This: "If Oswald does not get a job at the TSBD, President Kennedy leaves Dallas alive."
Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.
What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?
See above. You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.
There is evidence, none of it very good. For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc.
Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald. You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.
Well, if Michael T. Griffith [not Griffiths] starts posting here, you can argue with him about it.Irrelevant, immaterial idiotic post: Griffith was mentioned as an example of a prominent believer in the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering John F. Kennedy.
What is your evidence that "most of the conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as being placed in the TSBD as an employee by conspirators"?It's well known that conspiracy books posit Lee Harvey Oswald as an innocent patsy. You are simply repeating your technique of demanding "this or that" ad infinitum--for no good reason.
See above. You think the only way that JFK could have been killed in Dallas is by LHO from the TSBD.That's what happened. You have zero evidence for any alternative.
There is evidence, none of it very good. For example, James Files, E. Howard Hunt, Loran Hall, William Seymour, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ralph Yates, etc, etc, etc."... none of it very good". : Quite rightly. Peoples names are not evidence.
Just like there is not very good evidence against Oswald. You keep special-pleading your own claims as winning by default.There is good evidence: You just dispute it all routinely.
For your education...
Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow logically. Alternately there are conclusions that do follow logically. Such as:
Mrs Randle does not go across the street to Mrs Robert's house:
It follows that she does not hear the conversation about pregnant Marina Oswald's husband Lee not having a job.
It follows that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine never hear about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Ruth Paine never telephones the TSBD and speaks to the manager Mr Roy Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald never hears about the possibility of a job being available at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald never goes to the TSBD to be interviewed by Mr Truly.
It follows that Lee Oswald is never employed at the TSBD.
It follows that Lee Oswald is working somewhere else on 22 November 1963.
It follows that:
a.) Lee Harvey Oswald never gets to fire rifle shots at President Kennedy and kill him.
b.) Conspirators never get to put into action a plot to assassinate President Kennedy on 22 November 1963--in which an innocent Harvey Oswald is framed.
Now what was that about "non sequiturs"
