The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish

[Dan O'meara]

It sounds like you're making the same point I am. The JFKA was sloppy and amateurish (albeit successful) because it was a last-minute project by a guy who had to make do with what he had available to him. A sloppy and amateurish Presidential assassination conspiracy makes no sense (unless, I suppose, Oswald enlisted a helper no more prepared than he was, which is not the sort of conspiracy CTers want to hear about). I have phrased this in the past as the supposed conspirators being diabolical geniuses half the time and fumbling stooges the other half, unnecessarily complicating the operation, taking insane risks and leaving 4000 clues for CTers to salivate over; this just isn't realistic or plausible. The core problem is that no professional assassination conspiracy would look anything like Dealey Plaza; CTers are stuck with this scene of the crime and thus have to build their ad hoc theorizing around it. Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it wasn't a conspiracy at all.

"Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it was a conspiracy at all."

And folks like you are zealots - impervious to reason or argument.
Someone else has done your thinking for you.
Someone else has provided you with the opinions you defend so zealously.

Even this notion, that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish, which you have jumped on so enthusiastically, has been provided for you by someone else - by me, in fact.
Have a quick look at the name of the person who created this thread and who has been putting forward arguments demonstrating that the assassination was, indeed, a sloppy and amateurish event. Even though it supports the LNer narrative of Oswald the Lone Nutter! Can you even imagine such a thing, presenting an argument that supports someone else's theory (and let's not forget, the notion that Oswald took the shots is just a theory).

In the latter part of this thread I have been 'obsessing' over details such as four eye-witnesses describing the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't have in his possession at the time of his arrest.
This is very strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald.
Anyone who can brush this off as a "detail" has a very poor grasp of non-zealous traits such as reason, logic and common sense.
As a zealot, you can fall back on your own patented logic - the man on the 6th floor was wearing the same clothes as Oswald because the man on the 6th floor was Oswald!
Part of your delusion appears to be that you truly believe your opinion is a fact - that you can just think a thing and that's the way it is.
Try and join in a debate rather than just blindly regurgitate your 'provided' opinion.

[Royell Storing]

It sounds like you're making the same point I am. The JFKA was sloppy and amateurish (albeit successful) because it was a last-minute project by a guy who had to make do with what he had available to him. A sloppy and amateurish Presidential assassination conspiracy makes no sense (unless, I suppose, Oswald enlisted a helper no more prepared than he was, which is not the sort of conspiracy CTers want to hear about). I have phrased this in the past as the supposed conspirators being diabolical geniuses half the time and fumbling stooges the other half, unnecessarily complicating the operation, taking insane risks and leaving 4000 clues for CTers to salivate over; this just isn't realistic or plausible. The core problem is that no professional assassination conspiracy would look anything like Dealey Plaza; CTers are stuck with this scene of the crime and thus have to build their ad hoc theorizing around it. Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it wasn't a conspiracy at all.

    I believe it is far easier for 1 Shooter to accomplish a smooth operation vs 2 or 3 shooters. The more variables involved means the more complex the equation becomes. Anybody thinking that the assassination was "sloppy and amateurish" is endorsing a Conspiracy.  Know it or not. 

[Lance Payette]

"Folks like Dan who want to obsess over details lose sight of the fact that none of it makes any sense. It was "sloppy and amateurish" for a Presidential assassination conspiracy because it was a conspiracy at all."

And folks like you are zealots - impervious to reason or argument.
Someone else has done your thinking for you.
Someone else has provided you with the opinions you defend so zealously.

Even this notion, that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish, which you have jumped on so enthusiastically, has been provided for you by someone else - by me, in fact.
Have a quick look at the name of the person who created this thread and who has been putting forward arguments demonstrating that the assassination was, indeed, a sloppy and amateurish event. Even though it supports the LNer narrative of Oswald the Lone Nutter! Can you even imagine such a thing, presenting an argument that supports someone else's theory (and let's not forget, the notion that Oswald took the shots is just a theory).

In the latter part of this thread I have been 'obsessing' over details such as four eye-witnesses describing the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't have in his possession at the time of his arrest.
This is very strong circumstantial evidence that the shooter wasn't Oswald.
Anyone who can brush this off as a "detail" has a very poor grasp of non-zealous traits such as reason, logic and common sense.
As a zealot, you can fall back on your own patented logic - the man on the 6th floor was wearing the same clothes as Oswald because the man on the 6th floor was Oswald!
Part of your delusion appears to be that you truly believe your opinion is a fact - that you can just think a thing and that's the way it is.
Try and join in a debate rather than just blindly regurgitate your 'provided' opinion.

A few weeks ago, you were arguing for a tight, financially and politically motivated conspiracy involving LBJ, Byrd, Cason, Shelley and a professional hitman in the TSBD. Now it's still a conspiracy but the Three Stooges were the conspirators. Well, I suppose a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said. I'll have to admit, I am indeed "impervious" to your sort of theorizing. Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen - and perhaps even be convinced. "That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!" doesn't move the needle.

