O'meara,
It seems as though your strategy is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.
A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.
LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.
Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.
Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which in fact do not mesh with your theory at all.
Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.
Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.
Oswald? Without extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."
-- Posted originally by Lance Payette; edited slightly by me
McMahon,
Are you now Lance's sock puppet (there's a creepy visual

)
Irritatingly, in his last ever interaction with me, which I agree was semi-rational, Lance has finally made a coherent, valid point.
Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.I only entertained Wallace because of the rumours that one of his fingerprints was found in the Sniper's Nest but I'd already expressed reservations about his selection - "The only issue with this is how Wallace gets out after the shooting as the quick arrival of Baker on the scene causes a lot of problems."
But Lance has raised a valid point, the inclusion of Wallace into the conspiracy theory ends the aspect of compartmentalization which is absolutely key to this theory. Wallace is LBJ's man which is a direct connection between LBJ and the assassination.
This can't be allowed to happen as the very top priority for LBJ and Byrd must be that the assassination plot can't come back to them in any way. There must be 'plausible deniability'.
Wallace is out.
Let's go through the rest of the post:
Your version of the Conspiratorial Tap Dance, much like theirs, is to feign obtuseness;This is a falsehood. I've never feigned obtuseness in any discussion with Lance.
deflect, deflect, deflect; This is also a falsehood. I've never deflected anything.
More importantly, I would never stoop to lying.
and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.Meaning - I keep repeating the same argument over and over again.
Only in the world of the feeble-minded is this a negative quality.
Of course I repeat the same argument.
The only time I would change my argument is if good evidence or a good counter-argument forced me to review my position. Exactly as the 'Mac Wallace' counter-argument did.
A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.Man, you really talk some nonsense.
LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.The reasons for having LBJ and Byrd as the instigators of the assassination is covered in detail in the OP.
"Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man."There's nothing in Cason's life to suggest he would be amenable to an assassination plot? Obviously Lance is unaware that the Cason household was raked over the coals by the FBI for publicly pronouncing that JFK should be shot. Cason's ultra far-right pedigree is impeccable and puts him in the same category as Hitler-loving Byrd. Interestingly LBJ, Byrd and Cason were all Freemasons, always good for a conspiracy theory.
This is the only official statement Cason made to any investigating authority regarding the assassination:
"On November 22, 1963 I left the Depository Building
at approximately 12 :10 P .M . and walked to the parking lot
at the west side of the building and picked up my car . I
then drove out Stemmons Expressway an route to my residence
and while driving I heard that President John F . Kennedy had
been shot near the Depository Building . I was alone in the
car and drove directly home after making one stop at a store ."
That's it.
That's the sum total of Cason's contribution to the "investigation".
This was part of the round of CE1381's that all employees in the TSBD building had to answer.
Other than that Cason was never questioned about the assassination by the DPD, FBI, Secret Service or Warren Commission even though he was President of the TSBD.
And even this short statement is weird - the President of the United States is passing directly in front of his office, everyone is out in celebration but Cason decides to go home. He gets in his car around 12:10 pm for a ten minute drive and is still driving when he hears on the radio about JFK being shot. But reports about JFK being shot weren't on the radio for quite some time.
It's all a bit fishy.
Obviously, it's not proof that Cason was involved in the plot just as there is no proof that Oswald took the shots.
But Lance's protests, that there's no way Cason could possibly be involved, are more bark than bite.
"Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which in fact do not mesh with your theory at all."
The theory goes poof??
What an unbiased, rational assessment.
Lance keeps making the claim that there is nothing in Shelley's life to indicate "he was a fanatical ideologue", not that I ever claimed he was one. He gives the impression that he's really familiar with Shelley, that he knows his political beliefs or religious views but the truth is that he knows nothing about how Shelley viewed things. Lance's silly argument can be turned on it's head - there's nothing in Shelley'e life to show he WASN'T a fanatical ideologue.
But what I have done is demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, that Shelley lied about his movements in the immediate aftermath of the assassination ("The 3 Minute Lie" thread). If Shelley was just some innocent bystander why would he be lying over and over again to various law enforcement agencies?
Another interesting thing about Shelley is that Oswald reportedly named Shelley as part of his alibi. The story is that after his encounter with Baker and Truly, Oswald went to the front lobby where he had a chat with Shelley. As a result of this chat Oswald left the building.
The only rational reason Oswald would name Shelley is because he fully expected Shelley to back him up.
"Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi."Nothing?
Dougherty's testimony and statements about what he did around the time of the assassination are some of the most bizarre and contradictory aspects of the whole case.
Dougherty was in the building at the time.
He testified that he was on the 6th floor just before and after the shooting.
His story about going down to see Eddie Piper is off the charts.
What is really interesting is that not once, ever, did Dougherty explain what he saw while he was up on the 6th floor. Everyone just gave him a pass - the FBI, the WC Sham.
There is no contemporary photo of Dougherty, no detailed description.
He fits like a glove into this conspiracy theory.
"Oswald? Without extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. He showed up for work at the TSBD building
Explain how the rifle got into the building. Oswald brought it
Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassinationHe was under strict orders
how he was able to simply walk out of the building.He had legs
Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."He was a fugitive on the run heading for the border when Tippit got in his way. He was not "innocent". I have never suggested that.