Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[Matt Grantham]

 I do prefer induction as a first step but i know you can skip ahead eh..

[Walt Cakebread]

Oswald gave the time?

No note-takers said Oswald used the word "alone".

    "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
     One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
     man whose name he did not know."

          — Fritz

Oswald gave the time?

     "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
     during this period."

          — Bookhout

    "said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
     He described one of them as ‘Junior,’ a colored boy, and the other
     was little short negro boy."

          — Kelley

Yes, for some reason, I thought they took the back stairs. But the route they took would need the domino room door open and Oswald in a very tight area inside the domino room, in order for him to have seen them. And that doesn't relate to Oswald having the three in the same room eating their lunch together.

But then Oswald speaks of the two men being in the domino room having lunch with him. This is without mentioning that there is no evidence that Oswald took a lunch to work or bought lunch.

Oswald gave the time?

Duh!..... No, Lee did NOT give the time when he saw Jarman and Norman walk by....Jarman said that they left the front of the TSBD to go to the fifth floor at 12:25 and they arrived on the fifth floor at 12:28.... That would place them near the Domino room at about 12:26.....And Lee Oswald saw them.....

Oswald speaks of the two men being in the domino room having lunch with him.

No,... Lee DID NOT speak of Jarman and Norman or anybody else having lunch with him....He said he ate lunch ALONE in that 1st floor lunchroom.   Lee would have known better than to claim something that could easily be shown to be a lie....And if he had said he ate lunch with whoever, the cops could easily have asked the party if they had eaten lunch with Lee Oswald.....Nobody ever asked Jarman or Norman if they had eaten lunch with Lee....

[Matt Grantham]

Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

 This perspective is reliant on the hackneyed notion that everyone needs to be in on a conspiracy Without going into this point by point, some other themes might include; having lots of witnesses is problematic for lots of reasons so a single witness should not be surprising you're one witness is part of the conspiracy to an event Also included in this list are basically a straw man such as the Mauser question Certainly, anyone getting to pick and choose points, which are not necessarily integral to a conspiracy counter narrative, and instead more likely simply arising from  happenstance and idiosyncratic players in the events And on it it could go

[John Mytton]

This perspective is reliant on the hackneyed notion that everyone needs to be in on a conspiracy

How on Earth do you draw that conclusion? You're making the ill founded assumption that every one of those boxes must be ticked but that was never my point, surely a conspiracy that involves setting up a patsy would rely on easily achievable additional evidence that would make a conviction a slam dunk, like for instance additional eyewitnesses who actually claimed they saw Oswald pull the trigger, isn't that a no brainer?

JohnM

[Matt Grantham]

How on Earth do you draw that conclusion? You're making the ill founded assumption that every one of those boxes must be ticked but that was never my point, surely a conspiracy that involves setting up a patsy would rely on easily achievable additional evidence that would make a conviction a slam dunk, like for instance additional eyewitnesses who actually claimed they saw Oswald pull the trigger, isn't that a no brainer?

JohnM

 Where are you coming up with the claim I am saying every one of the boxes must be ticked? I was trying to respond to general themes for all conspiracies than specifics, but in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

[John Mytton]

Where are you coming up with the claim I am saying every one of the boxes must be ticked? I was trying to respond to general themes for all conspiracies than specifics, but in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, anybody?, but let's get serious, the general thinking of the Conspiracy community seems to be and this is no exaggeration is that every person in Dallas but Oswald was involved, now what I believe is the most critical evidence in the public's mind in any murder is eyewitnesses and for solid evidence of this observation is just look at how all the eyewitnesses in the Tippit murder are harrassed and reviled by the above mentioned conspiracy community. So by extension wouldn't it be obvious to the conspirators who went to extreme lengths to plant rifles, plant prints, plant fibers, invented extensive paper trails, manipulated the autopsy photos/X-Rays, altered the Zapruder film etc etc that planting some eyewitnesses who all said that Oswald was in the sniper's nest be almost obligatory?

Not saying that the following image is manufactured evidence but the overall impression that these men all saw someone shooting from above is undeniable.



JohnM

[Matt Grantham]

I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, anybody?, but let's get serious, the general thinking of the Conspiracy community seems to be and this is no exaggeration is that every person in Dallas but Oswald was involved, now what I believe is the most critical evidence in the public's mind in any murder is eyewitnesses and for solid evidence of this observation is just look at how all the eyewitnesses in the Tippit murder are harrassed and reviled by the above mentioned conspiracy community. So by extension wouldn't it be obvious to the conspirators who went to extreme lengths to plant rifles, plant prints, plant fibers, invented extensive paper trails, manipulated the autopsy photos/X-Rays, altered the Zapruder film etc etc that planting some eyewitnesses who all said that Oswald was in the sniper's nest be almost obligatory?







JohnM

It seemed like your original point was something a long the lines that the reading of the present conspiracy theorists was too outlandish, and that if this has been a real conspiracy it would have to had been way toned down I think some of the reasons Therefore it would seem the exercise becomes how do we recognize a sensible conspiracy Am I getting closer?

[John Mytton]

It seemed like your original point was something a long the lines that the reading of the present conspiracy theorists was too outlandish, and that if this has been a real conspiracy it would have to had been way toned down I think some of the reasons Therefore it would seem the exercise becomes how do we recognize a sensible conspiracy Am I getting closer?

Let me put this another way, if you "Matt Grantham" was going to set up a Patsy how would you go about it and what sort of rules would you have in place i order to make the public believe? For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM