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?
