If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin is much like another famous detective from "Europe" named Inspector Clouseau whose mantra was "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."  The game goes like this.  He asks for evidence of Oswald's guilt (which he already knows), the evidence is provided for the millionth time, he suggests each of the hundreds of pieces of evidence is somehow lacking based on his own subjective and often improbable interpretation that miraculously always lends itself to Oswald's innocence (i.e. the evidence is planted, faked, lacks chain of custody etc.).  He then claims he "doesn't care" who did it.  It's just a coincidence that his interpretation of the evidence always - no matter how improbable and lacking in common sense - lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.  He ignores the implications of any of his doubts having validity by denying that he is suggesting a conspiracy even though a conspiracy is the ONLY way to explain how this evidence was fabricated or planted as he himself suggests that it was.  It's an endless circle of lunacy taking us down the rabbit hole again and again.

Isn't it just hilarious how I can live a happy and healthy life rent free in your head for so long....   

[Martin Weidmann]

This is backwards, isn't it?

The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor, bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine, Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated, Oswald vanished from the TSBD after the shooting, no frontal shooters have been proven to exist, etc., etc. The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting. For the inference that the rifle was planted to be reasonable, you need actual evidence. "Well, it could have been and I think it was" is not evidence or even an inference from evidence.

Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.

Oh boy, here we go...

The evidence is that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor,

And what evidence would that be exactly?

As far as I can tell, there is only a photo copy of order form which an FBI expert claims was written by Oswald (since when do handwriting experts come to absolute conclusions based on a photo copy and comparison documents that may or may not be authentic?). Then there is another photo copy of an internal Klein's document that has a serial number of a rifle handwritten on it (but lacking confirmation of the person who wrote that number that the document is authentic). Then there are the backyard photos showing Oswald holding a rifle (which do not prove anything else but that Oswald was holding a rifle), and then there is a rifle which turns out to be a different one from the one ordered.

There are so many decrepancies in this part of the evidence alone that it is utterly beyond me how you, as the lawyer you say you were, can reach the conclusion that a rifle purchased by Oswald was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

bullet fragments traceable to that rifle were found in the limousine

Really? The actual evidence is that FBI expert Frazier arrived at the Secret Service garage for the purpose of examining the Presidential limousine only to learn that two utterly unqualified men (If I recall correctly a navy corpman and a secret service agent) had already searched destroyed the crime scene. Frazier was then given some bullet fragments that allegedly were found in the limousine. No photographs of the items in situ, no chain of custody prior to Frazier receiving the fragments!
And you accept that as reliable evidence? Really? No reasonable doubt whatsoever? Wow!

Oswald's presence at the time of the assassination anyplace other than the 6th floor has not been demonstrated

There is the LN thing again; "Oswald was on the 6th floor unless you can conclusively prove that he wasn't"..... Pathetic. You can't even provide a shred of evidence showing that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. You just assume he was.

The reasonable inference is that Oswald was up on the 6th floor doing the shooting.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "reasonable". What you've got here is nothing more than a self-serving assumption!

Yes, as defense attorneys do, CTers have attempted to attack literally every aspect of the evidence - to at least cast reasonable doubt on it. On some points, I think there is actually reasonable doubt in the legal sense. But the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences, I believe, make a compelling case for the LN narrative being essentially correct and no CT narrative being sufficiently compelling to replace it.

Of course, that is what you believe. It's also disingenuous, because if you accept that there is actually reasonable doubt about aspects of the evidence, you can not reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, which in turn makes what you believe questionable as it can not be based upon evidence that might have reasonable doubt attached to it.

Perhaps you're better off on the golf course!

[Lance Payette]

What I actually want you to do is to simply provide a conclusive case that shows Oswald was indeed a lone gunman.

Oh, dear, I have run into one of those. 

Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.

What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that Oswald alone was the assassin? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, the DRE and the Mafia cooperated in a conspiracy involving 987 participants?

