The number three CT nightmare question ...

[Jorn Frending]

When is a CT successful?

A) when proving a conspiracy?

Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen thus it must have been a conspiracy, we can all go home now

B) When proving not only conspiracy but proving also who actually pulled the trigger.

Whatever circumstance debunking the LN scenario is useless unless you prove who did it, how he did it and who was behind it.

C) When presenting a general pattern which makes sense relating a bigger number of events to each other without one single event destroying the entire pattern.

This method may not give instant satisfaction but allow for teamwork and help to establish which area of investigation to concentrate on.

If a CT does not know what to expect from himself how does he know what to expect from other CT's.

[Jorn Frending]

Over the years many researchers have specialized in certain events like proving that Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen, the inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the impossibility of the snipers nest.

Most often our subject of interest depend on our background. In my case, with partly military background, I still find the snipers nest impossible.

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

Of course there are also researchers who find excitement in naming shooters all over  Dealey Plaza or making points based on politics or other personal bias.

In any case I mostly prefer to use method C as described above yet appreciating the enormous work of others on both sides of the fence.

The reason for my three "nightmare" questions will appear in another thread ...

[Walt Cakebread]

Over the years many researchers have specialized in certain events like proving that Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen, the inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the impossibility of the snipers nest.

Most often our subject of interest depend on our background. In my case, with partly military background, I still find the snipers nest impossible.

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

Of course there are also researchers who find excitement in naming shooters all over  Dealey Plaza or making points based on politics or other personal bias.

In any case I mostly prefer to use method C as described above yet appreciating the enormous work of others on both sides of the fence.

The reason for my three "nightmare" questions will appear in another thread ...

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

I agree, Jorn.      Sometimes I feel that I must be an illiterate who is unable to express his views to others.    I feel like I might be writing in some obscure language.

[Jorn Frending]

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

I agree, Jorn.      Sometimes I feel that I must be an illiterate who is unable to express his views to others.    I feel like I might be writing in some obscure language.

  ...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

...

Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups. That's simply ridiculous.

And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.

You are raising questions that I think completely destroy the conspiracy claim that Oswald was framed, that he was totally innocent. To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.

[John Iacoletti]

Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups.

Agreed. Who’s saying that?

And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.

Because of some unfair, biased lineups and a gun and shells of questionable provenance? My goodness. How could anybody look at that and think it’s all hunky-dory?

To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.

Easy to claim. Harder to prove.

[Jorn Frending]

Perhaps we got off topic rather quickly ...

This post is not like the other "nightmare questions" because it refers to the CT community itself rather than to the case ...

I'm referring to three different attitudes being a CT in the OP, the first post in this thread, where I refer to my own approach ...

It could be interesting to know the point of view of other forum members! ...