Try giving some thought to the TSBD

[Lance Payette]

Like your appeals to "common sense" and "no conspiracy would do that" are substantive?

Of course, they are substantive. "Substantive" is not defined by "let's debate CE 399 for the 14,000th time."

"Explain to me how your argument makes any sense whatsoever in the context of a sane, real-world, Presidential assassination" is a substantive challenge because, without a coherent rationale, an argument is simply mental masturbation.

CTers hate these epistemological challenges because, for the most part, they can't articulate a coherent rationale. Whether CE 399 is sufficiently deformed to have done what it is claimed to have done is certainly one issue, but why fabricating and planting it would make any sense at all is a more fundamental issue.

Like you insist that you don't really care that much about the case, but you spend all this time and energy trying to debunk any challenge to the orthodoxy?

Actually, anyone can see that I, in addition to being the Caped Factoid Buster, am actually quite the Fair & Reasonable Provisional Lone Nutter. I am quite willing to be convinced by a plausible, evidence-based conspiracy theory. On the other hand, I spent 40 years poking holes in other peoples' arguments at a professional level and am not going to stop now.

I don't care about the case in the sense of particularly caring Who Dunnit. I'm actually quite sympathetic to Oswald. I'd be happy if he were innocent. I'd be happy, just because it would be fascinating, if there actually was an elaborate conspiracy. But I don't really care. It's just mental exercise in the same way people work crossword puzzles or read murder mysteries and try to figure out Who Dunnit before the end. The fact that even F&RPLNers like myself make so many CTers apoplectic is really quite interesting and suggests that I'm dealing with the functional equivalent of religious zealots (true of many LNers as well, of course).

[John Iacoletti]

Of course, they are substantive. "Substantive" is not defined by "let's debate CE 399 for the 14,000th time."

It's also not defined by "hey let's discuss my 14,000th hypothetical assumption about what a 'Real Conspiracy' would do".

"Explain to me how your argument makes any sense whatsoever in the context of a sane, real-world, Presidential assassination" is a substantive challenge because, without a coherent rationale, an argument is simply mental masturbation.

You mean like the official narrative argument is?

Surely you realize that "sense" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

CTers hate these epistemological challenges because, for the most part, they can't articulate a coherent rationale. Whether CE 399 is sufficiently deformed to have done what it is claimed to have done is certainly one issue, but why fabricating and planting it would make any sense at all is a more fundamental issue.

Why does it have to be one or the other?  Particularly when CE399 cannot even be physically linked to the crime at all?

Actually, anyone can see that I, in addition to being the Caped Factoid Buster, am actually quite the Fair & Reasonable Provisional Lone Nutter.

I think what you mean is that you are more than willing to consider other made-up fantasy scenarios (that "make sense") as long as your made-up fantasy scenario that Oswald did it is fully embraced.  That somehow makes you "fair and reasonable".

I am quite willing to be convinced by a plausible, evidence-based conspiracy theory.

Yet, apparently you have become convinced of the LN theory without such pesky caveats.

On the other hand, I spent 40 years poking holes in other peoples' arguments at a professional level and am not going to stop now.

The difference is that you are poking holes in arguments that you have merely made up for the purpose.  I don't think that anybody is as "apoplectic" as you would like them to be with your challenges.  It's just yet another ploy to shift the focus away from your own incoherent narrative.

[Lance Payette]

It's also not defined by "hey let's discuss my 14,000th hypothetical assumption about what a 'Real Conspiracy' would do".

You mean like the official narrative argument is?

Surely you realize that "sense" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Why does it have to be one or the other?  Particularly when CE399 cannot even be physically linked to the crime at all?

I think what you mean is that you are more than willing to consider other made-up fantasy scenarios (that "make sense") as long as your made-up fantasy scenario that Oswald did it is fully embraced.  That somehow makes you "fair and reasonable".

Yet, apparently you have become convinced of the LN theory without such pesky caveats.

The difference is that you are poking holes in arguments that you have merely made up for the purpose.  I don't think that anybody is as "apoplectic" as you would like them to be with your challenges.  It's just yet another ploy to shift the focus away from your own incoherent narrative.

No, you're simply wrong. The LN narrative is entirely coherent. As is true in every complex criminal case, there are problem areas - the SBT for example. The issue is whether they are epistemological "defeaters" for the LN narrative. I fully acknowledge a number of genuine puzzles and problem areas, but none so far that I would regard as a defeater. If I encountered a defeater, that would simply tell me the LN narrative is incorrect and I'd look elsewhere.

The issue for a conspiracy theory is not whether it makes sense TO ME. The issue is whether it makes sense ON ITS OWN TERMS. I don't tell CTers "That makes no sense," I say, "Explain to me how that makes sense TO YOU. Let's explore whether that fits into a coherent theory because it seems to me that it doesn't."