There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history. If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.

(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)

Please, have the last word. It will make you feel better.

[Lance Payette]

Martin's insistence on a "conclusive" case did remind me of an old joke ...

A CTer dies, goes to Heaven, and encounters Jesus.

"Look, I gotta know," he says. "I spent my whole life on this. WHO KILLED JFK?"

"Oswald," says Jesus. "And he acted alone."

The CTer walks away, shaking his head. "Wow, the cover-up goes even higher than I had suspected ..."

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, dear, I have run into one of those. 

Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.

What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that Oswald alone was the assassin? One that establishes as a matter of metaphysical ontology that LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, the DRE and the Mafia cooperated in a conspiracy involving 987 participants?

There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history. If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.

(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)

Please, have the last word. It will make you feel better.

Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. As I think I made clear with my Whack-A-Mole and wrestling-with-a-pig analogies, attempting a discussion with folks of your ilk is a form of mental masturbation in which I simply decline to participate. You are merely seeking foils for your never-ending game of "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS?" When someone declines to play, you get all huffy.

Wow, so, in your mind, non-conclusive evidence still justifies a conclusion of absolute guilt? Did I get that right?

And when someone declines to play, I don't get "huffy", whatever that means. Why would I, when a refusal to play clearly shows that person to be a coward who is unwilling or unable to back up his claims with actual authentic and conclusive evidence?

Oh wait... could it be evidence also doesn't have to be authenticated in your mind?

What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case?

As a former lawyer, you need to ask? Really?

There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will be simply be the verdict of history.

Really? And here is me thinking that history is written by the victors. Just like Henry VII Tudor backdated declared Richard III an illegal king after he had beaten him on the battlefield.

And, just to set the record straight, I didn't say "conclusive case". I asked for conclusive evidence. A piece of evidence either provides conclusive proof for a conclusion or it doesn't. That's what the whole pesky "beyond reasonable doubt" thing is about.
You have heard about that concept, haven't you? It's really very simply, evidence becomes conclusive by elimination of other possible explanations.

If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions.

So, now historians determine guilt or innocence?

CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.

I agree. The problem is that there is also something as public opinion and in that court there has never been a majority who believed the official narrative.

(BTW, not that I care, but your understanding of the evidence supporting Oswald's ownership of the rifle appears to be minimal and badly flawed. The case that he purchased the rifle from Klein's is pretty well "conclusive," the Harvey & Lee nutcases notwithstanding.)

And yet another childish claim without explanation of what it is I fail to understand..... At least I am able to explain why I believe the "evidence" supporting Oswald's ownership is questionable. You seem to be unable to tell me what it is you think I fail to understand. Go figure! But then, perhaps that's the best you can do....

Btw, nice try ignoring my comments about the bullet fragments Frazier was given and the total lack of evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired. What happened? Couldn't come up with an even halfway plausible reply?

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin's insistence on a "conclusive" case did remind me of an old joke ...

A CTer dies, goes to Heaven, and encounters Jesus.

"Look, I gotta know," he says. "I spent my whole life on this. WHO KILLED JFK?"

"Oswald," says Jesus. "And he acted alone."

The CTer walks away, shaking his head. "Wow, the cover-up goes even higher than I had suspected ..."

You're the gift that keeps on giving. Another chapter from the LN playbook; when unable to argue the case and/or provide evidence for my claims, try ridicule....

Weak, very weak!

But let me reply with the comment that you remind me of a duck gliding peacefully through the water. We all know what is really happening underwater, right?

You have tried the "high and mighty" talking down approach, the appeal to authority approach, the Ï'm right unless you prove me wrong" approach and the ridicule approach.

Why not try the "defend and explain the evidence" approach for once?

We don't even have to agree on a piece of evidence, but your opinion about that piece of evidence might contribute to me better understand your point of view. Surely there's some value to that, right?

[John Iacoletti]

Lance -- cool story, bro!