If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Tom Sorensen]

Steve M. Galbraith's contributions have at least been consistently devoid of substance over the last decade. Respect!

[John Iacoletti]

It's a plausible scenario, Iacoletti, whereas your implicit one -- that Oswald was innocent and therefore lots and lots of evil, evil CIA / FBI / Secret Service bad guys must have been involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up -- is so implausible that it would be laughable if only it hadn't helped "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin install "useful idiot" (or worse) Trump as our "president" in 2017 and 2025..

Nice strawman, but I have no such scenario, "implicit" or otherwise.

[John Iacoletti]

Who defines "reasonable?" You think you alone do? In reality, once Hill and Carroll testify that they recognize this pistol with the identifying marks they put on it as the one seized from the defendant at the Texas Theatre," it's going to be considered authenticated at trial, whether you like it or not.

You think you alone know what would happen at a hypothetical trial?

The problem is that neither Hill nor Carroll "seized" anything from anybody, Carroll didn't know whose hand he grabbed a gun from, and he didn't mark anything until long after a gun left his possession.

No chain of custody whatsoever.

[John Iacoletti]

It's not bad to question things. The problem I have with Martin's position here isn't so much about authentication as that he wants to use it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card in order to ignore the pistol as evidence. The problem is, this tack will not accomplish that. He would need to show that the Pistol is somehow defective as evidence in this case. That is, that some fact about the pistol would actually disqualify it, like it was the wrong caliber, or that the barrel was welded shut rendering the gun incapable of firing.

There is no reason whatsoever (other than faith) to believe that CE143 ever touched Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

Asking questions is not only not bad but it's good. But at some point you have to accept the answers. This is all we have.

This is truly the heart of the LN position.  This is all we have, so it has to be good enough.  Even if our "answer" isn't very well supported, it's better than no answer.

[Tom Graves]

This is truly the heart of the LN position.  This is all we have, so it has to be good enough.  Even if our "answer" isn't very well supported, it's better than no answer.

Why don't you provide us with a plausible alternative scenario, Iacoletti?

[Tom Sorensen]

Why would an implausible scenario need a plausible alternative?

[Tom Graves]

Why would an implausible scenario need a plausible alternative?

Because the Warren Commission's "implausible scenario" is a lot less implausible than any of the anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military scenarios that you and the other tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists have been able to come up with over the past sixty years, especially given the fact that most if not all of your conspiracy theories require an implausibly large number of bad guys involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.

D'oh