David Harold Byrd

[Dan O'meara]

Sorry, didn't see this.

I didn't say I found it plausible. I said I found it the most plausible of the conspiracy theories. There are serious conspiracy theorists who think Buchanan nailed it.

The best of all possible motives, I believe, is $$$$. Both the Texas oilmen and the Mafia had this motive in spades. Both also had ancillary motives - the right-wing oilmen despised pretty much everything about JFK, and RFK was the proverbial stone in the shoe for the Mafia. The Texas oilmen certainly had the $$$$ and connections to hire a professional hitman, and doing so would have been business-as-usual for the Mafia. Hence, in the abstract I could easily see a tight, focused, get-the-job done assassination conspiracy hatched by a handful (or less) of Texas oilmen or Mafiosos.

The hang-up for me is that no such conspiracy would have involved, even as a patsy, a goofball like Oswald and all the unnecessary risks this would entail, nor would it have looked anything like Dealey Plaza. My respect for professional hitmen is such that I am confident JFK would simply have been disposed of with a single shot, no one would have had the faintest idea as to what had just happened, there would have been precisely no clues left behind, and that would have been that.

"I didn't say I found it plausible. I said I found it the most plausible of the conspiracy theories".

Is this yet another example of "selective memory loss"?
This is what you posted:

"Even without LBJ being involved at all, the Texas oilmen theory is quite plausible."

You didn't say you found Buchanan's theory "most plausible", you said you found it "quite plausible".
You were asked a simple question - what did you find plausible about it?

The hang-up for me is that no such conspiracy would have involved, even as a patsy, a goofball like Oswald and all the unnecessary risks this would entail..."


Oswald was the perfect patsy and he worked like a charm.

"...nor would it have looked anything like Dealey Plaza."

??
What does this mean?


The conspiracy I'm proposing has the perfect motive - something notably missing from your own theory.
It is as simple as possible - one man shooting from the Sniper's Nest.
What is it you find "quite plausible" about Buchanan's theory as opposed to the far simpler theory I'm proposing?

[John Iacoletti]

"I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie."
"I fought back there, but I know I wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun."
"All I did was carry a gun."
"I carried a pistol with me to the movie because I felt like it, for no other reason."
"When I left the Texas School Book Depository, I went to my room, where I changed my trousers, got a pistol, and went to a picture show. You know how boys do when they have a gun, they carry it."

You do realize that these "quotes" were invented by Mae Brussel, right?

I don't know what your real-life job is or was, betting I'm willing to bet a substantial sum it didn't involve the law.

Appeal to credentials.  Next?

But in law school, did they teach you that made-up quotes based on secondhand hearsay accounts of actual statements are reliable evidence?

[Tom Graves]

Like you have any evidence he "got his pistol".

And how do you know he even heard Mrs. Reid?  "Common sense", again?  Maybe what he "mumbled" was "Sorry, I didn't catch that".

Now the argument goes like this:

In my fevered imagination, Oswald should have been interested in chatting everybody up about the president's motorcade being shot at.  He wasn't.  Therefore he killed Kennedy.

At some point you have to have some actual evidence.

Iacoletti,

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Oodles and gobs?