If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

Hold on Cowboy as I previously stated, this case and the magnitude of the investigation wasn't like a solitary act of planting weed but involved hundreds of law enforcement members investigating a stack of varied evidence and all of these investigators would realize that each and every one of their actions was under intense scrutiny and could be easily tracked through cross referencing.

What "hundreds"?

Somehow each and every one of their actions do fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Go figure.

[John Iacoletti]

Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research. This is just semantic game-playing, and I decline to play.

Where exactly are you getting these "historical research" guidelines from?  Name a historian who says "go with a conclusion regardless of how weak, questionable, and contradictory the actual evidence for it is.  Never ever admit you don't know, even if you have to make something up."

"Conclusive" isn't as absolute as you want to pretend.  But it has to be more than mere storytelling and conjecture.

I continue to say Martin tips his hand by relying on such terms. What is the "conclusive" evidence of Oswald's "absolute" innocence? What is the "conclusive" evidence there "absolutely" was a conspiracy?

There you go, trying to shift the burden yet again.

I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into Yet Another Pointless, Wheel-Spinning Debate about specific items of evidence.

Of course you won't.  Because you have no cogent reply to the myriad problems with the evidence and the conjecture about it that you want to accept on little more than faith.

But I'm curious how many times you are going to keep replying and then saying you're not going to reply.

[John Iacoletti]

Dan, you are my new favorite poster!Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.

These thought experiments are little more than navel-gazing.  As is the entire Warren Commission thought experiment.

[John Iacoletti]

As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?

Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Policemen that he was carrying a revolver and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!

Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.

If that is true, then it's a major flaw.

At the time of Oswald's arrest (according to scripture), the alleged revolver was in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.  If Oswald had a pistol when he was arrested, then it would have to be a different gun.

[John Iacoletti]

Of course it's not. What on earth would an absolute claim be? "Oswald was guilty, there is no conceivable doubt, every last piece of evidence irrefutably establishes his guilt, and God agrees with me."
Of course I do. On any issue, from the existence of God on down, all each can do is make our best assessment of the evidence and reach some level of conviction.

One of my intense areas of interest has long been epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and sources of knowledge and what it means to hold justified beliefs. I know what I believe and why.

It appears to me that perhaps you hold such inflexible beliefs that you assume everyone else does as well. It's called fundamentalism, and it's found everywhere from religion to, yes, the JFKA. You can give up trying to paint me into a corner because you simply aren't going to be able to do so.

You are the one exhibiting fundamentalism.  Martin is doing the exact same thing you are doing.  You just have different standards for what constitutes a justified belief.  You rely on faith much more than he is willing to.

[John Iacoletti]

As I said the revolver in evidence is the EXACT same revolver Oswald received.

Like you have any evidence that Oswald "received" anything.

[John Iacoletti]

I can read the receipt just fine. The only thing I can't make out is whether it says that 8 bullets or 9 were submitted. The handwriting simply isn't very clear.
As I already told you, I don't know how to post the receipt on this forum, but if somebody else can post it for me, I'll gladly sent a copy to that person by email.

[John Iacoletti]

Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.

Let me guess how this goes.  You demand that they prove that a god does not exist.  Then you claim that there is a "mountain of evidence" for the existence of a god (eg. look at the trees), and that the only reasonable and plausible conclusion and the verdict of history is that one (and only one) exists.  More specifically the Christian one.

Is that about right?