If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.

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.

Liar! I have questioned the evidence and asked for authentication. That's not the same as asking for proof that the evidence wasn't faked or planted.
What is really amazing is that you don't understand the difference.

Btw do you actually think it's reasonable to consider somebody to be guilty until proven innocent?

Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured.

What piece of evidence did I claim was manufactured? Be precise.... just show me a link to one of my posts or shut up!

"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.

Just how pathetic your claims are is demonstrated by the mere fact that I have never claimed that the backyard photos were faked. I actually consider them to be authentic.

You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.

I'm glad that you agree that asking for a negative to be proven is stupid. Now, be so kind and never do it again!

[John Mytton]

What is it with this obsession of yours with conspiracies, you claim don't exist?

Are all those self-serving arguments why a conspiracy, in your opinion, could or would not have worked, supposed to somehow justify the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gun man?

You claim to be an ex-lawyer, so you should understand that the best way to disprove a conspiracy is by presenting a solid, conclusive case against Oswald.
So, why not do that instead of constantly arguing that a conspiracy is improbable or even impossible?

You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories and if you and your fellow conspiracy believers want to solve the case then you must discover new and more believable alternatives.

For instance as most LNers have told you,

1) A frontal sniper is ridiculous.
2) Oswald roaming around the building before 12:30 is crazy
3) Having Oswald escaping and possibly blabbing is silly
4) Planting a war surplus rifle(which was actually very accurate) when other rifles could have been planted is insane
5) Having to alter a vast amount of evidence to fit a different conspiratorial outcome is pure lunacy.
ETC. ETC....

JohnM
 

[Martin Weidmann]

You're completely missing the point, the OP is simply describing the ineptness of the commonly held conspiracy theories and if you and your fellow conspiracy believers want to solve the case then you must discover new and more believable alternatives.

For instance as most LNers have told you,

1) A frontal sniper is ridiculous.
2) Oswald roaming around the building before 12:30 is crazy
3) Having Oswald escaping and possibly blabbing is silly
4) Planting a war surplus rifle(which was actually very accurate) when other rifles could have been planted is insane
5) Having to alter a vast amount of evidence to fit a different conspiratorial outcome is pure lunacy.
ETC. ETC....

JohnM

The one who is missing the point is you.

If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.

Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.

Well, can you?

[John Mytton]

The one who is missing the point is you.

If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.

Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.

Well, can you?

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

Oswald defects to the enemy

Oswald says in his Historic Diary that because he was denied entry to Russia he attempted suicide therefore it seems that human life was meaningless to Oswald

Oswald bashes his wife

Oswald is a staunch dedicated Marxist who just a couple of months prior tried to enter Cuba by way of Mexico and just after Oswald received his Carcano, Oswald tried to kill Walker who just BTW hated Castro and then a few days before the JFK assassination, Kennedy is trying to oust Castro and this headline is Dallas front page news.

Oswald against his usual procedure, goes home mid week.

Oswald tells Frazier that he was picking up curtain rods but tells the Police he only had his lunch.

Oswald tells the Police that he kept his lunch with him in the front seat yet Frazier questions Oswald about the long package on the back seat of his car.

No curtain rods are ever found.

A long empty package with Oswald's prints is recovered in the Sniper's nest.

The shells from Oswald's rifle are found on the floor of the Sniper's nest.

The recovered fragments recovered from the Limo are exclusively matched to Oswald's rifle.

60+ years later there is still no evidence that Oswald's' rifle was planted.

Oswald uncharacteristically leaves behind his wedding ring.

Oswald leaves the majority of his money with Marina.

Oswald walks suspiciously 50 feet ahead of Frazier as the walk to the depository.

Oswald has no alibi at the time of the shots.

Oswald's relatively fresh prints are on the rifle rest and the box used as a seat in the snipers nest.

Oswald who was a political fanatic and supposedly liked Kennedy said he was in the lunchroom and there is no evidence that he didn't ask anyone what happened?

