JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on March 26, 2025, 01:24:45 PM
-
Yet another topic where I find it useful to step back from conspiracy minutiae and attempt to think rationally …
All discussions of the TSBD take the circumstances as they were on 11-22-63 and work forward from there. Where was LHO when the shots were fired? How did the real assassin escape? Yada yada.
Step back and think about what the circumstances easily MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
According to a report dated April 3, 1964 from Hoover to Rankin, 73 individuals were known to have been in the TSBD on that date. Truly testified the warehouse crew was 15 employees, plus the administrators of the TSBD such as himself. In addition, seven publishing companies had office suites, and the Warren Report states that publishing company employees comprised the majority of people in the building.
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.
Any number of persons – i.e., potential witnesses – could have been ANYWHERE inside the TSBD when JFK was shot. How does this square with ANY rational conspiracy scenario that involves the TSBD? “We’ll just wing it and hope it all works out” – really? “We’ll just control our patsy and get our gunmen out of there somehow or another” – really?
Even LHO as a Lone Assassin is difficult to explain, but much easier. LHO did have routine access to the 6th floor as part of his job. He did know that a crew was replacing the flooring and the area was a mess, with boxes stacked in the southeast corner. But how could LHO know that 3, 5 or more individuals wouldn’t decide to watch from the 6th floor? He couldn’t – and I don’t think he cared.
What would LHO have done if Williams, Jarman and Norman had decided to watch from the 6th floor instead of the 5th – simply called off the assassination? Shot them too? I think not. I think he would have fired from his hidden perch and dealt with the consequences. Until he actually found himself outside the TSBD, I don’t think he had any plan of escape or expectation of escaping. I think he was astonished to find himself alone on the 6th floor and then outside on the sidewalk.
When we step back and consider what MIGHT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING inside the TSBD during the noon hour, and what no conspirator would have had any way of knowing WOULDN’T BE OCCURRING and NO WAY OF PREVENTING IF IT DID, no conspiracy scenario makes any sense at all – does it? Only LHO as the Lone Assassin makes any sense, and then only if you accept (as I do) that he had nothing resembling an escape plan or expectation of escape. Even if you dispute whether the descriptions fit Oswald, we KNOW a gunman was observed on the 6th floor – and it makes no sense for that gunman to have been anyone other than LHO.
Try running your pet conspiracy scenario through the Bayesian Common Sense, Logic and Rationality Meter ($32.50 at Walmart) and see if it really makes any sense at all. Spoiler alert: No, it doesn’t, at least if it involves conspiratorial shenanigans inside the TSBD. If your conspiracy theory involves LHO doing pretty much everything that Lone Nutters posit him doing, with some additional factors that make it a conspiracy, at least the needle on the Bayesian meter won’t immediately shoot into the Giggle Zone.
I realize these "common sense" posts aren't nearly as much fun as the minutiae-oriented mental masturbation that is the lifeblood of CTers and LNers alike, but epistemology is kind of my thing.
-
The above builds a solid case for a shooter(s) firing shots from OUTSIDE THE TSBD. Why risk someone stumbling onto you inside that building? Makes sense. Thanks for endorsing a Conspiracy being in play during the JFK Assassination.
-
The above builds a solid case for a shooter(s) firing shots from OUTSIDE THE TSBD. Why risk someone stumbling onto you inside that building? Makes sense. Thanks for endorsing a Conspiracy being in play during the JFK Assassination.
You're quite welcome! As you note, my point is that, if there were a conspiracy involving a gunman other than LHO, rationality demands that said gunman was outside the TSBD. I will now post a thread to the effect that rationality likewise demands a gunman at the rear whose shots could plausibly be attributed to LHO and that a frontal gunman makes no sense whatsoever. As we narrow our thinking to what rationality demands, we find that much Conspiracy Thinking and innumerable Conspiracy Factoids fall by the wayside.
The distinction that you in your CT zeal fail to make is that I am not "endorsing a Conspiracy" but rather "endorsing rational thinking about what any Conspiracy could possibly have looked like." If Conspiracy World operated according to common sense, logic and rationality, 85% of Conspiracy Thinking would simply go poof.
