If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!

The evidence was eventually stated by you, which after much prompting was a tiny half hour discrepancy between a recorded time and a months later guess, a fact that you clearly omitted to bolster your delusion.

Give it up already, Hill months later just made a guess and let's not forget that was the same day when a President was murdered by Oswald and a fellow Police Officer was also murdered by Oswald, so in other words Hill had a lot on his mind, so simply recalling a time months later which was close enough to be reasonable, is a basic concept that your desperate mind is failing to comprehend.

But let's get real, at the end of the day all your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald! Nuff said, now go play in the traffic like a good little boy.

This time discrepancy "problem" was all engineered by you and as I said I relied on you telling the truth but as usual you left out little details in an attempt to support your case, naughty naughty!

I just used the information that you presented and low and behold, your initial premise was deeply flawed, so yeah some things never change! Anyway as said this topic is now closed because a guessed time is hardly reliable evidence and the fact that Oswald owned, was caught with and admitted to carrying the same revolver in evidence is where this debate ends. So stop trying to insult me and try a something new, k?

BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??

JohnM

How predictable!

your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere

First ignoring the actual details and the obvious problem; If Hill told the WC the truth when he said he had the revolver on him all the time, then how did Davenport get it and submit it to the evidence room?

because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald!

And then lying about the evidence; Oswald never admitted to carrying the revolver (meaning the S & W), he admitted to carrying a revolver

and everything else is just your imagination and a misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??

I never said that Hill switched the revolver. That's just a strawman, although it does demonstrate nicely just how limited your thinking capacity is.

Hill was given a revolver and was told that it belonged to Oswald, just like Frazier was given bullet fragments and was told that they came from the limousine and just like Todd was given C399 in Washington and was told it was the bullet that was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Can you see a pattern emerging? But, let me guess, they are all insignificant coincidenes, right?

do you realize how absurd that is??

To a dishonest LN. like you, anything that questions or challenges the official narrative is absurd. It's par to the course. Some things will never change.

Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!

Suggesting that somebody is obsessed when that person has just returned after seven months of not posting is logical to you? Wow!

So, my posts per day is higher than yours. So what? I wasn't aware there was a competition going on. Perhaps your lower daily average means that you only reply to posts you think you can counter and cowardly stay away from all the posts you know you can not counter. Oh well, at least we know now what motivates you to be active on this forum 

[Martin Weidmann]

OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't, how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research?
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity, I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.

JohnM

OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't,

I can read the receipt just fine. The only thing I can't make out is whether it says that 8 bullets or 9 were submitted. The handwriting simply isn't very clear.
As I already told you, I don't know how to post the receipt on this forum, but if somebody else can post it for me, I'll gladly sent a copy to that person by email.

how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research   

You don't even know what a fair debate is. No evidence is hiden as the receipt can be easily found in the DPD files. That's where I found it also.

For instance if it was me, a man of integrity,

I didn't know you are a comedian. I am actually amazed that you can even spell the word "integrity"

I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.

Yes the receipt says 3.30 and Hill does say approvimately 4PM in his testimony, which is available on line, but none of that is the point. But I can fully understand why you would want to focus on that rather than deal with the real issue.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.

Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me

As a fellow Arizona lawyer, Tidd probably knew better. I on the other hand have only seen you claiming to be a lawyer. I did not say I did not believe you nor did I claim that you weren't.

Are you always this touchy?

It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982

Good for you, but why should I research the background of some guy who writes on a public forum?

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

Wasn't it me who asked you a question about the evidence which you refused to answer, saying you were not playing that game.

And is throwing around insults typical for a Arizona lawyer?

[Royell Storing]

I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.

Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

   Stop with the ballyhooing. In sports, thy have an expression. It's, "Act like you belong". Put your "Beaver Skin" away, (Cub Scouts), and let your work speak for itself.

[Martin Weidmann]

In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.

He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.

The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).

Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.

In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.

I disagree. To make any kind of plausible conspiracy claim, it would require to have Oswald involved in some capacity and on some level. If you can present a conspiracy theory in which Oswald, as a complete outsider, is targeted to be the patsy, I would love to hear it.

He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination

He was asked if he had killed the President and replied that nobody had said that to him and that he didn't know why he had been arrested. All of this took place in a matter of seconds in a massively crowded hallway full of reporters.

