Theories like Dan’s “simple” theory are – or should be – highly instructive for all CTers. The serve as a wonderful lesson in how difficult – impossible? – it is to construct a theory with any real-world plausibility.
This was the very point of my “If I had planned the conspiracy" thread. When you are challenged, or challenge yourself, to put meat on the bones of your conspiracy theory, it inevitably starts to look more like a Rube Goldberg contraption than a Presidential assassination.
Bill Shelley, CIA guy? In WW2, he was an ROTC cadet in high school. He began working for the predecessor of the TSBD in 1945, within a few months of high school graduation. He worked in the TSBD all his working life – 40+ years. He lived until 1996. He died in Irving in modest circumstances. There is zero evidence over the course of his life that he had any radical ideological views or received any material benefit from RISKING HIS LIFE as a principal in the ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. But in Conspiracy World – in Dan’s world – these are the sort of characters of which assassination conspirators are made.
But wait, Lance, surely you know Shelley admitted his connection to the CIA? Uh, well …
The source of this Conspiracy Factoid is, of course, the so-called Glaze letters – written by one Elzie Dean Glaze to the HSCA in 1977 and then part of a magazine article in 1989. Glaze claimed to have interviewed “Shelly” extensively in 1974, even being allowed to record those conversations; the notes and tapes, alas, mysteriously disappeared. The cooperative “Shelly” revealed such bombshells as that he “had been an intelligence officer during World War II [when he was a high school ROTC cadet] and thereafter joined the CIA [it wasn’t even formed until late 1948, at which time Shelley was working for the predecessor of the TSBD]." After the assassination, “the Dallas police placed Shelly under arrest and formally charged him with the murder of the President [ya think?]."
You can read the full saga here in the first post by William Weston: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5769-glaze-letters/ The Ed Forum folks greeted it with hoots, and even Bart Kamp acknowledges it must be “taken with a large grain of salt.”
Except, of course, by those for whom it's Conspiracy Gospel. But I digress …
Who, in Dan’s theory, alerted Shelley, Cason or Byrd that they had a rifle-owning, Russian-defecting, Castro-sympathizing, ex-Marine-sharpshooter filling orders in the TSBD? Who alerted them that this perfect patsy had been handed to them on a platter? Does this not immediately take Dan's conspiracy far beyond his “simple” little absurdity? Or was Oswald placed in the TSBD before JFK’s motorcade route was ever a gleam in anyone’s eye? What sense would that make – and again, would it not extend the conspiracy far beyond Dan’s “simple” little absurdity?
If Dan’s little absurdity were true, what possible need would there have been to plant or alter any evidence or engage in any sort of cover-up? Mac Wallace simply did what Oswald is alleged to have done, from the location at which Oswald is alleged to have done it, using either the weapon Oswald is alleged to have used or perhaps a more accurate version of it. (One wonders why LBJ and Byrd would have used a gunman with close connections to LBJ who had previously been convicted of first-degree murder – an odd choice, no? And if this was all as compartmentalized as Dan suggests, who did Wallace think he was assassinating JFK for - Shelley? Cason? Byrd?)
I’m just having a bit of fun playing cross-examining attorney with Dan, doing what cross-examining attorneys do – i.e., expose the holes in a witness’s story. But this exercise really should be instructive for all CTers.
Think about the lowest levels of the people who populate your theory – is it plausible, given the entirety of their lives and circumstances, that they would have risked execution by participating in a Presidential assassination? Do their lives show any evidence of inexplicable material benefit subsequent to the assassination? Is there really any plausible reason to plug them into a conspiracy theory? Or are you, like Dan, just making stuff up?
Then focus on what would actually have had to take place – every last real-world detail – for your theory to have worked. “I don’t know, they somehow targeted Oswald as the patsy.” “I don’t know, they somehow allowed him to walk out of the building.” No, this won’t do. You need to think through every last detail and have at least plausible conjecture for everything from how Oswald got his job at the TSBD to how he became the patsy to how he walked out the door and did everything he subsequently did. That alone is going to take you far beyond Dan's cast of characters.
This is no easy task. The worst of Conspiracy Thinking, such as Dan’s, should be instructive for you as a lesson in how not to go about it. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, mighta is not how a viable conspiracy is constructed.
That's all I have for this witness, your honor. Bailiff, please hand him a tissue to wipe his eyes.
Lance's childish approach to this debate is really disappointing.
I seem to have upset him somehow but he won't say what it is.
This rambling, rant of a post is impossible to engage with - it's a combination of lies, fantasy, misrepresentation and ignorance.
The only coherent argument he makes is that my "simple" theory is somehow too complex to be realistic (I think).
Like almost everything he posts, I find this really baffling.
There are very few moving parts to the theory I am proposing, it is as pared down as I can make it.
It involves a handful of people.
No CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/Cubans etc.
No multiple shooters.
Just one man firing a rifle from the Sniper's Nest.
Like all Nutters, Lance is convinced that the theory he believes in is a FACT, He believes that Oswald assassinating JFK is a FACT, when it is a theory.
He has so convinced himself it is a fact that he can't engage in any meaningful way with someone proposing an alternative theory.
Lance, if you can manage a calm, rational, adult debate I would be more than willing to engage.
Recent Posts
