If you cannot be wrong then you are wrong.

[Joe Elliott]

If you cannot be wrong then you are wrong.

In science, a theory has to be falsifiable. A proper theory is one that makes predictions about nature, is tested and ‘Jumps through all the hoops’. That is, it is not proven false by any experiment designed to trip it up. A theory that makes no predictions that can be tested is not a scientific theory. It must be falsifiable.

A similar corollary is that if one holds a belief that you can never change then one is holding onto a theory that is probably false.

For instance, I believe that Bigfoot does not exist. Can I imagine a scenario where I can change my mind? Yes. If a live Bigfoot was captured. If a skeleton was found. Or even just a skull. Even DNA sample from scat found in the forest from an unknown ape specie, let’s say, most closely related to humans with a common ancestor of 5 million years ago, would be enough for me to change my mind. But under what scenario can a believer in Bigfoot ever change his mind? This is a strong clue that Bigfoot skeptics are probably right is because they can change their minds while Bigfoot believers basically can’t.

I can imagine a scenario where I could go from a LNer to a CTer. Yes. Let’s say ballistic experts started to announce that the JFK assassination could not have happened. They only formerly said that it could because they were under threat of a large secret and enduring conspiracy which has finally gone away. And they demonstrate in real world experiments that at no speed can a MC/WCC break a bone without fragmenting the bullet. This would be enough to convince me that the SBT must be false and there must have been a conspiracy.



So, I have a challenge for all the CTers out there. Give me a possible future scenario you can imagine where you would change your mind and conclude that Oswald acted alone.

[John Iacoletti]

If all of these things happened and enough experts convinced you that the SBT was impossible, would you then conclude that Oswald did it? If not, then your example isn’t relevant.

I’m not a CT (I have no conspiracy theory), but what would it take to convince me?

A preponderance of reliable evidence that he did it. Real evidence, not silly crap like “why did he leave his wedding ring behind?)

[Joe Elliott]

If all of these things happened and enough experts convinced you that the SBT was impossible, would you then conclude that Oswald did it? If not, then your example isn’t relevant.

I already answered that in my initial post. Yes, I would change my mind and conclude that there was probably a conspiracy to kill JFK.

I’m not a CT (I have no conspiracy theory), but what would it take to convince me?

A preponderance of reliable evidence that he did it. Real evidence, not silly crap like “why did he leave his wedding ring behind?)

You are not a CTer? You think it is just as likely that Oswald acted alone as there was a conspiracy?


Plus, you are being vague.

Give us a real concrete scenario that could happen that would change your mind.

What experiments by ballistic experts would convince you that Oswald could have been the lone assassin? And that the evidence is consistent with him being the lone assassin.

What would have to happen?

[John Iacoletti]

I already answered that in my initial post. Yes, I would change my mind and conclude that there was probably a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Sorry, I made a typo.  I meant to ask "would you then conclude that Oswald did not do it?" You might conclude that somebody else took a shot, but you would still believe that Oswald shot JFK, right?  Is there anything that could ever convince you that Oswald was not involved at all?

You are not a CTer? You think it is just as likely that Oswald acted alone as there was a conspiracy?

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to determine who killed JFK.  You seem to think that Oswald doing it is a given and the only dispute is whether he had help or not.

Give us a real concrete scenario that could happen that would change your mind.

It would have to be new evidence.  The existing evidence is too insufficient and questionable/tainted, and people insisting over and over again that it's good enough does not make it any more convincing.

What experiments by ballistic experts would convince you that Oswald could have been the lone assassin?

None, because there are no ballistics in the world that can tell you who fired a weapon.

At this point, it would have to be conclusive physical evidence, like DNA.  Or conclusive photographic evidence.  New documents of known provenance showing that this particular rifle was picked up by Oswald.  Conclusive physical evidence that he fired a rifle that day, handled that rifle, and that CE139 was the gun that killed Kennedy.  Something like that.

[Joe Elliott]

Sorry, I made a typo.  I meant to ask "would you then conclude that Oswald did not do it?" You might conclude that somebody else took a shot, but you would still believe that Oswald shot JFK, right?  Is there anything that could ever convince you that Oswald was not involved at all?

Seeing that Oswald was involved in the conspiracy? Possible.

Seeing that there was a conspiracy and Oswald was innocent? That would be a hard sell.

Why would Oswald break his usual routine to visit his wife just Thursday night instead of visiting over the entire weekend? This only makes sense if he wanted to collect his rifle.

Why did Oswald bring a long narrow package to work?

Why would Oswald tell the young Wesley Buell Frazier that the long narrow package contained curtain rods when his room already had curtain rods.

Why when questioned by the police, did he deny bring in a long narrow package at all? Oh, yes, I must assume that the police were lying about everything. And I should assume that Wesley Buell Frazier was lying as well.

Why was Oswald my himself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?

How is it that Oswald just happened to run into his boss and the policeman on the second floor, right by the stairs, about where we would expect him to be if he was fleeing the sixth floor after the shooting?

Why did Oswald immediately leave the building and Dealey Plaza in the few minutes after the shooting?

