If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Royell Storing]

  LN's know there is absolutely NO Evidence putting Oswald in the sniper's nest when shots were fired. None!

[Lance Payette]

What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not".  This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame:  "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact." 

Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime!  That's a new level of delusion.   Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating.  It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence.  Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger?  It's highly incriminating absent some explanation.  So what happens at that point?  The police investigate the person who owned the weapon.  What do they discover?  First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene.  Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership.  Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it.  Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer.   Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime.  You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."

As I've previously said, CTers use a language all their own. In CT World, a "fact" is that which is established to a level of metaphysical ontology (i.e., a description of the actual, bottom-line reality, with which an all-knowing God himself could not disagree). A "theory" is that which is not established to a level of metaphysical ontology. If the entire Warren Commission had, for some reason, been sitting on the 6th floor of the TSBD watching Oswald fire the shots, the fact would still not be established to the level CTers insist upon. Maybe the WC were drugged or hypnotized. Maybe the shooter was Mac Wallace in an Oswald mask. Maybe the whole thing was a deceptive hologram generated by aliens. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Voila, we still have no more than a theory. We will never, at least this side of the hereafter, have anything more than a theory. You say the shooter was Oswald, I say it was an alien hologram.

"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory. Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory. This game is why there are such a multiplicity of diverse and irreconcilable conspiracy theories. It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion. Well, yes - duh. "But NOT all the evidence!" says Dan. "You just have a theory!"

Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation. That Oswald actually was elsewhere in the TSBD - zero evidence. What sense it makes for Oswald to have been elsewhere if he was being framed as a shooter on the 6th floor - none. What sense it makes for the patsy to be allowed to leave the TSBD and survive 48 hours - none. Indeed, Dan's theory raises all the unanswerable questions I asked in my thread about Hancock and Boylan's new book, which I am apparently the only one who has purchased and read. To their credit, Hancock and Boylan stay with the Lone Nut perspective on Oswald from childhood right up until immediately before the assassination because that is the rational, evidence-based perspective. Their bottom-line theory (Oswald thought he was part of a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba) is not woven out of whole cloth like Dan's LBJ-Byrd scenario, but it is highly speculative and based on dubious inferences from minimal facts. It's an ad hoc conspiracy theory based on little more than a wish to avoid the LN conclusion.

The key to these endless, round-and-round, foaming-at-the-mouth discussions is truly to be found in the professional psychological and sociological literature addressing the conspiracy-prone mindset. It just is. Alas, even the LN fanatics never want to go there, possibly because the fanatical LN mindset is not wildly different. Here's a recent article from the American Psychological Association website, "Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories," https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories. It has a link to the article in the APA Psychological Bulletin, "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf.

Since you won't read it, here ya go:

• People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

• "Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”

• The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.

• The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.

[Martin Weidmann]

As I've previously said, CTers use a language all their own. In CT World, a "fact" is that which is established to a level of metaphysical ontology (i.e., a description of the actual, bottom-line reality, with which an all-knowing God himself could not disagree). A "theory" is that which is not established to a level of metaphysical ontology. If the entire Warren Commission had, for some reason, been sitting on the 6th floor of the TSBD watching Oswald fire the shots, the fact would still not be established to the level CTers insist upon. Maybe the WC were drugged or hypnotized. Maybe the shooter was Mac Wallace in an Oswald mask. Maybe the whole thing was a deceptive hologram generated by aliens. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Voila, we still have no more than a theory. We will never, at least this side of the hereafter, have anything more than a theory. You say the shooter was Oswald, I say it was an alien hologram.

"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory. Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory. This game is why there are such a multiplicity of diverse and irreconcilable conspiracy theories. It explains Dan's observation that LNers believe Oswald was the shooter just because so much evidence points to that conclusion. Well, yes - duh. "But NOT all the evidence!" says Dan. "You just have a theory!"

Dan believes, because he wants to believe, Oswald had some role but was elsewhere in the TSBD and was not the shooter. What that role may have been (or what Oswald may have understood it to be) is raw speculation. That Oswald actually was elsewhere in the TSBD - zero evidence. What sense it makes for Oswald to have been elsewhere if he was being framed as a shooter on the 6th floor - none. What sense it makes for the patsy to be allowed to leave the TSBD and survive 48 hours - none. Indeed, Dan's theory raises all the unanswerable questions I asked in my thread about Hancock and Boylan's new book, which I am apparently the only one who has purchased and read. To their credit, Hancock and Boylan stay with the Lone Nut perspective on Oswald from childhood right up until immediately before the assassination because that is the rational, evidence-based perspective. Their bottom-line theory (Oswald thought he was part of a plan to hijack a plane to Cuba) is not woven out of whole cloth like Dan's LBJ-Byrd scenario, but it is highly speculative and based on dubious inferences from minimal facts. It's an ad hoc conspiracy theory based on little more than a wish to avoid the LN conclusion.

The key to these endless, round-and-round, foaming-at-the-mouth discussions is truly to be found in the professional psychological and sociological literature addressing the conspiracy-prone mindset. It just is. Alas, even the LN fanatics never want to go there, possibly because the fanatical LN mindset is not wildly different. Here's a recent article from the American Psychological Association website, "Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories," https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories. It has a link to the article in the APA Psychological Bulletin, "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf.

Since you won't read it, here ya go:

• People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

• "Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”

• The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.

• The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.

"Evidence" is all fungible and in the eye of the beholder. Since we all just have theories anyway, I am entitled to pick and choose the evidence I like and fill in the blanks with goofy inferences and raw speculation that support my theory.