Hardly the time or place to make elaborate statements and even less so as he was being dragged from room to room by police officers. I am truly amazed that you, as a lawyer, would attach any value to short statements made in the middle of chaos.

If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.

Oswald was arrested for killing Tippit and wasn't charged with the murder of Kennedy until just prior to his appearance before the media. At what point, do you think, would he have understood enough about what was going on to conclude that he had been framed? Having said that, is it, in your experience, normal for people that are arrested in Arizona to make full, complete statements during the first hours after their arrest?

The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).

I agree that a superficial examination of the narrative and evidence would indeed lead to the conclusion that Oswald was indeed the lone gunman. I accepted that finding for many years until I had a conversation with somebody who told me about the many discrepancies in the evidence. When I looked into it myself (I started by reading the Warren Report) it became clear to me that the official narrative was in fact a highly contrived prosecutorial story for the sole purpose of wrapping the case around an already dead suspect. I need to add that this, by itself, doesn't justify the conclusion that Oswald wasn't the lone gunman he was made out to be, but it did raise many questions about the investigation and the way evidence was handled, which still haven't been answered to this day.

[Dan O'meara]

In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.

He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.

The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).

Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.

The "patsy" thing isn't really to do with Oswald's use of that word and what it might mean.
It was simply adopted by those who believe Oswald was framed. That's all it means. Pick another word - "stooge", "fall-guy", "dupe" etc.
I've posted a perfectly plausible and simple conspiracy theory that has Oswald as the fall-guy. It certainly isn't "absurdly complex and top-heavy".
To be honest, I get the impression you're not really interested in discussing or debating anything other than an Oswald-Did-It scenario.
That's cool.
That's your interpretation of the evidence.

Ronald Fischer, Bob Edwards, Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing that day.

Amos Euins repeatedly describes seeing a bald spot on top of the shooters head, 2 to 3 inches back from his hairline - Oswald didn't have such a bald spot.

Oswald did have a pronounced receding hairline, neither Fischer nor Edwards report that even though they describe his hair and Rowland flatly states that he didn't think the man had a receding hairline.

Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was a lot older than Oswald.

Brennan, Fisher and Rowland described the man as having a fair/light complexion. Oswald had a dark, unshaven complexion.

Brennan describes the shooter standing at the window admiring his handiwork after the shooting and that he was still stood there after the presidential limo had passed into the underpass. This is at least 8 seconds after the head shot (thought by many to be the last shot). This alone destroys the 3 second window of opportunity Oswald had to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Baker, as established by the time trials.

Hank Norman, stood directly under the shooters position. He heard the shell casings hitting the wooden floor a few feet directly above his head. According to the time trials Oswald was supposed to start his escape immediately after the last shot but, although Hank heard the shell casings hitting the floor, he never heard Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes moving. Because, as Brennan pointed out, the shooter just stood there, he didn't move anywhere for a good few seconds.

As Oswald clomped down the stairs to the 5th floor and walked across the floor to the next set of stairs, he wasn't noticed by Jack Dougherty who was supposed to be stood just feet away from the stairs.

The same on the 4th floor. Dorothy Garner followed Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles into the storage area behind the offices. She heard the two young women clattering down the wooden stairs in their high heels and a couple of minutes later she saw Truly and Baker come up the same stairs. In the intervening seconds she should have seen and heard Oswald as he moved down the stairs from the 5th floor, walked across the floor and down the stairs to the 3rd floor. But she didn't. And neither did any of the other women who had moved into the same area and were watching the railroad/grassy knoll area through the west windows.

And the idea that a fleeing assassin stopped off in the lunchroom to grab a Coke is as bad as any Tinfoil  out there.

It was physically impossible for Baker to see anyone moving through the 'vestibule' door window if they were taking the route Oswald was supposed to be taking.

In a report written in Sept' '64, Baker actually wrote that the man he saw stood in the lunchroom was "drinking a coke". Once again, this destroys the 3 second time window established by the time trials.

