The Simplest Conspiracy Theory

[Lance Payette]

Lance's childish approach to this debate is really disappointing.
I seem to have upset him somehow but he won't say what it is.
This rambling, rant of a post is impossible to engage with - it's a combination of lies, fantasy, misrepresentation and ignorance.

The only coherent argument he makes is that my "simple" theory is somehow too complex to be realistic (I think).
Like almost everything he posts, I find this really baffling.
There are very few moving parts to the theory I am proposing, it is as pared down as I can make it.
It involves a handful of people.
No CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/Cubans etc.
No multiple shooters.
Just one man firing a rifle from the Sniper's Nest.

Like all Nutters, Lance is convinced that the theory he believes in is a FACT, He believes that Oswald assassinating JFK is a FACT, when it is a theory.
He has so convinced himself it is a fact that he can't engage in any meaningful way with someone proposing an alternative theory.

Lance, if you can manage a calm, rational, adult debate I would be more than willing to engage.

You will be pleased to learn that this shall be my last response, ever, to anything you post. You are being consigned, along with the Harvey & Lee folks, to the Not Worth My Time bin. Even we Factoid Busters have our limits.

Your version of the Conspiratorial Tap Dance, much like theirs, is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.

Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which do not mesh with your theory at all.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.

Oswald? My little effort on “If I Had Planned the Conspiracy” was intended to be self-evidently comical. Yours suffers from precisely the same defects, but you fail to see the humor. Not extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, explain how Oswald ever got on the patsy radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the supposed patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; explain how these are the actions of an innocent patsy.

In the unlikely event you actually attempt to explain these things, be sure to highlight those portions of your explanation, if any, that are not 100% raw, ad hoc speculation.

Done. Enjoy your time in the bin. Those H&L folks are a lot of fun, and they can tap dance with the best of ‘em.

[Dan O'meara]

You will be pleased to learn that this shall be my last response, ever, to anything you post. You are being consigned, along with the Harvey & Lee folks, to the Not Worth My Time bin. Even we Factoid Busters have our limits.

Your version of the Conspiratorial Tap Dance, much like theirs, is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.

Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which do not mesh with your theory at all.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.

Oswald? My little effort on “If I Had Planned the Conspiracy” was intended to be self-evidently comical. Yours suffers from precisely the same defects, but you fail to see the humor. Not extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, explain how Oswald ever got on the patsy radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the supposed patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; explain how these are the actions of an innocent patsy.

In the unlikely event you actually attempt to explain these things, be sure to highlight those portions of your explanation, if any, that are not 100% raw, ad hoc speculation.

Done. Enjoy your time in the bin. Those H&L folks are a lot of fun, and they can tap dance with the best of ‘em.

You will be pleased to learn that this shall be my last response, ever, to anything you post.

I'm not even bothering to read past this line.
As I said the last time you ran away - your presence will be sorely unmissed.

[Tom Graves]

All credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
For this reason, I don't accept that Oswald took the shots.
This automatically makes me a Conspiracy Theorist.
This required that I make up a conspiracy theory that could account for my conviction that Oswald didn't take the shots.
The evidence that it wasn't Oswald who took the shots is the primary factor in my approach.

I do not accept that there were multiple shooters around Dealey Plaza who were then going to make it look like one shooter, that wouldn't have made it past the planning stage.
I don't accept it was an intelligence agency, they could have killed JFK in private without any loose ends.
The assassination of JFK has always seemed to me like a Hail Mary attempt that almost went wrong. The first shot was non-fatal and he could have got down in the limo making the second shot impossible. An assassination attempt in public from long distance seems to me like someone who couldn't get close to the President. It seems really lo-fi.
I don't accept that the CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/Cubans were involved in the shooting.
There was enough evidence pointing to one person firing three shots from the Sniper's Nest to convince me.

It is a feature of the Lone Nutter theory that there is no motive so I started there - who had the best motive for wanting JFK dead?
Although there are quite a few candidates for this, there is one who is head and shoulders above the rest - LBJ.
That LBJ was a borderline psychopath who loathed the Kennedy's and lusted after the power of Presidency might seem enough but there was a more urgent motive. LBJ was off the ticket in '64 and being investigated for crimes that would have potentially put him behind bars for a very long time. He was about to lose everything and there was literally only one solution - to become President. The reason he accepted the role of Vice President was largely based on the possibility of JFK being assassinated. If JFK was NOT assassinated before LBJ was off the ticket he was done for.

