If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Iacoletti]

Amazing. You have literally written hundreds if not thousands of posts here demanding that lone assassin believers PROVE that the evidence against Oswald wasn't faked or planted. Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured. "Prove the rifle wasn't planted." "Prove the backyard photos aren't faked." "Prove that the fingerprints weren't planted". On and on and on. A endless series of demands to prove something didn't happen.

Nice strawman, Steve.  When has Martin EVER said "prove the rifle wasn't planted", "prove the backyard photos aren't faked", "prove that the fingerprints weren't planted"?

[John Iacoletti]

You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories

Bull.  There's nothing "commonly held" about Lance's fanciful story.

[John Iacoletti]

The following evidence is more than enough to convince any sane person of Oswald's guilt.

[blah blah blah]

Only is "Mytton"-land is a wedding ring evidence of murder.

Oh yeah:  "Oswald's rifle".  LOL

[David Von Pein]

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

But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.

Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

[Steve M. Galbraith]

But the evidence will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence was planted or faked by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It wouldn't. Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos were phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY of the evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders was planted or faked).

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence was phony is more than enough to satisfy any rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

He's gone from demanding "credible evidence" to now demanding "conclusive evidence." We don't use that standard in a court of law much less a court of history. It's an absurd standard that if applied to the conspiracy advocates (who repeatedly get a pass from this person who says he has no opinion on what happened) would render them speechless.

"Conclusive" to him meaning proving it was not "possible" that the evidence was faked. That is, having to prove a negative, the same thing - prove a negative - that he admitted was a stupid standard just yesterday.

[Richard Smith]

[Martin Weidmann]

But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.

Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers.

Oh poor David, perhaps you don't know it, but you just gave the whole game away. There is no need to concern yourself with "rabit conspiracy believers" because conclusive evidence will stand by itself. There is no need to whine about what "rabit conspiracy believers" think. The biggest problem die hard LNs like you have is that you don't like to discuss the evidence because you know it won't stand by itself. Your confirmation bias will get in the way every time. That's why you keep on complainig about those nasty people who don't simply accept your gospel!

And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.

Why do you care what "rabit CTers"say? When you have worked with handwriting experts as much as I have over the years, you would understand what the difference is between an opinion of a neutral handwriting expert, based upon original authenticated documents, and the opinion of a single FBI "expert" trying to please his boss. It was still Hoover's FBI back then, remember? And dear Edgar had already declared within 24 hours that Oswald was the lone gunman......

Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document.

Of course it is possible to forge or fake a document, but the likelihood of that getting by a professional expert is a hell of a lot smaller than using easily manipulated photo copies to be compared with other easily manipulated allegedly originals being "examined" by an expert who doesn't want to get into trouble with his boss.

And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).

What a pathetic argument to make. First of all, to demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny , is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest. Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?

But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. 

Well, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is authentic is more than enough to satisfy a rabid LN theorist.
 
And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".

Show me a LN and I'll show you somebody who thinks all his opinions are "reasonable LN inferences"!