Oswald reportedly had an interaction with Junior Jarman and a man who can only be Hank Norman on the first floor while he was having his lunch in the domino room. The only time this was possible was when Jarman and Norman entered the back of the building on their way up to the 5th floor. This was approximately 5 minutes before the shooting. There is no way Oswald could've 'guessed' that Jarman and Norman were in a position to be seen together from the domino room. Again, that is as bad as any Tinfoil 

The lunch remains left by Bonnie Ray Williams on the 6th floor were initially discovered on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the Sniper's Nest indicating that Bonnie Ray had eaten his lunch while he was in the Sniper's Nest waiting for the motorcade.

Arnold Rowland saw a black male in the Sniper's Nest at 12:15 pm who can only have been Bonnie Ray although Rowland severely over-estimated the age of the man he saw for which there are mitigating factors.

Around the same time Arnold saw a man with a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor but through the most westerly set of windows.

Your interpretation of the evidence is your own business but your inability to understand why others don't agree with your interpretation or why they might have their own interpretations isn't necessarily a shortcoming in these other interpretations. Far from it.
Personally, I don't believe Oswald took the shots that killed JFK.
I don't believe he was even on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
I believe the evidence points to Oswald being on the first floor at this time while someone else took the shots.
I believe Oswald was guilty in the sense he was somehow involved in what happened that day. I think his actions before and after the shooting point to that guilt.
I believe that when he left the TSBD building he was a fugitive on the run and that he was heading for the border and Mexico.
I believe he shot and killed Tippit.
But, I don't believe he understood that what he was involved with was the assassination of JFK and I think at some point he figured out that he had been played.

Framing Oswald was simple - leave his rifle at the crime scene.
That's all it took to pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes.

[Lance Payette]

The "patsy" thing isn't really to do with Oswald's use of that word and what it might mean.
It was simply adopted by those who believe Oswald was framed. That's all it means. Pick another word - "stooge", "fall-guy", "dupe" etc.
I've posted a perfectly plausible and simple conspiracy theory that has Oswald as the fall-guy. It certainly isn't "absurdly complex and top-heavy".
To be honest, I get the impression you're not really interested in discussing or debating anything other than an Oswald-Did-It scenario.
That's cool.
That's your interpretation of the evidence.

Thanks for the lecture, but I am pretty well-informed about the case. There are indeed aspects I find problematical and even troubling, but I'm satisfied I'm as well-informed about the case as a human can reasonably be and, as you suggest, I am indeed no longer really interested in discussing or debating any of it except in the broadest epistemological terms. Epistemology is the last place most CTers want to go. Most of them don't even seem to CARE whether what they say makes any logical sense, which suggests to me they aren't dealing with "cognitive faculties operating as they were intended to operate" (as famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga insists is necessary for beliefs to be epistemologically justified).

Mostly it's just a form of amusment for me because it's all so silly. Do I really care who killed JFK? Nah. My conviction at this point is that it was Oswald, but if it wasn't I'll be delighted to learn the truth when it's revealed. Shortly I'll move on and go back to tweaking atheists, again mostly for the amusement value and mental exercise.

Your "perfectly plausible and simple" theory does involve direct involvement by LBJ, with LBJ conceiving the plot and instigating and organizing the Dallas trip ... David Harold Byrd agreeing to make it happen in return for a massive LTV contract ... Jack Cason of the TSBD being brought into the plot ... Cason knowing of Bill Shelley's (highly dubious and unlikely) CIA connections and bringing him into the loop to make it happen ... and Shelley finding a sniper and somehow doing the patsy thing with Oswald.

Hello? Perhaps not so simple? LBJ is going put his life in the hands of Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Byrd is going to put his life in the hands of Cason, Shelley and some sniper? Really, ya think? There's no evidence for any of this and it seems fantastically improbable to me. On top of which, you conveniently side-step the issue of what Oswald's patsy role would have looked like in real-world terms - i.e, all the issues raised by my goofy original post. What the hell happened - did Shelley completely drop the ball? Why was Shelley allowed to live anyway? Is there anything in Cason's or Shelley's subsequent lives to suggest they received vast sums for their participation? By the time this was put through a thought exercise like my original post, I think you'd find it would have had to involve far more than five people and would scarcely look "simple and perfectly plausible." Idiotic, perhaps?

Any plausible conspiracy theory is going to have Oswald as at least one of the gunmen, simple as that. You can have him duped into thinking he's conspiring with fellow pro-Castroites when in fact they are anti-Castroites, but the patsy-framed-duped thing just goes nowhere IMO.