If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Lance Payette]

Martin's insistence on a "conclusive" case did remind me of an old joke ...

A CTer dies, goes to Heaven, and encounters Jesus.

"Look, I gotta know," he says. "I spent my whole life on this. WHO KILLED JFK?"

"Oswald," says Jesus. "And he acted alone."

The CTer walks away, shaking his head. "Wow, the cover-up goes even higher than I had suspected ..."

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, dear, I have run into one of those. 

Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.

What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that Oswald alone was the assassin? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, the DRE and the Mafia cooperated in a conspiracy involving 987 participants?

There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history. If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.

(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)

Please, have the last word. It will make you feel better.

Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.

Wow, so, in your mind, non-conclusive evidence still justifies a conclusion of absolute guilt? Did I get that right?

And when someone declines to play, I don't get "huffy", whatever that means. Why would I, when a refusal to play clearly shows that person to be a coward who is unwilling or unable to back up his claims with actual authentic and conclusive evidence?

Oh wait... could it be evidence also doesn't have to be authenticated in your mind?

What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case?

As a former lawyer, you need to ask? Really?

There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history.

Really? And here is me thinking that history is written by the victors. Just like Henry VII Tudor backdated declared Richard III an illegal king after he had beaten him on the battlefield.

And, just to set the record straight, I didn't say "conclusive case". I asked for conclusive evidence. A piece of evidence either provides conclusive proof for a conclusion or it doesn't. That's what the whole pesky "beyond reasonable doubt" thing is about.
You have heard about that concept, haven't you? It's really very simply, evidence becomes conclusive by elimination of other possible explanations.

If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions.

So, now historians determine guilt or innocence?

CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.

I agree. The problem is that there is also something as public opinion and in that court there has never been a majority who believed the official narrative.

(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)

And yet another childish claim without explanation of what it is I fail to understand..... At least I am able to explain why I believe the "evidence" supporting Oswald's ownership is questionable. You seem to be unable to tell me what it is you think I fail to understand. Go figure! But then, perhaps that's the best you can do....

Btw, nice try ignoring my comments about the bullet fragments Frazier was given and the total lack of evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired. What happened? Couldn't come up with an even halfway plausible reply?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin's insistence on a "conclusive" case did remind me of an old joke ...

A CTer dies, goes to Heaven, and encounters Jesus.

"Look, I gotta know," he says. "I spent my whole life on this. WHO KILLED JFK?"

"Oswald," says Jesus. "And he acted alone."

The CTer walks away, shaking his head. "Wow, the cover-up goes even higher than I had suspected ..."

You're the gift that keeps on giving. Another chapter from the LN playbook; when unable to argue the case and/or provide evidence for my claims, try ridicule....

Weak, very weak!

But let me reply with the comment that you remind me of a duck gliding peacefully through the water. We all know what is really happening underwater, right?

You have tried the "high and mighty" talking down approach, the appeal to authority approach, the Ï'm right unless you prove me wrong" approach and the ridicule approach.

Why not try the "defend and explain the evidence" approach for once?

We don't even have to agree on a piece of evidence, but your opinion about that piece of evidence might contribute to me better understand your point of view. Surely there's some value to that, right?

[John Iacoletti]

Lance -- cool story, bro!

[John Iacoletti]

Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.

Nice strawman, Steve.  When has Martin EVER said "prove the rifle wasn't planted", "prove the backyard photos aren't faked", "prove that the fingerprints weren't planted"?

[John Iacoletti]

You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories

Bull.  There's nothing "commonly held" about Lance's fanciful story.

[John Iacoletti]

The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.

[blah blah blah]

Only is "Mytton"-land is a wedding ring evidence of murder.

Oh yeah:  "Oswald's rifle".  LOL

[David Von Pein]

Wow, so, in your mind, non-conclusive evidence still justifies a conclusion of absolute guilt? Did I get that right?

But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.

Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".