Prayer Person is perhaps the most screaming example I've encountered yet. How patsy Oswald was not under control and was able to walk out of the TSBD is another. In the LN narrative, he wasn't on the steps at all, and he left the TSBD as a fleeing assassin - not necessarily true, but certainly coherent and consistent with the narrative.

You are arguing against a straw man who simply isn't me - and really not doing a very good job of that.

[John Iacoletti]

No, you're simply wrong. The LN narrative is entirely coherent.

Says you.  But everybody thinks their own assumptions are "coherent", even if that coherence is just based on cherry-picking out details that don't fit.

You have it exactly backwards.  The proposed narrative must be actually be demonstrated to be true, not just hand-waved in via lack of a "defeater".  For all of your pretend epistemology, you seem rather focused on the flaws in other theories rather than the flaws in your own.

If Prayerman is not Oswald, then there may or may not have been a conspiracy to kill JFK.  If Prayerman is Oswald then there may or may not have been a conspiracy to kill JFK.  Whether it makes conspiratorial sense to you or not, that has no bearing on whether Prayerman is or is not Oswald.  You have to deal with any claim on the basis on what evidence supports it, not on how you would expect a murderer to behave or what you would expect a fantasy conspiracy to do.

The strawman here is the notion that ANYBODY has ever argued that a vast conspiracy was controlling Oswald's every movement AND they allowed him to stand in the Prayerman position during the assassination.

[Tom Graves]

Says you.  But everybody thinks their own assumptions are "coherent", even if that coherence is just based on cherry-picking out details that don't fit.

You have it exactly backwards.  The proposed narrative must be actually be demonstrated to be true, not just hand-waved in via lack of a "defeater".  For all of your pretend epistemology, you seem rather focused on the flaws in other theories rather than the flaws in your own.

If Prayerman is not Oswald, then there may or may not have been a conspiracy to kill JFK.  If Prayerman is Oswald then there may or may not have been a conspiracy to kill JFK.  Whether it makes conspiratorial sense to you or not, that has no bearing on whether Prayerman is or is not Oswald.  You have to deal with any claim on the basis on what evidence supports it, not on how you would expect a murderer to behave or what you would expect a fantasy conspiracy to do.

The strawman here is the notion that ANYBODY has ever argued that a vast conspiracy was controlling Oswald's every movement AND they allowed him to stand in the Prayerman position during the assassination.

Good ol' John "EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU CITE IS LEGITIMATE -- And I Will Always Yell At The Top Of My Voice That It Isn't -- IT STILL DOESN'T ABSOLUTELY PROVE THAT OSWALD KILLED JFK" Iacoletti.

[Dan O'meara]

Iacoletti,

What "fantasy stories"?

There's the one about Oswald actually taking that shots.
Or the one about CE399 being the bullet that went through JBC and JFK.
Or the one about Givens being the last TSBD employee to see Oswald.
Or the one about how Bonnie Ray's lunch remains magically move around the 6th floor.
Or the vanishing palmprint.
Or the one where Shelley and Lovelady lie about there movements.
Or Oswald's invisible journey from the 6th to 2nd floor.
Or the Warren Commssion. Tolkein would've been proud of that one.

As for the topic of this thread, look no further than my own emerging theory. It is a lo-fi, Hail Mary, no-guarantees attempt on JFK's life. All the emphasis being that this attempt can in no way be traced back to the instigators of the attempt. It is, more or less, the same scenario as Oswald taking the shots except it accounts for all the evidence against Oswald taking the shots. A single shooter with a rifle taking shots from a TSBD building window.

[Jim Hawthorn]

If there were conspirators, how would they have had ANY IDEA what might be taking place inside the building when JFK’s motorcade passed by? No one had any control over what the publishing company employees and their guests might be doing. No effort was made to control the TSBD employees. No memos were issued instructing all employees to be outside during the motorcade to show support for our wonderful President or anything like that. No one had the foresight to block off the 6th floor as a construction zone. No one had any way of knowing that DPD officers or SS agents wouldn’t be assigned to the roof or upper floors.

Yes, I always thought that no "professional" assassin would choose he 6th floor of that building for all the reasons that you list. Getting up there would be difficult (unless one was a known, regular face). Getting out would be even worse. The only way I could see was up or down the exterior fire escape but I suppose that has been ruled out here.

[Lance Payette]

Yes, I always thought that no "professional" assassin would choose he 6th floor of that building for all the reasons that you list. Getting up there would be difficult (unless one was a known, regular face). Getting out would be even worse. The only way I could see was up or down the exterior fire escape but I suppose that has been ruled out here.

Yesterday, I added to my "If I had planned the conspiracy thread" a more serious effort that I didn't think was ridiculous. It posited Oswald's fellow conspirator being in or on the Dal-Tex Building and firing the head shot. I vaguely recalled a large-caliber rifle shell being found by construction workers on the Dal-Tex roof at a much later date. Here is an old, short thread from the Ed Forum about that issue: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2388-shell-casing-on-the-roof/. I still don't know if it's true, but it would be quite startling if it were.