Outside there was screaming and commotion yet at that precise point in time, Oswald wants a coke?

Oswald flees the scene within a few minutes.

Instead of waiting at the bus stop at Houston and Elm, Oswald in his frenzied flight walks past the bus stop and bashes on a door of a bus stuck in traffic.

Oswald continues his panicked flight as gets on and off a bus stuck in traffic.

Oswald gets out of Whaley's cab way past his Rooming house.

Oswald's leaves his rooming house zipping up a jacket, frugal Oswald is arrested without his zipper jacket?

A jacket which Marina says is Oswald's jacket is recovered from a car park which Oswald is seen entering.

Oswald who looks like he's been running and looks like he's scared to Shoe store Manager Johnny Brewer and appears to be hiding in the shoe store lobby as Police sirens can be heard and as the sirens grew fainter, Oswald looks over his shoulder and leaves.

Oswald enters the Texas Theatre without paying.

Oswald punches the approaching Police Officer in the Texas Theatre.

Oswald for some reason is carrying his revolver in the middle of the day in the Texas Theatre and tries to pull the trigger.

Oswald the devout Marxist holds up his fist to reporters.

Oswald refuses a lie detector test.

Oswald lies about ownership of the Murder Weapon.

Oswald lies about holding the Murder weapon in the Neely Street backyard photos and says that someone put his head on someone else's body.

Oswald leaves out Neely street as a place he rented and alters the date of the previous rental to fit.

Oswald's handwriting is on the Money Order for an amount equalling the price of the rifle plus postage.

Kliens has completed internal paperwork for a rifle(C2766) being sent to Oswald's PO Box.

Oswald receiving a 40 inch Italian Carcano and being photographed with a 40 inch Italian Carcano not long after.

Marina sees the butt of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage which is not there when checked on the afternoon of the assassination.

Frazier in his testimony states numerous times that he never paid attention to a long package that Oswald took to work.

The same rifle that Kliens sent to Oswald's PO box was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace.

Howard Brennan's description in his affidavit on the day of the assassination is a close match to Oswald.

Lt. Day testifies that he removed Oswald's palm print from the Barrel of Oswald's rifle.

The FBI takes a print from the same section of Oswald's rifle and the area matches the same area that is on Day's palm print card.

ETC. ETC.


JohnM

[Tom Graves]

If you claim that somebody is guilty of something you need to prove it and desperately trying to rule out other possibilities simply doesn't do that.

Even if I accept that there wasn't a conspiracy, that still doesn't mean Oswald was the lone gunman, unless you can conclusively prove that he was.

Given the configuration and confusing echo characteristics of Dealey Plaza, the elevation of the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window, the fact that most of the witnesses were either watching charismatic JFK and his beautiful wife or other dignitaries in the motorcade, if a sniper fired all three shots from said window is it reasonable to expect that more than one person (i.e., someone in addition to Howard Brennen) would have seen that person while he or she was firing at JFK, and see him or her so well that they'd be able to identify him or her later?

Is it reasonable to expect that more than one person (i.e. someone in addition to Wesley Buell Frazier) would notice and remember seeing TSBD employee and "loner" Oswald walking away from the TSBD (from the rear of the building) a few minutes after the assassination? 

[Richard Smith]

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.

You now admit that same demand you use of having to prove a negative is stupid. Right, we knew that but it's good for you to admit it. Congratulations.

Martin from "Europe" doesn't accept the implication of any of the thousands of doubts he has expressed about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It begins and ends with nitpicking the evidence and then taking the discussion down the rabbit hole.  As he has done once again here.  As you note, he has posted thousands of times on this forum always interpreting the evidence in the most improbable way possible to lend itself to Oswald's innocence.  Which, of course. would mean that there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald but he "doesn't care either way" about who did it!  He just suggests all the evidence against Oswald is the product of fakery, planting, lies, or chance.  If only Roger Collins were here to lend us his guidance.

[Martin Weidmann]

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

JohnM

I stopped reading after this.