Why did the frugal Oswald take an American taxi, which he never did before, to rush back to his boardinghouse, when he could have walked there and didn’t expect to leave work for many hours. It makes sense if he unexpectedly got away and needed to get his handgun as soon as possible since the police could be showing up, maybe within the first hour.

Why did he sneak into the theater as police cars with sirens were coming down the street?

How is it there just happened to be the murder of a police officer within a mile a 15 or so minutes before this happened?

Why was Oswald carrying a handgun at the time he was arrested in the theater?

Why would Oswald try to pull a handgun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater?


Oswald was part of a conspiracy? Maybe. Oswald was innocent? That is a very hard sell, regardless of whatever evidence turns up.

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to determine who killed JFK.  You seem to think that Oswald doing it is a given and the only dispute is whether he had help or not.

It would have to be new evidence.  The existing evidence is too insufficient and questionable/tainted, and people insisting over and over again that it's good enough does not make it any more convincing.

None, because there are no ballistics in the world that can tell you who fired a weapon.

At this point, it would have to be conclusive physical evidence, like DNA.  Or conclusive photographic evidence.  New documents of known provenance showing that this particular rifle was picked up by Oswald.  Conclusive physical evidence that he fired a rifle that day, handled that rifle, and that CE139 was the gun that killed Kennedy.  Something like that.

Basically, there is no scenario that you can imagine that would cause you to change your mind that there probably was a conspiracy to instead believe that Oswald probably acted alone.

Correct?

[Bill Chapman]

The ring Everything was faked, planted or altered in some way

[Jack Trojan]

Seeing that Oswald was involved in the conspiracy? Possible.

Seeing that there was a conspiracy and Oswald was innocent? That would be a hard sell.

Why would Oswald break his usual routine to visit his wife just Thursday night instead of visiting over the entire weekend? This only makes sense if he wanted to collect his rifle.

Why did Oswald bring a long narrow package to work?

Why would Oswald tell the young Wesley Buell Frazier that the long narrow package contained curtain rods when his room already had curtain rods.

Why when questioned by the police, did he deny bring in a long narrow package at all? Oh, yes, I must assume that the police were lying about everything. And I should assume that Wesley Buell Frazier was lying as well.

Why was Oswald my himself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?

How is it that Oswald just happened to run into his boss and the policeman on the second floor, right by the stairs, about where we would expect him to be if he was fleeing the sixth floor after the shooting?

Why did Oswald immediately leave the building and Dealey Plaza in the few minutes after the shooting?

Why did the frugal Oswald take an American taxi, which he never did before, to rush back to his boardinghouse, when he could have walked there and didn’t expect to leave work for many hours. It makes sense if he unexpectedly got away and needed to get his handgun as soon as possible since the police could be showing up, maybe within the first hour.

Why did he sneak into the theater as police cars with sirens were coming down the street?

How is it there just happened to be the murder of a police officer within a mile a 15 or so minutes before this happened?

Why was Oswald carrying a handgun at the time he was arrested in the theater?

Why would Oswald try to pull a handgun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater?


Oswald was part of a conspiracy? Maybe. Oswald was innocent? That is a very hard sell, regardless of whatever evidence turns up.


Basically, there is no scenario that you can imagine that would cause you to change your mind that there probably was a conspiracy to instead believe that Oswald probably acted alone.

Correct?

Correct. Not until you explain how everything you posted is not consistent with Oswald being a patsy.

You seem to think that Oswald was a lone nut by default and it is up to CTs to prove he wasn't. The reality is that the LN hypothesis is weaker than the patsy hypothesis. You LNers are all in with Oswald acting alone, which has a crapload of evidence suggesting otherwise. However, you deny a conspiracy because it's 1 strike and you are out if even 1 other person was involved. That's why the HSCA concluded that Oswald likely did not act alone. The LN hypothesis can be disproven with more evidence, but you can never prove it like you can't prove bigfoot didn't do it.

I don't see many CTs claiming Oswald was innocent or not involved is some fashion, only that he was a patsy and not a LN. Otherwise, all the points you made above are consistent with Oswald being a patsy. There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald did not even touch the MC rifle that was planted on the 6th floor. No prints on both murder weapons, a useless scope on the rifle, and an impossible trajectory from the 6th floor entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting at C7, then into Connally at the 5th rib then smashing thru his wrist bone and into his thigh, then falling out onto the wrong stretcher in pristine condition with no DNA on it. And all that is just fine with you LNers because you assume Oswald took all the shots and was definitely NOT a patsy. There is a plethora of similar circumstantial evidence pointing to a conspiracy that needs to be explained before CTs can buy into the LN hypothesis.

For CTs, that ship has sailed because you LNers have failed to defend your LNer position with any facts or evidence that refute a conspiracy. Oswald may have even taken ALL the shots, (which I don't believe) but he was no LN. He was a patsy, which all your anecdotal evidence supports. You can't cherry pick your evidence that you think supports your position and ignore the evidence that doesn't. That's not how logic and critical thinking works. Not very scientific.