No, others don't do my thinking for me. I have supreme confidence in my intellect and critical-thinking skills. That's precisely how and why I morphed from an enthusiastic CTer to a provisional LNer. The trouble is, when someone is not a whacked-out LN zealot but likewise not a whacked-out CT zealot, whacked-out CT zealots like you don't know what to do with him - so you label him an LN zealot, the truth be damned. Like almost everything else JFKA-related, it's fundamentally humorous.

Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory" and every CT narrative is "just a theory." What actually occurred cannot be known to a level of ontological certainty. Maybe Hickey actually did trip over his shoelaces and accidentally shoot JFK with his AR-15. In the same sense, a spherical earth and a flat earth are both "just" theories. But the spherical earth and flat earth "theories" are scarcely equivalent. One is supported by evidence and logic to the extent that it is regarded as a scientific "truth," while the other is regarded as silly and those who believe it are regarded as lacking in basic reasoning skills.

You seem to fail to appreciate the distinction, at least insofar as JFKA-related theories are concerned.

[Lance Payette]

    I believe it is far easier for 1 Shooter to accomplish a smooth operation vs 2 or 3 shooters. The more variables involved means the more complex the equation becomes. Anybody thinking that the assassination was "sloppy and amateurish" is endorsing a Conspiracy.  Know it or not.

That's not true if the one shooter is Oswald, who conceives of his plan perhaps 24-36 hours in advance, has to bum a ride to retrieve his clunky Carcano, must assemble the rifle and fashion a sniper's nest during the lunch hour at his place of employment, has no plan of escape, etc., etc. Given Oswald as the assassin, the operation could not be anything other than seat-of-his-pants sloppy and amateurish. Do you actually think the LN narrative describes an assassination that was organized and professional?

[Royell Storing]

That's not true if the one shooter is Oswald, who conceives of his plan perhaps 24-36 hours in advance, has to bum a ride to retrieve his clunky Carcano, must assemble the rifle and fashion a sniper's nest during the lunch hour at his place of employment, has no plan of escape, etc., etc. Given Oswald as the assassin, the operation could not be anything other than seat-of-his-pants sloppy and amateurish. Do you actually think the LN narrative describes an assassination that was organized and professional?

   24-36 hrs in advance? Phony ID, PO Box mailing address, mail order rifle. Whether solo or in concert, this was planned out in advance. The Amateur Hour here starred the JFK Assassination Research Community. They should have buttoned up a lot of the still unanswered questions while the main players were still alive. 

[Tom Graves]

24-36 hrs in advance? Phony ID, PO Box mailing address, mail order rifle. Whether solo or in concert, this was planned out in advance. The Amateur Hour here starred the JFK Assassination Research Community. They should have buttoned up a lot of the still unanswered questions while the main players were still alive.

Storing,

It may be that Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker was planned far-in-advance, and that his successful assassination of JFK was a spur-of-the-moment kinda thing.

D'oh

[Dan O'meara]

A few weeks ago, you were arguing for a tight, financially and politically motivated conspiracy involving LBJ, Byrd, Cason, Shelley and a professional hitman in the TSBD. Now it's still a conspiracy but the Three Stooges were the conspirators. Well, I suppose a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said. I'll have to admit, I am indeed "impervious" to your sort of theorizing. Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen - and perhaps even be convinced. "That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!" doesn't move the needle.

No, others don't do my thinking for me. I have supreme confidence in my intellect and critical-thinking skills. That's precisely how and why I morphed from an enthusiastic CTer to a provisional LNer. The trouble is, when someone is not a whacked-out LN zealot but likewise not a whacked-out CT zealot, whacked-out CT zealots like you don't know what to do with him - so you label him an LN zealot, the truth be damned. Like almost everything else JFKA-related, it's fundamentally humorous.

Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory" and every CT narrative is "just a theory." What actually occurred cannot be known to a level of ontological certainty. Maybe Hickey actually did trip over his shoelaces and accidentally shoot JFK with his AR-15. In the same sense, a spherical earth and a flat earth are both "just" theories. But the spherical earth and flat earth "theories" are scarcely equivalent. One is supported by evidence and logic to the extent that it is regarded as a scientific "truth," while the other is regarded as silly and those who believe it are regarded as lacking in basic reasoning skills.

You seem to fail to appreciate the distinction, at least insofar as JFKA-related theories are concerned.

Yet another post devoid of content.

"Show me a genuinely plausible, evidence-based theory and I'll listen..."

 
You may be deluded but at least you're funny

"That wasn't Oswald the witnesses saw in the TSBD window!!"

This is exactly the kind of deluded argument you specialise in. A deluded pronouncement with no evidence to back it up.
As I say, part of your delusion appears to be that you believe your opinion is a fact, so when you make these baseless pronouncements you really believe you're making some kind of genuine contribution.
On the other hand, in this thread I've presented a large amount of testimony which, when taken at face value, can only realistically be interpreted as strong circumstantial evidence that the man on the 6th floor was not Oswald. Of course, it hasn't crossed your deluded mind to address actual evidence.

Well, I suppose in the broadest sense the LN narrative is "just a theory"...

You don't need to "suppose" anything.
You're notion, that Oswald took the shots, is a theory. That is a fact. No supposing required.
Like all zealots, you find this obvious truth a little difficult to swallow.