-
You're quite welcome! As you note, my point is that, if there were a conspiracy involving a gunman other than LHO, rationality demands that said gunman was outside the TSBD. I will now post a thread to the effect that rationality likewise demands a gunman at the rear whose shots could plausibly be attributed to LHO and that a frontal gunman makes no sense whatsoever. As we narrow our thinking to what rationality demands, we find that much Conspiracy Thinking and innumerable Conspiracy Factoids fall by the wayside.
The distinction that you in your CT zeal fail to make is that I am not "endorsing a Conspiracy" but rather "endorsing rational thinking about what any Conspiracy could possibly have looked like." If Conspiracy World operated according to common sense, logic and rationality, 85% of Conspiracy Thinking would simply go poof.
Of course he misses your other point about the difficulty - impossibility really - in framing Oswald for the shooting. As in: how do you control events INSIDE THE BUILDING? How do you control or know not just about Oswald's movements during the shooting but about the movements of the dozen-plus other people in the building who could give him an alibi?
So they control/manipulate Oswald. As usual. In conspiracy world he never has agency anyway; he's always being directed by others. How about the others? How are they going to be controlled?
In the real world with actual human beings and human nature you can't. In conspiracy world you can. You can control people, alter evidence, plant rifles and shells and fingerprints, alter films and photos, coerce and kill witnesses. And then cover all of this up for half a century.
It is bonkers. Absolute bonkers.
-
What would LHO have done if Williams, Jarman and Norman had decided to watch from the 6th floor instead of the 5th – simply called off the assassination? Shot them too? I think not. I think he would have fired from his hidden perch and dealt with the consequences. Until he actually found himself outside the TSBD, I don’t think he had any plan of escape or expectation of escaping. I think he was astonished to find himself alone on the 6th floor and then outside on the sidewalk.
Cool story, bro. Isn't it fun to fantasize?
I realize these "common sense" posts aren't nearly as much fun as the minutiae-oriented mental masturbation that is the lifeblood of CTers and LNers alike, but epistemology is kind of my thing.
"Common sense" is not evidence. It's what people appeal to when they don't have evidence. Basically the argument you are trying to make is that it makes more "sense" to you that Oswald did it, therefore he did. That's one way of approaching the subject, but I wouldn't call it epistemology.
-
Cool story, bro. Isn't it fun to fantasize?
"Common sense" is not evidence. It's what people appeal to when they don't have evidence. Basically the argument you are trying to make is that it makes more "sense" to you that Oswald did it, therefore he did. That's one way of approaching the subject, but I wouldn't call it epistemology.
Ever say anything substantive or are your 11,000 posts all pretty much inane observations such as these? Perhaps you can point me to some post where you actually said something? Are you posts supposed to be witty, is that it?
As Alvin Plantinga, one of the premier epistemologists of the 20th century pointed out, epistemic warrant (i.e., justification) hinges on "properly functioning cognitive faculties." If you can't articulate how your interpretation of evidence is rational, logical and coherent, you might want to check the old cognitive faculty dipstick and see if you're a quart low.
My post here makes the limited point that no inside-the-TSBD conspiracy scenario makes any sense. If you think it does, add a quart - or maybe two - to your cognitive faculties and get back to us with your explanation.
Play the one-liner game with me at your own risk.
-
Ever say anything substantive or are your 11,000 posts all pretty much inane observations such as these? Perhaps you can point me to some post where you actually said something? Are you posts supposed to be witty, is that it?
Like your appeals to "common sense" and "no conspiracy would do that" are substantive?
Like your notion of "rational, logical and coherent" is agreeing with the fantasy stories you like to make up?
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?
-
Like your notion of "rational, logical and coherent" is agreeing with the fantasy stories you like to make up?
Iacoletti,
What "fantasy stories"?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would think an "amateur" assassin would have the same if not worse problems, e.g., he's figuring this out for the first time as he goes along. How do this novice get in the building unnoticed, go up to the 6th floor unnoticed, go the window unnoticed (except by people outside), wait 30 minutes unnoticed, shoot the president, and then leave unnoticed?
I would think a professional with help I assume would be more skilled at this than an amateur. But even a pro would understand the difficulties. This is shooting the president. It's going to be investigated to the nth degree.