So, what possible connection could there be between LBJ and Lee Harvey Oswald?

The obvious connection is David Harold Byrd, founder of the Civil Air Patrol of which Oswald had been a cadet, friend of Georges De Morenschildt who befriended Oswald and helped him to find work, and Byrd was owner of the TSBD building where Oswald worked and from where the shots were taken.
Byrd was also an incredibly close friend of LBJ.
What would Byrd's motive be to get involved in the assassination of JFK? - his ultra far-right tendencies and tens of millions of dollars.
The first defense contract awarded during LBJ's presidency went to Byrd's company, LTV. Johnson also kept in place the oil depletion allowance.

So, here is the imagined scenario - in an oak-paneled room over brandy and cigars, LBJ and Byrd agree that JFK has to go. Byrd agrees to make it happen in return for untold wealth. All LBJ has to do is get JFK to visit Dallas before the next election. As in 1960, the motorcade route will take JFK directly past the TSBD building. All that needs to happen is to have a man take a relatively easy shot from the building as JFK passes by.
It could not be simpler.
The number one concern for both LBJ and Byrd is that there is no chance this can be traced back to them because if it goes wrong they could lose everything (LBJ has nothing to lose as he is going to lose everything anyway).
The only way to guarantee this is compartmentalization. LBJ and Byrd must be separated from the shooter in such a way that their involvement is unknown.
The simplest solution I could come up with that fulfills this criteria is as follows:

LBJ and Byrd decide that JFk has to go.
Byrd gets Jack Cason on board. Cason, President of the TSBD, is another ultra far right winger. He came on the FBI's radar at one point when his wife was reported to have said at a party that JFK should be shot, so the position of the Cason household seems pretty clear. I can also work with Cason's actions during the time JFK passes by as they can be interpreted in a suspicious way  (remember, I'm making all this up).
What does Cason get out of all this?
I'm not sure at the moment. He is more than just a foot soldier so it would have to be more than an ideological principle.
Cason also acts as a buffer between LBJ, Byrd and Bill Shelley.
Shelley is a foot soldier and acts out of an ideological principle (God, Country, Democracy etc.). His job is to organize the shooter and the patsy. He has no idea of the involvement of LBJ and Byrd, they have now been successfully separated from the assassination planning and execution and are fully covered by 'plausible deniability'.
Obviously the patsy is Oswald.
As for the shooter, there are two possible candidates.
Mac Wallace - LBJ's henchman, worked for Byrd's LTV. Oswald's job is to meet and greet at the back door, make sure the coast is clear and that everything is ready. The only issue with this is how Wallace gets out after the shooting as the quick arrival of Baker on the scene causes a lot of problems.
Jack Dougherty - the only other TSBD employee who was in the building, has no alibi and whose testimony/statements about his movements are ridiculously suspicious as is his treatment as a witness. He is also a perfect second patsy if the first one doesn't work out.

LBJ and Byrd
Cason
Shelley
Shooter and Patsy

That is the sum total of the simplest conspiracy theory I can imagine.

O'meara,

It seems as though your strategy is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.

Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which in fact do not mesh with your theory at all.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.

Oswald? Without extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."

-- Posted originally by Lance Payette; edited slightly by me

[Lance Payette]

O'meara,

It seems as though your strategy is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.

Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which in fact do not mesh with your theory at all.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.

Oswald? Without extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."

-- Posted originally by Lance Payette; edited slightly by me

  Ha! Nice work, Tom.

Our hero says he didn't get past my first line, but he even managed to misread THAT. I didn't say I was leaving. I said I was consigning HIM to the bin of those CTers who are simply not worth my time.

You will also note that he had previously said that if I posted rationally (what fun would that be???) he would be "happy to engage." But not past the first line, apparently.

[Tom Graves]

Ha! Nice work, Tom.

