What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[Jon Banks]

The mechanics are or were indeed simple - as JFK said, if someone wanted to shoot him from a tall building with a rifle and didn't care about being caught there's nothing that can be done about it - but Oswald clearly got lucky.

It's been more than half a century. If there was a larger conspiracy behind the act the evidence for it for me would have been found somewhere at some time. But it hasn't. This has been the most studied event in US history.

If someone came forward today claiming to have been part of a conspiracy to kill JFK would you believe the person? Probably not.

At this point, people are pretty Dug into their own theories about what happened. Plus the various law enforcement agencies involved would never admit that they lied or were wrong in their conclusions.

We've had multiple government investigations, multiple investigations by the news media along with 50+ years of investigations/books/studies by various authors, e.g,. Caro, Weiner et al. into the major figures at that time, e.g., LBJ, Hoover, et cetera. And all of that shows nothing. The conspiracy crowd likes to harp on the failures of the WC and ignore all of these other investigations.

The various law enforcement agencies were never completely cooperative and there?s lots of holes in the evidence. Even the CIA no longer denies that there was a Cover-up. We can?t possibly know the whole truth given those circumstances.

Look at the evidence pointing towards Oswald. And the lack of evidence pointing elsewhere. One can only reasonably conclude that Oswald alone killed JFK. In order to argue otherwise one has to engage in some fanciful thinking.

The evidence doesn?t conclusively prove that:

- Only three shots were fired

- all shots were fired from the weapon found in the Book Depository

- Oswald had a motive

- Oswald had no accomplices

It?s fine if you?re satisfied with the evidence that we have but don?t criticize others who are rightfully skeptics about the situation

[Steve Howsley]

... At a minimum, Oswald was part of a conspiracy which makes him Guilty in my eyes.

There?s a high level of uncertainty in the forensic evidence and lots of legit reasons to speculate that others may have been involved. So it makes sense to me that many are still unconvinced that there was no conspiracy.

Kudos for concluding that Oswald was involved. I take it you don't support either an apology from the US government or the erection of a monument to St. Oswald Of Dallas. 

[Bill Chapman]

Nutters like to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then say, "isn't that ridiculous?  Therefore Oswald did it".

"Mytton" recently started 32 new forum threads consisting of nothing but Vince Bugliosi making this same argument over and over again.

The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.

To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.

[Bill Chapman]

If someone came forward today claiming to have been part of a conspiracy to kill JFK would you believe the person? Probably not.

At this point, people are pretty Dug into their own theories about what happened. Plus the various law enforcement agencies involved would never admit that they lied or were wrong in their conclusions.

The various law enforcement agencies were never completely cooperative and there?s lots of holes in the evidence. Even the CIA no longer denies that there was a Cover-up. We can?t possibly know the whole truth given those circumstances.

The evidence doesn?t conclusively prove that:

- Only three shots were fired

- all shots were fired from the weapon found in the Book Depository

- Oswald had a motive

- Oswald had no accomplices

It?s fine if you?re satisfied with the evidence that we have but don?t criticize others who are rightfully skeptics about the situation

So LNers shouldn't be allowed a voice here. Got it.
Maybe try the EdForum

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.

To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.

He actually thinks it's the "nutters" who promote convoluted scenarios behind the assassination. We're just creating these made up theories to make the conspiracy crowd look bad. Claims such as: two Oswalds, JFK body alteration, switched caskets, multiple witnesses killed. That's all made up by us.

There's a movie that made millions and won wide acclaim: it was called "JFK." That wasn't made by a "nutter."

Just examine his views: he says all of the eyewitnesses against Oswald lied: Markham lied, Brennan lied, McDonald lied, Brewer lied, Postal lied et cetera. Then he says all of the physical and scientific evidence is fraudulent: the fingerprint evidence is fake, the handwriting evidence is useless, the forensic evidence can be dismissed, the photographic evidence is phony. All of this happened - these people all lied and the experts are all not credible - but it's unfair to claim that Oswald defenders like himself believe in convoluted theories.

Sure he doesn't.

[Jon Banks]

So LNers shouldn't be allowed a voice here. Got it.
Maybe try the EdForum

I welcome your opinions even when I disagree with you.

[John Iacoletti]

The entire conspiracy-monger ship-of-fools community loves to invent fantasy strawman conspiracies that are are as large, convoluted, and unwieldy as possible so that they can then unleash their endless, tangled list of 'whataboutisms'.

To wit: 42 groups, 84 shooters, and 214 conspirators held responsible in CT paranoid lore.

That's a Bugliosi strawman.  Quote anybody ever actually proposing this or