Those mysterious frontal gunmen

[John Iacoletti]

The following exchange is typical of Iacoletti, when confronted with the massive manipulation of evidence they constantly endorse, the cowardly CT will inevitably imply that the conspiracy only involved a few people but how that covers every facet of their constant allegations is never explained, so instead they continue with brainless blissful ignorance and never confront where their endless evil assertions lead.

I've never endorsed any "massive manipulation of evidence".  Next strawman?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, when Dan posited his "simple" LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-Sniper theory I tried to get him to explain precisely how that would have worked and what it actually would have looked like, which was "not so simple." CTers never seem willing or able to articulate a plausible, coherent theory from A to Z.

Like your orthodoxy is a "plausible, coherent theory from A to Z".

It's always just supposed flaws and inconsistencies in the LN narrative,

Because there are...Yet you still latch on to it with religious abandon and pretend you're being "logical".

ergo there must have been a conspiracy - precisely as Bugliosi said.

Bugliosi made up a lot of arguments to then pretend like he was refuting too.

This was the point of my "If I had planned the conspiracy" thread - once you really try to nail down how your pet theory actually would have worked and what it actually would have looked like, it quickly starts to fall apart. Iacoletti in particular seems unwilling to deal in substance, even when attacking the LN narrative. Oswald owned a rifle? "LOL" says Iacoletti.

Unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed (and laughed at) without substantiation.

[John Iacoletti]

It's ironic when CT's use acronyms like "LOL" and "ROFL" because they are the some of the most miserable people on Earth.

Anyway just for the rifle alone, off the top of my head, there is many, many steps and a lot of forging, planting and lying, which all requires compliant participants in many different forensic fields and government agencies and civilians, etc., etc. But still the keen CT will say that their conspiracy only required someone to have access to the evidence and abracadabra, we have a tiny conspiracy!

1) Like forging the mail order.
2) Forging the envelope
3) Forging the Money order.
4) Getting the mail order onto Kleins microfilm
5) Getting the money order into the Federal reserve.
6) Forging internal Kleins paperwork.
7) Forging the backyard photos or at least have Oswald pose with an identical rifle with a unique identical mark on the forestock.
8] Have Marina lie about the rifle at Neely street
9) Have De Mohrenschildt lie about seeing the rifle at Neely street.
10) Have Marina lie about the rifle in the blanket and fake looking pale when the rifle wasn't there.
11) Plant the rifle in the Depository.
12) Have Wesley lie about where in his car he saw the long package.
13) Have Fritz lie when he says Oswald told him he he only had his lunch.
14) Plant the fibers on the rifle
15) Plant the prints on the rifle.
16) Have Day lie about recovering a palm print.
17) Plant Carcano bullet fragments in Kennedy's Limo.
18) Plant Carcano shells in the sniper's nest.
19) Have multiple Police Officers lie about the brown sack in the Sniper's nest
20) Manufacture the appropriate sized Rifle paper bag.
21) Plant Oswald's prints on the bag
I could go on but why bother?

The problem with all of "Mytton"'s silly lists like this is that they begin with a false premise.  None of these things (authentic or not) tell us a single thing about who killed Kennedy.  The fact that they cannot be authenticated is just gravy.  And also as is the case with "Mytton"'s lists, many of the claims implicit in it aren't even accurate or provable.

[Tom Graves]

The problem with all of "Mytton"'s silly lists like this is that they begin with a false premise.  None of these things (authentic or not) tell us a single thing about who killed Kennedy.  The fact that they cannot be authenticated is just gravy.  And also as is the case with "Mytton"'s lists, many of the claims implicit in it aren't even accurate or provable.

Iacoletti,

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

Just a few?

[John Mytton]

The problem with all of "Mytton"'s silly lists like this is that they begin with a false premise.  None of these things (authentic or not) tell us a single thing about who killed Kennedy.  The fact that they cannot be authenticated is just gravy.  And also as is the case with "Mytton"'s lists, many of the claims implicit in it aren't even accurate or provable.

Hilarious, so owning the murder weapon, tells us nothing! You can't make this up!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Hilarious, so owning the murder weapon, tells us nothing! You can't make this up!

Like you can prove what the murder weapon was or who owned it.

Only with unsubstantiated claims like "he was photographed with it".

Hilarious.

[Tom Graves]

Like you can prove what the murder weapon was or who owned it.

Only with unsubstantiated claims like "he was photographed with it".

Hilarious.

Did the evil, evil, evil bad guys and/or or the evil, evil, evil bad gals put Oswald's prints on the short-rifle that's alleged to have belonged to him?