Let's try to keep our conspiracy theories at least "sorta kinda" rational, eh?

[Lance Payette]

Years ago, a CT lurker at the Ed Forum privately encouraged my efforts to tweak characters like DiEugenio. He said he thought Newman was the last great CT hope “if he can ever bring it all to Dealey Plaza, which I doubt he can.” The two big obstacles for CTers are (1) Oswald the actual man, not the fictional Most Interesting Man in the World of most conspiracy theories, and (2) Dealey Plaza, meaning the actual events that occurred and must be plausibly dealt with.

This would be my humble, off-the-top-of-my-head guide to rational conspiracy theorizing. (I'm stuck at home with a ruptured Achilles and thus have lots of time for this sort of stuff, just in case you were wondering.)

1. As far as Oswald is concerned, the theory has to be basically the LN narrative. An Oswald who wasn’t the sixth-floor gunman is impossible, factually and logically.

2. The theory has to deal with who Oswald actually was – a somewhat angry and bitter, somewhat violent, idealistic, Marxist (by his rudimentary understanding), pro-Castro character with dreams of being taken seriously and fantasies of achieving a place in history. A theory that has to reinvent Oswald (false defector, faux Marxist, right-wing patriot, JVB's boyfriend, Most Interesting Man in the World, blah blah blah) is going nowhere.

3. Real-world conspiracies are as tight and compartmentalized as the conspirators can make them. This was a Presidential assassination – the highest stakes and greatest risks imaginable for the conspirators. A theory that is elaborate and involves numerous participants, who often stumble over their own feet like the Three Stooges and leave all sorts of clues, is impossible.

4. No real-world conspiracy, and certainly not a Presidential one, includes as part of the plan “all the incredibly risky things we’ll do after the event to cover our tracks and create a false narrative.” A theory that involves an elaborate, multi-faceted cover-up is impossible.

5. A conspiracy that has Oswald as a knowing participant is the most plausible. For Oswald to be a knowing participant, it either had to be a pro-Castro conspiracy or Oswald had to be duped into believing it was.

6. A conspiracy that has Oswald as the lone gunman is the most plausible. If there was another shooter and the intent was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, the shooter had to be in a location where the trajectory would be plausibly attributable to Oswald, the timing of the shots could be carefully coordinated, and the ammunition was not obviously from a different rifle.

7. If the intent was not to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, then one or more other shooters could be anywhere, using any variety of ammunition, but the theory must still be realistic in terms of numbers 1-5 above.

8. Each aspect and step of the conspiracy must at least minimally satisfy the “What sense would that have made?” test. If the proponent can’t convincingly articulate what sense each aspect and step would have made, the theory is going nowhere. If some important aspect or step would clearly have made no sense, adios to the theory.

9. Insisting you’ve shown that some aspect of the LN narrative is “impossible,” or that Oswald “would never have been convicted in a criminal trial,” is not a conspiracy theory.

Let’s be honest: 95% of the conspiracy theories, including the most popular, are preposterous, borderline insane, literally Three Stooges stuff. This is why I had at least some enthusiasm for the Orr/Schnapf theory – the Mafia had the means, the best of all possible motives (hatred and money), and the theory has the gunmen being Oswald and a single pro on the roof of the County Records Building. Or perhaps Larry Hancock’s theory, which seems to be pretty modest in scope, anti-Castro oriented, and might be plausible if he could tie up the loose ends. (One must, however, always keep in mind what Gerry Patrick Hemming said: "I know for a fact there were plans to assassinate JFK, but maybe Oswald just beat them to it.")

I happen to think the LN narrative, warts and all, is the most plausible, realistic and evidence-based. But a conspiracy meeting the above criteria is not impossible, and I’m willing to listen. CTers do themselves a disfavor by focusing on theories that are simply impossible from every angle.

They only hired this guy because Oswald wasn’t available …

[Tom Graves]

The [correct JFKA] theory has to deal with who Oswald actually was – a somewhat angry and bitter, somewhat violent, idealistic, Marxist (by his rudimentary understanding), pro-Castro character with dreams of being taken seriously and fantasies of achieving a place in history. A theory that has to reinvent Oswald (false defector, faux Marxist, right-wing patriot, JVB's boyfriend, Most Interesting Man in the World, blah blah blah) is going nowhere.

Dear Lance,

What about an "I Led Three Lives"-loving Oswald who thought he was being sent to Moscow on a mission in which he would serve as a "dangle" in a regular mole hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole," but was actually sent there by the mole, himself (who happened to be James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior) to protect said mole from being uncovered, to destroy the Soviet Russia Division, and to drive Angleton nuts?

Could Oswald's being jacked around by a KGB-controlled CIA and the KGB-proper have angered the psychologically damaged, self-described Marxist so much as to contribute to his reasons for assassinating JFK?

-- Tom

[Sean Kneringer]

But where would Jake Maxwell post??

[Tom Graves]

But where would Jake Maxwell post??

RT, Alex Jones, or the Ed Forum!!!