In conspiracy world everything is easy peasy. Planning this, funding it, executing it, covering it up. No problem. They can do just about anything. No they can't. Human nature and time work against all of this. It can't be done.
I thought that's what Jim was saying - i.e., this being a Presidential assassination, surely the participants would be pros. And if they were, they wouldn't have chosen the 6th floor of the TSBD as a location for a gunman. They would have had Oswald as a patsy with at least his rifle on the 6th floor and the actual gunman in or on the Dal-Tex Building. This "works" except for the rather large problem of explaining Oswald's post-assassination actions, which make no sense unless he at least knew his rifle was in the building (or he was, in fact, shooting from the 6th floor himself).
-
I thought that's what Jim was saying - i.e., this being a Presidential assassination, surely the participants would be pros. And if they were, they wouldn't have chosen the 6th floor of the TSBD as a location for a gunman. They would have had Oswald as a patsy with at least his rifle on the 6th floor and the actual gunman in or on the Dal-Tex Building. This "works" except for the rather large problem of explaining Oswald's post-assassination actions, which make no sense unless he at least knew his rifle was in the building (or he was, in fact, shooting from the 6th floor himself).
Oh Yeah, and the small problem of eye witnesses seeing a man pointing a rifle from the 6th floor window of the TSBD building ::)
What insight.
What a razor sharp mind.
-
I thought that's what Jim was saying - i.e., this being a Presidential assassination, surely the participants would be pros. And if they were, they wouldn't have chosen the 6th floor of the TSBD as a location for a gunman. They would have had Oswald as a patsy with at least his rifle on the 6th floor and the actual gunman in or on the Dal-Tex Building. This "works" except for the rather large problem of explaining Oswald's post-assassination actions, which make no sense unless he at least knew his rifle was in the building (or he was, in fact, shooting from the 6th floor himself).
Oswald's actions afterwards make perfect sense if he was being manipulated, duped into following a pattern. When the assassination happened, he could have realised that something was going wrong and that whatever plan he thought he was part of, was compromised and it spooked him.
-
Putting aside the endless contrarian loon arguments, why would any conspiracy plan involve bringing the president to the assassin instead of the assassin to the president? That is sheer stupidity. It's idiocy to believe that the plan was to put a patsy in some random building and then manipulate the schedule and motorcade of the president to bring him by that specific building. Much easier to control the movements of the patsy than the president.
-
Oswald's actions afterwards make perfect sense if he was being manipulated, duped into following a pattern. When the assassination happened, he could have realised that something was going wrong and that whatever plan he thought he was part of, was compromised and it spooked him.
There are certain things Oswald did before he even went to work that day (leaving pretty much all his money and wedding ring with Marina) that suggest he was aware there was a strong chance he could be arrested that day. After having a chat with Shelley, Oswald hit the road and there is a strong argument to be made that he was heading for the border when he ran into JD Tippit.
It seems to me that Oswald believed he was part of something really serious but not the killing of the President.
-
Oswald's actions afterwards make perfect sense if he was being manipulated, duped into following a pattern. When the assassination happened, he could have realised that something was going wrong and that whatever plan he thought he was part of, was compromised and it spooked him.
Yes, but Oswald's post-assassination actions make even better sense in the Lone Nut narrative. They make equally good sense in my fanciful pro-Castro conspiracy, with Oswald as one gunman and his partner in crime on the Dal-Tex roof.
Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.
Far from making "perfect sense," the "panic" explanation is a tortured one. As long as Oswald wasn't firing shots, his post-assassination actions make little sense at all. Moreover, as I asked, why did he go into irrational panic mode after having been cool as a cucumber in the lunchroom encounter? How did he then become preternaturally calm under intense interrogation (by Fritz's own admission)? Makes no sense to me.
I thought you were suggesting no professional gunman would have chosen to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD for all the reasons suggested in my original post in this thread, but perhaps you weren't. If I were conspiracy-oriented, simply planting Oswald's rifle and perhaps even having someone point it out the window a couple of times to seal the deal would make far more sense than having shots fired from there - but this simply isn't the evidence. That's my real point: An assassin other than Oswald firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest really makes no sense for all the reasons set forth in my original post.