Our hero says he didn't get past my first line, but he even managed to misread THAT. I didn't say I was leaving. I said I was consigning HIM to the bin of those CTers who are simply not worth my time.

You will also note that he had previously said that if I posted rationally (what fun would that be???) he would be "happy to engage." But not past the first line, apparently.

Thanks, Lance.

Dan's the kind of guy who can't be bothered with JFKA conspiracy-theory-demolishing facts.

They're just too painful for him to countenance.

The sad thing is that he's so paranoiac that, instead of believing that a self-described Marxist and former sharpshooting Marine who had lived half-a-mile from a KGB school in Minsk for two-and-one-half years killed JFK, he prefers to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up. 

[Dan O'meara]

O'meara,

It seems as though your strategy is to feign obtuseness; deflect, deflect, deflect; and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man.

Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which in fact do not mesh with your theory at all.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi.

Oswald? Without extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."

-- Posted originally by Lance Payette; edited slightly by me

McMahon,

Are you now Lance's sock puppet (there's a creepy visual  )

Irritatingly, in his last ever interaction with me, which I agree was semi-rational, Lance has finally made a coherent, valid point.

Assassination guy? Oh, dear. Wallace? You have nothing to suggest why Wallace would have been amenable to an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Shelley or Cason. Logically, Wallace would have required assurance LBJ was on board – there goes the entire “compartmentalization” aspect – and significant compensation.

I only entertained Wallace because of the rumours that one of his fingerprints was found in the Sniper's Nest but I'd already expressed reservations about his selection - "The only issue with this is how Wallace gets out after the shooting as the quick arrival of Baker on the scene causes a lot of problems."
But Lance has raised a valid point, the inclusion of Wallace into the conspiracy theory ends the aspect of compartmentalization which is absolutely key to this theory. Wallace is LBJ's man which is a direct connection between LBJ and the assassination.
This can't be allowed to happen as the very top priority for LBJ and Byrd must be that the assassination plot can't come back to them in any way. There must be 'plausible deniability'.
Wallace is out.

Let's go through the rest of the post:

Your version of the Conspiratorial Tap Dance, much like theirs, is to feign obtuseness;

This is a falsehood. I've never feigned obtuseness in any discussion with Lance.

deflect, deflect, deflect;

This is also a falsehood. I've never deflected anything.
More importantly, I would never stoop to lying.

and simply keep repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseam.

Meaning - I keep repeating the same argument over and over again.
Only in the world of the feeble-minded is this a negative quality.
Of course I repeat the same argument.
The only time I would change my argument is if good evidence or a good counter-argument forced me to review my position. Exactly as the 'Mac Wallace' counter-argument did.

A conspiracy theory is not “simple” merely because one declares it so. What could be simpler than “invisible aliens did it”? What could be simpler that “Angleton, Truly and a Mafia hit man did it”? These indeed have the virtue of being simple. They suffer from the same defects as yours: They are simple only if one ignores their utter implausibility and all the gaps in evidence and logic they blithely skip over. They are not merely “too” speculative – they are entirely speculative.

Man, you really talk some nonsense.

LBJ? He figures in virtually every conspiracy theory, so we’ll let it slide. Byrd? A right-wing Texas oil guy, so we’ll let it slide.

The reasons for having LBJ and Byrd as the instigators of the assassination is covered in detail in the OP.

"Cason? Now things start to unravel. OK, he was conservative and not a JFK fan. You have nothing in his entire life, before or after the JFKA, to suggest he would have been or was amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Byrd or would have selected Shelley as the point man."

There's nothing in Cason's life to suggest he would be amenable to an assassination plot? Obviously Lance is unaware that the Cason household was raked over the coals by the FBI for publicly pronouncing that JFK should be shot. Cason's ultra far-right pedigree is impeccable and puts him in the same category as Hitler-loving Byrd. Interestingly LBJ, Byrd and Cason were all Freemasons, always good for a conspiracy theory.
This is the only official statement Cason made to any investigating authority regarding the assassination:

"On November 22, 1963 I left the Depository Building
at approximately 12 :10 P .M . and walked to the parking lot
at the west side of the building and picked up my car . I
then drove out Stemmons Expressway an route to my residence
and while driving I heard that President John F . Kennedy had
been shot near the Depository Building . I was alone in the
car and drove directly home after making one stop at a store ."


