How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD

[Wesley Johnson]

Right!! I believe that! 

I am not really interested in what you believe or not.

And what you are implying is that these people with this "master plan" in a matter of days were able to put this elaborate plan to frame Oswald in play?

I am not implying anything. I started by comment by saying "If there was a conspiracy" but, dishonest as you seem to be, you left that out of the quote. Why?

What makes you even think, if there was a conspiracy, it was an elaborate plan to frame Oswald in particular or that it was the only option in play at any given time? I get the impression you do not play chess very well.

In all of the years since the president's assassination there is not one shred of evidence to indicate there were any "mysterious" people hanging around manipulating Oswald or any one else.

So what? That's just your opinion and it could just mean that you are not paying attention very well or that you are so bias that you dismiss everything you don't like out of hand. It tells me nothing. When would somebody even qualify as "mysterious" in your mind?

And that's what it would have took. Boots on the ground. No evidence of that. Zero.

Opinions, opinions and opinions... you seem to have a lot of them, but hey, whatever works for you, right?

Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it. Actually I play a real good game of chess. I'll play you any time you like. I'm sure we could figure out how to get that done. You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.

[Joe Elliott]

Ray, he may not even have been put there on purpose.

Who said that a conspiracy already had a solid and completely worked out plan in mind, months, or even weeks, prior to the assassination? Yet, that's what LNs seem to imply. If there was a conspiracy, there may well have been some sort of master plan in place, known to only a few people and able to be put into action at short notice based upon the actual circumstances at the time.

No, it?s not LNers who imply this. It is what most CTers say. It is CTers who say that Oswald was working for the CIA:

** While in the Marines, working with radar.

** When he went to the Soviet Union.

** When he passed out pro Castro leaflets in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.


I?m not saying a conspiracy theory is impossible. I?m just saying a conspiracy theory that had Oswald as part of the plan before October 1963 makes no sense. It?s not my fault that CTers postulate a conspiracy that falls apart when the question of how Oswald got his job.



Essentially, what CTers want, is to point out things that they say indicates that Oswald was working for the CIA for a long time. But then, when it is pointed out the problems this causes them, to suggest that maybe he wasn?t. CTers want their cake and to eat it to. They want to argue that Oswald basically was working for the CIA while suggesting he wasn?t to side step problems with logic that this causes them. And then go back to believing he was working for the CIA all along.

There are those who believe there had already been two previous attempts to execute the plan, in Miami and Chicago, which both failed. Perhaps it was just a case of third time lucky with all the variables falling into place in Dallas.

Plans based on hoping to find and identify someone who works along a motorcade route who:

** Works in an old, mostly empty building, on the edge of town, where there likely would be floor with no people.

** With an employee who has military training with a rifle.

** With the same employee having lived in the Soviet Union

** With the same employee recently passing out Pro Communist leaflets.

Are prone to failure. It would not be surprising such a plot would fail in Miami or Chicago or one hundred straight times. Real world plots don?t work like this.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it. Actually I play a real good game of chess. I'll play you any time you like. I'm sure we could figure out how to get that done. You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.

Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it.

Funny... The truth is I just don't like guys much who think they know it all.

Actually I play a real good game of chess.

So far, there hasn't been much evidence of it on this board. You seem to plan ahead no more than one reply (which you likely have already prepared) when you ask a (mostly loaded) question. Considering options doesn't seem to be your forte.

But, then again, overestimation isn't uncommon amongst LNs...

You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.

Do you need this kind of crap to boost your ego?

[Wesley Johnson]

Martin, you seem to be a little bit agitated. You can get through it.

Funny... The truth is I just don't like guys much how think they know it all.

Actually I play a real good game of chess.

So far, there hasn't been much evidence of it on this board. You seem to plan ahead no more than one reply (which you likely have already prepared) when you ask a (mostly loaded) question. Considering options doesn't seem to be your forte.

But, then again, overestimation isn't uncommon amongst LNs...

You really need to stop being in denial and except that you are a CT buff.

Do you need this kind of crap to boost your ego?

When are we playing? 
 "The truth is I just don't like guys much how think they know it all."
Very funny Martin. That is what I think about most CTers. Ego plays no part Martin. It is just idle entertainment. When you get tired of walking the fence then maybe we could discuss some real evidence.