-
Yes, but Oswald's post-assassination actions make even better sense in the Lone Nut narrative. They make equally good sense in my fanciful pro-Castro conspiracy, with Oswald as one gunman and his partner in crime on the Dal-Tex roof.
Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.
Far from making "perfect sense," the "panic" explanation is a tortured one. As long as Oswald wasn't firing shots, his post-assassination actions make little sense at all. Moreover, as I asked, why did he go into irrational panic mode after having been cool as a cucumber in the lunchroom encounter? How did he then become preternaturally calm under intense interrogation (by Fritz's own admission)? Makes no sense to me.
I thought you were suggesting no professional gunman would have chosen to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD for all the reasons suggested in my original post in this thread, but perhaps you weren't. If I were conspiracy-oriented, simply planting Oswald's rifle and perhaps even having someone point it out the window a couple of times to seal the deal would make far more sense than having shots fired from there - but this simply isn't the evidence. That's my real point: An assassin other than Oswald firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest really makes no sense for all the reasons set forth in my original post.
with Oswald as one gunman and his partner in crime on the Dal-Tex roof
Hold on a second, a minute ago you were saying that Oswald was just a patsy in the TSBD building and the shooter was in the Dal-Tex!
Now you're saying Oswald was a gunman!
You're saying that instead of just having Oswald as a gunman, it's more feasible to have him as a gunman and another gunman in the Dal-Tex??
Isn't this really stupid?
Isn't is a very silly, ill thought out suggestion?
Is this because I pointed out that you'd forgot about the witnesses who saw a gunman in the SN window?
But wait on...what's this?
"...simply planting Oswald's rifle and perhaps even having someone point it out the window a couple of times to seal the deal..."
Huuuuuh??
In a couple of sentences you've gone from a two-shooter scenario, with Oswald being one of the shooters, to having some random guy just pointing a rifle out of the window??WTF?
To seal the deal??
Whaaaat?
Is this some kind of comedy routine?
"That's my real point: An assassin other than Oswald firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest really makes no sense for all the reasons set forth in my original post."
Hmmmm...
This seems to be your MO.
Come up with a stupid, unrealistic conspiracy scenario that you don't have the wit to maintain and then throw your hands in the air declaring you've proved that any conspiracy is unfeasible.
Let's see you turn that razor sharp mind on the flaws in your own theory.
Instead of flooding the forum with bogus, narcissistic threads let's see one of interest.
-
Yes, but Oswald's post-assassination actions make even better sense in the Lone Nut narrative.
That is true! But there are many of flaws in that theory too, which is why the debate is so vibrant here.
-
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.
It doesn't even prove it a little bit. Maybe a few more capital letters will help.
-
Oswald's "actions" can mean whatever the interpreter wants them to mean. If you're looking at them through "Oswald-did-it"-colored glasses, then that's what you will see.
-
Putting aside the endless contrarian loon arguments, why would any conspiracy plan involve bringing the president to the assassin instead of the assassin to the president? That is sheer stupidity. It's idiocy to believe that the plan was to put a patsy in some random building and then manipulate the schedule and motorcade of the president to bring him by that specific building. Much easier to control the movements of the patsy than the president.
Strawman "Smith", right on cue. Why would a single designated patsy have to be chosen, and chosen in advance?
This just the same old argument, take 100001: "This vast Conspiracy I made up in my head would never do something like X. Therefore there was no conspiracy. Therefore, Oswald did it."
-
Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.
That's quite a blind spot. Those who do want Oswald to be a gunman have to invent this "fleeing the scene of the crime" narrative, even though there was nothing he demonstrably did that could be legitimately interpreted as "fleeing".
-
That's quite a blind spot. Those who do want Oswald to be a gunman have to invent this "fleeing the scene of the crime" narrative, even though there was nothing he demonstrably did that could be legitimately interpreted as "fleeing".
Admit it, Iacoletti -- If you had a better theory for the assassination than "Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by himself," you would have shared it with us by now.
So, you don't.
-
The lack of another "theory" doesn't make your "theory" correct. Or even good.