Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[John Iacoletti]

The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid.  The reason is obvious.  There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin.

Translation from “Richard”-speak:

“My assumptions are automatically correct unless you prove me wrong.”

[Martin Weidmann]

The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid.  The reason is obvious.  There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin.  Our dishonest contrarians know this.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate by taking issue with everything.  Basically what a defense attorney does for a client that they know is guilty.  Frame the evidence against an impossible standard of proof, suggest there is (false) doubt, don't bother to address what did happen if their client is not guilty.   Repeat endlessly.

This must be one of the most stupid posts Richard has ever come up with.....

There is no reason nor requirement for an alternative scenario or explanantion for what happened. The evidence is supposed to show that something did happen and should be strong and convincing enough to withstand scrutiny.

The is no "impossible standard of proof". The evidence either convinces or it doesn't. Complaining about an impossible standard of proof only shows that Richard isn't actually sure himself that the evidence will hold up under closer examination.

Richard likes to play the prosecutor who complains about the jury because he can't convince them with his contrived narrative

[John Iacoletti]

The "alternative scenario" (mostly conspiracy or railroaded theories) fail to hold up even more so than the Warren Report.

Some of them are — and you’re right to call those out too. But the WC conclusions stand or fall on their own merits.

[Martin Weidmann]

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

There isn't a single LN or CT scenario that holds up under scrutiny. If there was one, there wouldn't have been a half-century of major disagreements and discussion.

The Warren Commission were not prosecuting the case. They were merely giving an explanation to satisfy the public and it failed to convince at least part of the population. By hiding the evidence for 75 years (as was the original intention) they lost credibility from day one.

[John Iacoletti]

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

Depends on what you mean by “hold up”. Some are based on no more assumption and speculation than the official narrative.

[Bill Chapman]

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

Depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose. Were it only that bias didn't carry so much heft around here.

And life in general. Peace out, ppl.

[Colin Crow]

I can't see them removing the strip from the wrong window, if that's what occurred, because that window was closed. No reason to believe the strip from that window had any significance in terms of fingerprints. The weatherstrip from the window next to the SN may have been removed if only to have something to carrying out evidence like the paper bag and the pop bottle.

Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box. Day also mentions this in his testimony. The assumption may have also been because of the hull arrangement. The closed window wooden strip, next to the open one, is missing in early photos of the SN. This explains why the lengths of the strip in evidence differ over time. Early on it is described as about a foot shorter than the final version. The initial one broke or was already broken when removed. Later on Day organised removal of the longer one from the open window.