JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
How did Oswald get the job at the TSBD
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 11, 2018, 09:05:11 PM ---
Instead of being wishy washy, I would like Martin Weidmann to state:
** It is most probably that Oswald was, knowingly or unknowingly, part of the conspiracy before October 1963.
** It is most probably that Oswald was selected by the conspiracy to play his part after mid October 1963, based on where he worked and other factors that make him a plausible assassin.
Likely, Martin will not do so, because neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems. So, Oswald must forever remain in some sort of Quantum state. Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.
--- End quote ---
neither stand can really hold up. Both have serious problems.
Pray tell, what are those serious problems? I'm interested to see how your mind works.
Maybe part of the conspiracy all along. Maybe not. This is how one holds onto bad theories.
What exactly does "part of the conspiracy" mean to you?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 11, 2018, 09:22:32 PM ---
I know of no real-world plots that worked this way.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
I expect you will dodge either Question 1 or 2, maybe both.
--- End quote ---
The one dodging the question is you.
I asked you if you had much experience with "real world plots". I did not ask you about "plots that worked this way", whatever that means.
You stated "Real world plots don?t work like this" and the purpose of my question was to find out on what you based that claim. Telling me that you "don't know of no real-world plots that worked this way" is a meaningless statement which most certainly does not answer my question.
--- Quote ---
A conspiracy wanted to commit a crime. There were multiple opportunities to commit it. But they waited until the perfect patsy who just happened to be in the right place at the right time turned up.
Can you imagine a November 1963 CIA meeting with: ?OK. We have another motorcade going through Dallas. Give me a report on all people who work along the route. And have it on my desk by Monday morning.?
--- End quote ---
What is it with LNs and strawman arguments?
Where do you get that a conspiracy would have waited for the pefect patsy to be in the right place at the right time? Why do you assume that a conspiracy at that level (if there was one) would rely on just one scenario and just one possible patsy?
Some food for thought; eloborate magic tricks are impossible to understand and/or explain until they are explained to you and they suddenly become obvious and easy. What smoke and mirrors can't achieve, right?
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2018, 09:38:46 PM ---
The one dodging the question is you.
I asked you if you had much experience with "real world plots". I did not ask you about "plots that worked this way", whatever that means.
--- End quote ---
I have not been a part of any real-world plots. I have read about various conspiracies, but I don?t know of any that work the way you postulate, finding the perfect patsy by accident.
There, I have answered your question.
Now, stop dodging my Questions 1 and 2. Or are you going to dodge them by asking another question.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 11, 2018, 09:59:06 PM ---
I have not been a part of any real-world plots. I have read about various conspiracies, but I don?t know of any that work the way you postulate, finding the perfect patsy by accident.
--- End quote ---
When did I ever postulate finding the perfect patsy by accident? If you don't understand what I have said, then please ask me and don't start making up your own versions of what you think it means what I have said.
--- Quote ---
There, I have answered your question.
Now, stop dodging my Questions 1 and 2. Or are you going to dodge them by asking another question.
Question 1:
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
Question 2:
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument. That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
--- End quote ---
I am not dodging your questions. They are too absurd and vague to be answered.
Name me one real world plot that did work this way. Bypassing opportunities time and time again until they somehow found the perfect patsy, within one month.
Why are you misrepresenting what I said? I have never claimed any plot worked that way, nor have I ever said a word about opportunities being bypassed. It's just another strawman.
Name me one major CT book that makes this argument.
What makes you assume that I read CT books? I don't!
That Oswald was not part of the plot all along but was chosen no earlier than mid-October 1963?
I never made such a claim, nor do I know of any book that makes such a claim. It's actually a claim that is way too vague to be taken seriously. What does "part of the plot" even mean?
Colin Crow:
A real world conspiracy to assassinate the US President.
John Wilkes Booth was employed at the Ford Theatre and collected his mail there.
Booth learned of Lincoln's attendance at the theatre that morning.....
The logic of the LN argument falls at the first hurdle.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version