What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[Bill Chapman]

Nutters like to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then say, "isn't that ridiculous?  Therefore Oswald did it".

"Mytton" recently started 32 new forum threads consisting of nothing but Vince Bugliosi making this same argument over and over again.

The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.

To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.

[Bill Chapman]

If someone came forward today claiming to have been part of a conspiracy to kill JFK would you believe the person? Probably not.

At this point, people are pretty Dug into their own theories about what happened. Plus the various law enforcement agencies involved would never admit that they lied or were wrong in their conclusions.

The various law enforcement agencies were never completely cooperative and there?s lots of holes in the evidence. Even the CIA no longer denies that there was a Cover-up. We can?t possibly know the whole truth given those circumstances.

The evidence doesn?t conclusively prove that:

- Only three shots were fired

- all shots were fired from the weapon found in the Book Depository

- Oswald had a motive

- Oswald had no accomplices

It?s fine if you?re satisfied with the evidence that we have but don?t criticize others who are rightfully skeptics about the situation

So LNers shouldn't be allowed a voice here. Got it.
Maybe try the EdForum

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.

To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.

He actually thinks it's the "nutters" who promote convoluted scenarios behind the assassination. We're just creating these made up theories to make the conspiracy crowd look bad. Claims such as: two Oswalds, JFK body alteration, switched caskets, multiple witnesses killed. That's all made up by us.

There's a movie that made millions and won wide acclaim: it was called "JFK." That wasn't made by a "nutter."

Just examine his views: he says all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied: Markham lied, Brennan lied, McDonald lied, Brewer lied, Postal lied et cetera. Then he says all of the physical and scientific evidence is fraudulent: the fingerprint evidence is fake, the handwriting evidence is useless, the forensic evidence can be dismissed, the photographic evidence is phony. All of this happened - these people all lied and the experts are all not credible - but it's unfair to claim that Oswald defenders like himself believe in convoluted theories.

Sure he doesn't.

[Jon Banks]

So LNers shouldn't be allowed a voice here. Got it.
Maybe try the EdForum

I welcome your opinions even when I disagree with you.

[John Iacoletti]

The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.

To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.

That's a Bugliosi strawman.  Quote anybody ever actually proposing this or

[John Iacoletti]

He actually thinks it's the "nutters" who promote convoluted scenarios behind the assassination. We're just creating these made up theories to make the conspiracy crowd look bad. Claims such as: two Oswalds, JFK body alteration, switched caskets, multiple witnesses killed. That's all made up by us.

What is made up by the nutters is the idea that every single conspiracy theory ever proposed by anybody is collectively embraced by every person who doubts the official narrative.

Just examine his views: he says all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied: Markham lied, Brennan lied, McDonald lied, Brewer lied, Postal lied et cetera.  Then he says all of the physical and scientific evidence is fraudulent: the fingerprint evidence is fake, the handwriting evidence is useless, the forensic evidence can be dismissed, the photographic evidence is phony. All of this happened - these people all lied and the experts are all not credible - but it's unfair to claim that Oswald defenders like himself believe in convoluted theories.

Sure he doesn't.

Who is "he"?  The only person lying here is Steve Galbraith.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

And then we have the ad hominem in response.

To repeat: the same person who says the eyewitnesses like Brennan, Markham, Brewer et cetera against Oswald lied, that the physical and scientific evidence against Oswald can be summarily dismissed - handwriting experts have no credibility, the photographic experts are wrong et cetera - and then argues that other evidence should be dismissed because of legal reasons (remember: this is a historic event we are discussing not a trial) says he wants to discuss the evidence and he's not, no he's not, a conspiracy believer.

Right, someone is telling stories here alright. Although he probably believes them. 

Just to put a bow on this: this is the same person who says Oswald leaving nearly all his money to Marina ($170 or about $1200 in today's dollars) the day of the assassination can be explained away because Oswald always left money for her.

Of course Marina said it was always a "few dollars", that she was shocked at the amount, and that he would leave her money on Mondays not Friday.

But again, this Oswald apologist at any costs says it was just Oswald following his usual routine.

[John Iacoletti]

And then we have the ad hominem in response.

To repeat: the same person who says the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied, that the physical and scientific evidence against Oswald can be summarily dismissed - handwriting experts have no credibility, the photographic experts are wrong et cetera - and then argues that other evidence should be dismissed because of legal reasons (remember: this is a historic event we are discussing not a trial) says he wants to discuss the evidence and he's not, no he's not, a conspiracy believer.

Quote me or anybody else here saying that "the eyewitnesses against Oswald all lied" or you too can .

Do you guys ever get tired of making up strawmen to argue against?

How is leaving money for one's wife evidence of murder?  Apparently it is when that's all you've got.