oswald either.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting. Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?

All the evidence, John?
Hardly.
All the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
And if it's not Oswald on the 6th floor then he was framed for the shooting using his own rifle.

[Lance Payette]

My observation was that Nutters believe Oswald was the shooter as a fact when it's only a theory.

You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker.

I understand why you've come to the conclusion that Oswald was the shooter. It's classic Nutter logic - Oswald's rifle was there, therefore he took the shots.
I really seem to have hit a nerve by pointing out that Oswald being the shooter is just a theory. At least you recognise this truth, unlike foaming-at-the-mouth Tricky Dicky.

While complaining others misrepresent your position, it seems to be your entire modus operandi. You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA. My "involvement" started as a casual interest, became more of a hobby, and now is little more than an amusing study of the psychology of the conspiracy mindset (across many other subjects besides the JfKA). Who actually killed JFK, at the level of ontology, will simply never be known, but CTers succeed mostly in muddying the water.

I have come to the conviction that Oswald was the shooter on the basis of the totality of the best evidence, most reasonable inferences, and most plausible and rational chain of logic. I am not driven by the psychological needs described in the APA study. I think you and most of your ilk have great difficulty dealing with someone who won't be sucked into your game.

It is amusing that LNers don't believe they speculate.
Maybe you could regale us with what you believe Oswald's movements were after he was seen/heard by the 6th floor workers when they broke for lunch.
Did Oswald follow them down to the first floor?
Did he head straight for the Sniper's Nest?
Was he hiding in the Sniper's Nest while Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch a few yards away?
Have you ever even thought about this?
Do you even need to think about it because you know for a fact that Oswald did it so you don't need to think about it?

PS: Try not to misrepresent what I post. It's good manners.

The basis of your statement that "LNers don't believe they speculate"? The WC Report, which I have read in its entirety, is full of acknowledged speculation. My and most peoples' conviction that OJ was guilty as hell nonetheless requires a fair amount of speculation as to precisely what happened. You live in a CT fantasy world where all LNers must fit your preconceived notions. Read the APA material and take a look in the mirror.

Sure, I have my speculation as to what Oswald was doing between 12 and 12:30. It fits nicely with the known evidence, both affirmative and negative. When I try to picture how my scenario might have looked, it makes far more sense and is far more consistent with the evidence than Oswald being in the first floor lunchroom, out on the TSBD steps, hidden in some back room awaiting instructions, or being restrained in a headlock by Shelley as per his instructions from Cason, Byrd and LBJ.

Thank you for illustrating precisely what the APA materials - and reams upon reams of similar studies - are talking about. Nooooo, none of this applies in JFKA Conspiracy World, where everyone is a rational, hardnosed researcher just trying to get at the truth. We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!

[John Mytton]

C'mon Dan, that's a loaded question that a shoddy defence lawyer would ask when he realizes his client is guilty beyond all doubt, so no, that question can't be answered without fully exploring the surrounding facts.

It isn't a loaded questions at all, John, and I'm surprised you see it that way.
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer - NO.
It is obviously the case that Oswald's ownership of the rifle does not prove he took the shots.
A child can see that.

The point of the question is to reveal the mentality of people like Richard.
Because Richard believes that Oswald taking the shots is a proven fact he cannot answer the question.
He just cannot bring himself to answer it.
He cannot accept, on any level, that it is a theory.
It is exactly the same extreme mentality shown by members of the Tinfoil brigade.

And as for your list of scenarios...
It shows the same lack of imagination all LNers display when pretending to think about alternative narratives.
Maybe Oswald was duped into handing his rifle over. Maybe he was ordered to hand it over. Maybe he believed he was part of something he really wanted to be part of, like an assassination attempt on John Connally, so he handed his rifle over willingly.

All the evidence points to Oswald and his actions and provable lies at the interrogation proves that he assassinated John F. Kennedy!

All the evidence, John?
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Three eyewitnesses describe the man having a fair/light complexion, opposed to Oswald's dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
None of the other women who came out to the 4th floor storage area reported seeing Oswald either.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting. Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?

All the evidence, John?
Hardly.
All the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
And if it's not Oswald on the 6th floor then he was framed for the shooting using his own rifle.

The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.

Oswald's shirt in direct sunlight did appear much lighter and especially when contrasted with the relative darkness of the background of the 6th floor.

Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have

Where does Euins say the "top" of Oswald's head? And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up? Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun.

Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.

Euins did.

Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.

A man with receding hair at 23 is unusual and this condition is more likely for a man in his 30's

Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.

So the shooter stayed behind?

Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).

8 seconds? 3 second window?

Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.

Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).

Jack said a lot of things which were very odd.

Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.

There are holes in Garners recollection, as well as Adams. I.E. Adams saw Lovelady and Shelley as she left the building but they didn't re-enter for quite a while.

Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.

Oswald had enough time. Iirc the HSCA did a 56 second time, the WC studies were at a much relaxed speed.

Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.

A report with the "coke" reference that had was crossed out and I believe was not written by him?

Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting.

Oswald on the 6th floor and was directly above the 2 men and would have heard them when they arrived at the window directly below and Oswald would have had a great view and would have been keeping an eye on employees movements.

Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.

It was always Oswald.

And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?

Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?

Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.

All the evidence, John?
Hardly.
All the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
And if it's not Oswald on the 6th floor then he was framed for the shooting using his own rifle.

As I have just demonstrated, each and every one of your refutations is easily explained away and you haven't even confronted yourself with the actual Mountain of evidence of Oswald's guilt, why is that, Dan? 

JohnM

[Richard Smith]

Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

Again, ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating absent some explanation by its owner as to how it came to be there.  Oswald could provide no such explanation.  In fact, he lied about his ownership of the rifle. He had no alibi that would preclude him from being the shooter.  I'm not exactly sure why you are stuck on this obvious point.  Are you suggesting that there had to be a film of Oswald pulling the trigger to prove he took the shots?  The evidence is not viewed in a vacuum as though it has no association to the other known evidence and circumstances and conclusions must be reached based on each individual piece of evidence.  That is just CTer nonsense.