[Joe Elliott]

Instead of being wishy washy, I would like Martin Weidmann to state:

** It is most probably that Oswald was, knowingly or unknowingly, part of the conspiracy before October 1963.

** It is most probably that Oswald was selected by the conspiracy to play his part after mid October 1963, based on where he worked and other factors that make him a plausible assassin.


Likely, Martin will not do so, because neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems. So, Oswald must forever remain in some sort of Quantum state. Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, it?s not LNers who imply this. It is what most CTers say. It is CTers who say that Oswald was working for the CIA:

** While in the Marines, working with radar.

** When he went to the Soviet Union.

** When he passed out pro Castro leaflets in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.


I?m not saying a conspiracy theory is impossible. I?m just saying a conspiracy theory that had Oswald as part of the plan before October 1963 makes no sense. It?s not my fault that CTers postulate a conspiracy that falls apart when the question of how Oswald got his job.

I?m just saying a conspiracy theory that had Oswald as part of the plan before October 1963 makes no sense.

I agree... if you consider Oswald to be the only possible patsy in play, that is.

It?s not my fault that CTers postulate a conspiracy that falls apart when the question of how Oswald got his job.

You've lost me there, but then I never postuated such a conspiracy in the first place.

Essentially, what CTers want, is to point out things that they say indicates that Oswald was working for the CIA for a long time. But then, when it is pointed out the problems this causes them, to suggest that maybe he wasn?t. CTers want their cake and to eat it to. They want to argue that Oswald basically was working for the CIA while suggesting he wasn?t to side step problems with logic that this causes them. And then go back to believing he was working for the CIA all along.

Essentially, what CTers want, is to point out things that they say indicates that Oswald was working for the CIA for a long time. But then, when it is pointed out the problems this causes them, to suggest that maybe he wasn?t. CTers want their cake and to eat it to. They want to argue that Oswald basically was working for the CIA while suggesting he wasn?t to side step problems with logic that this causes them. And then go back to believing he was working for the CIA all along.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "working for the CIA", nor do I really see what logical problems it causes if he did.

Plans based on hoping to find and identify someone who works along a motorcade route who:

** Works in an old, mostly empty building, on the edge of town, where there likely would be floor with no people.

** With an employee who has military training with a rifle.

** With the same employee having lived in the Soviet Union

** With the same employee recently passing out Pro Communist leaflets.

Are prone to failure. It would not be surprising such a plot would fail in Miami or Chicago or one hundred straight times. Real world plots don?t work like this.

I agree, but then I don't believe that any conspiracy to kill the President would ever depend on such detailed requirements. If there was a conspiracy, it would IMO involve some highly skilled indivuals with a great deal of know how about how to operate. I seriously doubt they would let the execution of their plans depend on such minor issues.

One of the problems with this kind of stuff is that one is easily tempted to overthink things based on what one thinks to know, when reality (which is often stranger than fiction) is perhaps not so complicated at all.

Real world plots don?t work like this.

Do you have much experience with "real world plots" or are you merely assuming (sorry, you likely call it "common sense") this?

[Joe Elliott]

Real world plots don?t work like this.

Do you have much experience with "real world plots" or are you merely assuming (sorry, you likely call it "common sense") this?

I know of no real-world plots that worked this way.

Question 1:

Name me one real world plot that did work this way.

Question 2:

Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?


I expect you will dodge either Question 1 or 2, maybe both.

A conspiracy wanted to commit a crime. There were multiple opportunities to commit it. But they waited until the perfect patsy who just happened to be in the right place at the right time turned up.


Can you imagine a November 1963 CIA meeting with: ?OK. We have another motorcade going through Dallas. Give me a report on all people who work along the route. And have it on my desk by Monday morning.?

[Martin Weidmann]

Instead of being wishy washy, I would like Martin Weidmann to state:

** It is most probably that Oswald was, knowingly or unknowingly, part of the conspiracy before October 1963.

** It is most probably that Oswald was selected by the conspiracy to play his part after mid October 1963, based on where he worked and other factors that make him a plausible assassin.

Likely, Martin will not do so, because neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems. So, Oswald must forever remain in some sort of Quantum state. Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.

neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems.

Pray tell, what are those serious problems? I'm interested to see how your mind works.

Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.

What exactly does "part of the conspiracy" mean to you?