That's it.
That's the sum total of Cason's contribution to the "investigation".
This was part of the round of CE1381's that all employees in the TSBD building had to answer.
Other than that Cason was never questioned about the assassination by the DPD, FBI, Secret Service or Warren Commission even though he was President of the TSBD.
And even this short statement is weird - the President of the United States is passing directly in front of his office, everyone is out in celebration but Cason decides to go home. He gets in his car around 12:10 pm for a ten minute drive and is still driving when he hears on the radio about JFK being shot. But reports about JFK being shot weren't on the radio for quite some time.
It's all a bit fishy.
Obviously, it's not proof that Cason was involved in the plot just as there is no proof that Oswald took the shots.
But Lance's protests, that there's no way Cason could possibly be involved, are more bark than bite.


"Shelley? The theory goes poof. You have absolutely nothing in the life of Shelley, before or after the assassination, to suggest he was a fanatical ideologue or would have been amenable to participating in an assassination plot he thought was hatched by Cason. Nor, if he was, can you account for his actions during the noon hour on 11-22-63, which in fact do not mesh with your theory at all."


The theory goes poof??
What an unbiased, rational assessment.
Lance keeps making the claim that there is nothing in Shelley's life to indicate "he was a fanatical ideologue", not that I ever claimed he was one. He gives the impression that he's really familiar with Shelley, that he knows his political beliefs or religious views but the truth is that he knows nothing about how Shelley viewed things. Lance's silly argument can be turned on it's head - there's nothing in Shelley'e life to show he WASN'T a fanatical ideologue.
But what I have done is demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, that Shelley lied about his movements in the immediate aftermath of the assassination ("The 3 Minute Lie" thread). If Shelley was just some innocent bystander why would he be lying over and over again to various law enforcement agencies?
Another interesting thing about Shelley is that Oswald reportedly named Shelley as part of his alibi. The story is that after his encounter with Baker and Truly, Oswald went to the front lobby where he had a chat with Shelley. As a result of this chat Oswald left the building.
The only rational reason Oswald would name Shelley is because he fully expected Shelley to back him up.

"Dougherty? Now we’re desperate. You have absolutely nothing, simple as that. You cannot even explain why he, the supposed gunman, bolstered the supposed patsy’s alibi."

Nothing?
Dougherty's testimony and statements about what he did around the time of the assassination are some of the most bizarre and contradictory aspects of the whole case.
Dougherty was in the building at the time.
He testified that he was on the 6th floor just before and after the shooting.
His story about going down to see Eddie Piper is off the charts.
What is really interesting is that not once, ever, did Dougherty explain what he saw while he was up on the 6th floor. Everyone just gave him a pass - the FBI, the WC Sham.
There is no contemporary photo of Dougherty, no detailed description.
He fits like a glove into this conspiracy theory.

"Oswald? Without extending your theory beyond Cason, Shelley and Wallace/Dougherty, please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place. Explain how the rifle got into the building. Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination and how he was able to simply walk out of the building. Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."

please explain how Oswald ever got on the "patsy" radar screen in the first place.
He showed up for work at the TSBD building

Explain how the rifle got into the building.
Oswald brought it

Explain why no one exercised any control over the ostensible patsy during the assassination
He was under strict orders

how he was able to simply walk out of the building.
He had legs

Explain why he went home, got his pistol, killed Tippit, resisted arrest and was completely uncooperative in custody; please explain how these are the actions of an innocent "patsy."

He was a fugitive on the run heading for the border when Tippit got in his way. He was not "innocent". I have never suggested that.

[Dan O'meara]

Thanks, Lance.

Dan's the kind of guy who can't be bothered with JFKA conspiracy-theory-demolishing facts.

They're just too painful for him to countenance.

The sad thing is that he's so paranoiac that, instead of believing that a self-described Marxist and former sharpshooting Marine who had lived half-a-mile from a KGB school in Minsk for two-and-one-half years killed JFK, he prefers to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up. 

Thanks, Lance.