It's amazing how you can say this about WC sceptics and CT's and not understand that the same actually applies to LNs.

Even if your evidence is overwhelmingly stronger than mine by any objective standard, and your inferences far more reasonable than mine, it's irrelevant because you still just have a theory.

Let me guess, it's your so-called "objective standard" that your evidence is "overwhelmingly stronger" and that "your inferences" are "far more reasonable", right?

Let me tell the story you advocate and then you can tell me if I am missing something or say something wrong, ok?

On Thursday afternoon, at the latest, Oswald is supposed to have made a paper bag from TSBD materials. Because of the tape used, he must have made the bag at the TSBD without being seen by anybody. He then took that paper bag with him to Irving, concealing it from Frazier. The motive for the creation of the bag and the trip to Irving was allegedly to collect a rifle allegedly stored in Ruth Paine's garage, but if there ever was a rifle to begin with, nobody saw it since the last week of September 1963 and there is no evidence to show which rifle it was and what happened to it after that.

Oswald then tried desperately to convince Marina to come back to him, telling her that he was going to look for an apartment so that they could live together again. When she refused, he then decided to kill Kennedy, or at least to take the rifle to work the next day. In order to do so, he needed to enter the garage and break the rifle down, thus risking that either Marina or Ruth Paine would see him. After doing so, he concealed the rifle in the bag he had made at the TSBD, when he could have just as easily used a duffle bag (or whatever he used to take the rifle to New Orleans on public transport) and then couldn't care less that he could or would be seen by Frazier and/or others carrying a bag that was much too big for curtain rods yet, according to Frazier, still fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand.

Now, tell me Lance, just how much of this story is supported by actual evidence and how much of it is mere assumption?

[Dan O'meara]

What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not".  This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame:  "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact." 

Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime!  That's a new level of delusion.   Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating.  It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence.  Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger?  It's highly incriminating absent some explanation.  So what happens at that point?  The police investigate the person who owned the weapon.  What do they discover?  First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene.  Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership.  Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it.  Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer.   Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime.  You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

Answer the question.

[Dan O'meara]

What a profoundly bizarre analysis that begins with "establishing Oswald's ownership of the MC has nothing to do with whether he took the shots or not".  This is followed by perhaps the single dumbest quote in the history of CTer hall of shame:  "Nutters have fooled themselves into believing that Oswald being the shooter is a proven fact. They believe that, because so much evidence points to that conclusion, it makes it a fact." 

Imagine citing the fact that the evidence points to Oswald as a criticism for concluding that Oswald committed the crime!  That's a new level of delusion.   Again, ownership of the weapon left at the crime scene is highly incriminating.  It's hard to even contemplate a more significant piece of evidence.  Does that alone prove that Oswald pulled the trigger?  It's highly incriminating absent some explanation.  So what happens at that point?  The police investigate the person who owned the weapon.  What do they discover?  First, that he has no alibi for the moment of the crime.  Second, that he has no explanation for the presence of his rifle being at the crime scene.  Instead, he lies about the rifle and denies ownership.  Something easily debunked by his own wife, serial numbers, and even photos of Oswald holding it.  Third, that he fled the crime scene (his place of employment), got another weapon, and killed a police officer.   Honestly, it's hard to understand how there could be much more evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime.  You should be deeply ashamed to peddle this nonsense while lecturing others about engaging in the "debate."

Tricky Dicky likes to leave out what he likes to leave out.
He sees what he wants to see - another trait he shares with the Tinfoil mentality.
Below is Reply#177 dealing with the inability of Nutters to accept that Oswald taking the shots is a theory.
It was posted to explain why Oswald's ownership of the rifle has no bearing on whether he took the shots or not.
Let's see what this extreme mentality makes of it.

I understand what you're saying and maybe I could have found a different phrasing of words that made my point in a way that wasn't open to various interpretations.

Oswald either took the shots or he didn't, it's binary, on or off, yes or no.
His ownership of the rifle doesn't make it "FAR more likely" that he took the shots, he either took the shots or he didn't.
It makes it far more likely TO BE ASSUMED THAT HE TOOK THE SHOTS.
That is how framing someone works.
If the ownership of the rifle was traced to Linnie Mae Randle it would have been FAR more difficult to frame Oswald with it.
By leaving Oswald's rifle there everyone would make the obvious assumption that it was Oswald who took the shots and that is exactly what happened.

The important thing is you've recognised that Oswald taking the shots is not the fact that many Nutters seem to think it is. It's just a theory. That is the point I was making

On a different note, I was quite disappointed that you bailed on the topic of this thread.
You laid out a challenge with specific criteria. I presented a plausible scenario that fitted the criteria. You made a couple of weak comments then disappeared.
I thought it was a good topic for a thread and could have been a useful discussion.


Imagine not being able to tell the difference between a fact and a theory.
Imagine truly believing that a theory is a fact.
Imagine that kind of mentality.
How is it possible to engage with this type of ignorance?

[Richard Smith]

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"

Answer the question.

I did.  Even underlined it, explained it, and dumbed it down.  That's the best I can do for you.  You apparently believe that ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene "has nothing to do" with who committed the crime.  That is profoundly stupid. 

[Dan O'meara]

I did.  Even underlined it, explained it, and dumbed it down.  That's the best I can do for you.  You apparently believe that ownership of the murder weapon left at the crime scene "has nothing to do" with who committed the crime.  That is profoundly stupid.

Lies and cowardice.
Answer the question. it's a yes or no answer.

"Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?"