Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[Matt Grantham]

How on Earth do you draw that conclusion? You're making the ill founded assumption that every one of those boxes must be ticked but that was never my point, surely a conspiracy that involves setting up a patsy would rely on easily achievable additional evidence that would make a conviction a slam dunk, like for instance additional eyewitnesses who actually claimed they saw Oswald pull the trigger, isn't that a no brainer?

JohnM

 Where are you coming up with the claim I am saying every one of the boxes must be ticked? I was trying to respond to general themes for all conspiracies than specifics, but in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

[John Mytton]

Where are you coming up with the claim I am saying every one of the boxes must be ticked? I was trying to respond to general themes for all conspiracies than specifics, but in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, anybody?, but let's get serious, the general thinking of the Conspiracy community seems to be and this is no exaggeration is that every person in Dallas but Oswald was involved, now what I believe is the most critical evidence in the public's mind in any murder is eyewitnesses and for solid evidence of this observation is just look at how all the eyewitnesses in the Tippit murder are harrassed and reviled by the above mentioned conspiracy community. So by extension wouldn't it be obvious to the conspirators who went to extreme lengths to plant rifles, plant prints, plant fibers, invented extensive paper trails, manipulated the autopsy photos/X-Rays, altered the Zapruder film etc etc that planting some eyewitnesses who all said that Oswald was in the sniper's nest be almost obligatory?

Not saying that the following image is manufactured evidence but the overall impression that these men all saw someone shooting from above is undeniable.



JohnM

[Matt Grantham]

I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, anybody?, but let's get serious, the general thinking of the Conspiracy community seems to be and this is no exaggeration is that every person in Dallas but Oswald was involved, now what I believe is the most critical evidence in the public's mind in any murder is eyewitnesses and for solid evidence of this observation is just look at how all the eyewitnesses in the Tippit murder are harrassed and reviled by the above mentioned conspiracy community. So by extension wouldn't it be obvious to the conspirators who went to extreme lengths to plant rifles, plant prints, plant fibers, invented extensive paper trails, manipulated the autopsy photos/X-Rays, altered the Zapruder film etc etc that planting some eyewitnesses who all said that Oswald was in the sniper's nest be almost obligatory?







JohnM

It seemed like your original point was something a long the lines that the reading of the present conspiracy theorists was too outlandish, and that if this has been a real conspiracy it would have to had been way toned down I think some of the reasons Therefore it would seem the exercise becomes how do we recognize a sensible conspiracy Am I getting closer?

[John Mytton]

It seemed like your original point was something a long the lines that the reading of the present conspiracy theorists was too outlandish, and that if this has been a real conspiracy it would have to had been way toned down I think some of the reasons Therefore it would seem the exercise becomes how do we recognize a sensible conspiracy Am I getting closer?

Let me put this another way, if you "Matt Grantham" was going to set up a Patsy how would you go about it and what sort of rules would you have in place i order to make the public believe? For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

[Matt Grantham]

 There are of course many layers of whether this event qualified within a reasonable context for a suspected conspiracy Certainly the the arrival of the national security state apparatus just 15 years earlier was a development, for many, that cast a new shadow on events such as this Eisenhower's 'unwarranted influence warning just two days before JFK's swearing in certainly set a context for concern. and then their are the Operation Northwoods, Bay of Pigs, and all those other issues that we can agree to disagree on So I remain a little unclear what criteria it is that you are looking at in any kind of general terms You have your list I know, and it may or may not be a shorthand for something that can be explained in terms of more overarching narratives So far I am not understanding, so far if you can place your arguments amidst such narratives, or if you are just looking at the particular applications

[Matt Grantham]

Let me put this another way, if you "Matt Grantham" was going to set up a Patsy how would you go about it and what sort of rules would you have in place i order to make the public believe? For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

 Well I think they did a beautiful job if Oswald was indeed a patsy Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK when he was basically a low level agent of some sort I am not trying to be sarcastic or patronizing, but, if that was true it was a great job I cannot think of anything much to improve on it

 Killing him however, I believe was a mistake Maybe a plan like this had to have had that eventuality if he knew a little too much And it was only a mistake if you were really concerned about what the American people would think and what further ramifications it might have If you jsut wanted JFK dead and did not want any direct ramifications it worked out just fine

[Matt Grantham]

For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

 OK Sorry I lost track of this part This pretty nuts and bolts This is a little hard to follow My first reaction is it seems like an absurd proposition but I assume you are serious Maybe drug the patsy, have him out front leaning out window if possible and then have the real killer operate the gun from behind him not really sure where we are going with this