If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Lance Payette]

I understand what you're saying and maybe I could have found a different phrasing of words that made my point in a way that wasn't open to various interpretations.

Oswald either took the shots or he didn't, it's binary, on or off, yes or no.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't make it "FAR more likely" that he took the shots, he either took the shots or he didn't.
It makes it far more likely TO BE ASSUMED THAT HE TOOK THE SHOTS.
That is how framing someone works.
If the ownership of the rifle was traced to Linnie Mae Randle it would have been FAR more difficult to frame Oswald with it.
By leaving Oswald's rifle there everyone would make the obvious assumption that it was Oswald who took the shots and that is exactly what happened.

The important thing is you've recognised that Oswald taking the shots is not the fact that many Nutters seem to think it is. It's just a theory. That is the point I was making

On a different note, I was quite disappointed that you bailed on the topic of this thread.
You laid out a challenge with specific criteria. I presented a plausible scenario that fitted the criteria. You made a couple of weak comments then disappeared.
I thought it was a good topic for a thread and could have been a useful discussion.

The "evidentiary standards" (to use the term loosely) in Conspiracy Logic are as upside-down as everything else. The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items. Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.

As to your LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-sniper-patsy theory, I thought I had addressed pretty specifically why I believe it is neither simple nor plausible. It is not plausible to me that the Vice President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in Texas would put their very lives in the hands of Cason and a cluck like Shelley (and then allow them to live). There is no evidence of which I am aware that Cason or Shelley benefitted materially from their participation in this Crime of the Century. Shelley continued to work at the TSBD for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 1996 - what was his big reward? Moreover, your scenario just conveniently ignores all the issues raised in my original post in this thread in terms of what the control of Oswald and the actual assassination would have looked like. Presumably the wild-and-crazy post-assassination activities of Oswald were not part of the plan. If LBJ really wanted JFK dead, I give him credit for being far more clever and savvy than what the JFKA actually looked like.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well if you had ordered that Ferrari.
And the dealership had paperwork confirming that they sent that Ferrari to you.
And that Ferrari was seen in your house.
And if your wife confirmed that she saw you with that Ferrari
And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.
And if you told your wife that you used that Ferrari.
And if you lied to the Police that you purchased a Ferrari
And if you said the authenticated photograph with you with the Ferrari was faked.
And if your prints were secreted somewhere inaccessible within the Ferrari.

Then yeah sure you owned the Ferrari.

JohnM

And that Ferrari was seen in your house.

And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.

If anybody said he or she saw a Ferrari "in" my house, I would ask if that person had been drinking.

And if you lied to the Police that you purchased a Ferrari
Then yeah sure you owned the Ferrari.

Huh? So, lying to the police makes me the owner of a Ferrari?

I'll go to the police station tomorrow.....

[Martin Weidmann]

The "evidentiary standards" (to use the term loosely) in Conspiracy Logic are as upside-down as everything else. The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items. Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.

As to your LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-sniper-patsy theory, I thought I had addressed pretty specifically why I believe it is neither simple nor plausible. It is not plausible to me that the Vice President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in Texas would put their very lives in the hands of Cason and a cluck like Shelley (and then allow them to live). There is no evidence of which I am aware that Cason or Shelley benefitted materially from their participation in this Crime of the Century. Shelley continued to work at the TSBD for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 1996 - what was his big reward? Moreover, your scenario just conveniently ignores all the issues raised in my original post in this thread in terms of what the control of Oswald and the actual assassination would have looked like. Presumably the wild-and-crazy post-assassination activities of Oswald were not part of the plan. If LBJ really wanted JFK dead, I give him credit for being far more clever and savvy than what the JFKA actually looked like.

The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items.


It's just too bad that Oswald's ownership of the rifle found at the TSBD is only assumed and most certainly not proven.

Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.

Your 'theory" starts with the presumption that Oswald was guilty for which you then start looking for anything (regardless of how weak it is) to add to your "mountain of evidence".

And why do you keep on talking about "reasonable inference" when it is only reasonable to you?

[John Mytton]

And that Ferrari was seen in your house.

And if a close friend confirmed that they saw the Ferrari in your house.

If anybody said he or she saw a Ferrari "in" my house, I would ask if that person had been drinking.

This is the problem with you peasants, you simply can't comprehend how us rich people roll!





JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

Well Dan, this is obvious.

Oswald was in the process of flight from the scene of his crime and while coming down the stairs Oswald heard Truly shouting up the adjacent elevator shaft to release the elevator, so Oswald made a beeline for neutral explainable territory, the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Then after being confronted by Truly and Baker in the lunchroom and then fortunately being left alone a Oswald realized that he would have had to have a reason for why he was seen entering the lunchroom hence his coke purchase.

Mr. BELIN. You might put a "B" on Exhibit 362 by the elevator for "button."
Mr. TRULY. That is right on this surface. There is a little button. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.

JohnM

We're definitely going to have to disagree over what's obvious and what's not.
The fleeing assassin hears his boss shouting up the elevator shaft and feels the need to find a "neutral explainable territory"??
Why does it need to be "explainable" if it's Truly?
Let's say he hears footsteps thundering up the wooden staircase as he gets on the 2nd floor and decides to duck in through the vestibule door just in case. To his left is the lunchroom, to his right is a door leading to a corridor that can take him to the stairs down to the front lobby (or he can go through the office space).
One way is freedom and the other is a dead end. So he chooses the dead end? Not convinced. Surely he's either a fleeing assassin or he's not.

Any reasonable person would automatically assume that a fleeing assassin would opt to make his way to the entrance of the building. I think it's obvious that, because you view Oswald as the assassin, you have to come up with some kind of explanation for his presence in the 2nd floor lunchroom when, in fact, the unlikeliness of the incident points to an explanation other than Oswald coming down from the 6th.
The best thing that can be said is that it's not impossible that Oswald decided to duck into the lunchroom to get away from approaching footsteps then decided to get a Coke as some kind of cover. It's just really unlikely.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is the problem with you peasants, you simply can't comprehend how us rich people roll!





JohnM

you simply can't comprehend how us rich people roll!

So, now you claim to be better than us peasants simply because you (pretend) to be rich? Hilarious 

Btw, is that you in that photo? If so, what are you doing in my house?

[John Mytton]

You really do need to slow down and give your brain time to shift out of neutral before posting.

Stop patronizing. It makes no impression with me.

His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive.

Was it? And you know this, how?

Because he had in fact fired the shots and knew his rifle was on the 6th floor, he could scarcely hang around the TSBD.

Assumes facts not in evidence

Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible.

Really? And here we are, 60 years later, LNs are still claiming that Oswald was "fleeing the building" and thus "proving" his guilt because of alleged consciousmess of guilt.

Seems to me you want the cake and eat it too.

I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.

Stop trying to walk before you can crawl. It's not his actions, but the official story about his alleged actions that make him look as the assassin.

It's beginning to show that you are or were a civil litigator.....

His critical concern was to get out of the TSBD alive.

Was it? And you know this, how?

Seriously?

Oswald wrote in the Walker note about 10 months prior, "If I'm taken alive...", meaning that he planned on trying his best escape after he did his (attempted)Assassination but death was always going to be a possible consequence.

Once he was out, he had no reason to care what he "looked like" in the frenzied crowd - only to get as far away as possible as fast as possible.

Really? And here we are, 60 years later, LNs are still claiming that Oswald was "fleeing the building" and thus "proving" his guilt because of alleged consciousmess of guilt.

I'm glad you agree his actions make him look exactly like the assassin history says he was.

It's not his actions, but the official story about his alleged actions that make him look as the assassin.

What's alleged?
Oswald admitted to leaving.
Oswald admitted catching a bus.
Oswald admitted catching a taxi.
Oswald admitted getting his revolver
Oswald admitted punching a cop.





JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Seriously?

Oswald wrote in the Walker note about 10 months prior, "If I'm taken alive...", meaning that he planned on trying his best escape after he did his (attempted)Assassination but death was always going to be a possible consequence.

So, Oswald wrote in the Walker note that he intended to flee the TSBD?

And how in the world do you know what he means to say?

What's alleged?
Oswald admitted to leaving.
Oswald admitted catching a bus.
Oswald admitted catching a taxi.
Oswald admitted getting his revolver
Oswald admitted punching a cop.

JohnM

Where did he admit that? Have you got a verbatim record or a recording of him saying that?

Or are you just going by what his interrogators claimed he said?