If they weren't already brainwashed, what would convince CTs that LHO did it?

[Lance Payette]

To answer Tom's query seriously - what fun is that? - the most common complaint by CTers and LNers alike is that their antagonists are "closed-minded" fanatics who filter all arguments and evidence through a lens of preconception and will never be budged by anything. I must say, I share this perception.

AND YET, I myself am proof of the contrary! For at least 35 or 40 years my perspective was "How could ANYONE possibly think Oswald acted alone???" Go back 20 or so years and my posts on City-Data and then the Ed Forum were solidly, 100% CT-oriented.

Why was this? I was steeped in NOTHING BUT conspiracy literature, from Lifton on down. I lacked the evidence-evaluating and critical-thinking skills that I would hone over 40 years of legal practice.

What changed my mind? First and foremost, an in-depth study of Oswald the man - literally everything I could find. Suddenly, the LN narrative seemed a lot more plausible. Then, of course, I became more familiar with the LN literature and arguments and could see the gaping holes and absurdities in the CT narratives.

But what was really the key? This will be a problem for most of you, CTers and LNers alike: I HAD NO IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT OR AGENDA. JFK meant nothing to me. Who killed him meant nothing to me, other than an historical puzzle. The consequences of his death for the America of today didn't concern me. The JFKA was, and is, just an interesting puzzle, a real-world whodunnit. That's the problem I think most LNers and CTers have - they are wedded to some ideological or political agenda that REQUIRES a CT or LN perspective for reasons only marginally related to the JFKA.

[Royell Storing]

  The assassination of JFK was Not a "historical puzzle". JFK had the Deep State after him as well as Organized Crime. Trump currently has the Deep State and the World Drug Cartels trying to take him out. Learn from the past.

[Tom Graves]

So, I guess the Max Holland stuff about a shot from the sniper's nest hitting the signal light/support beam and deflecting into the curb near Tague has been abandoned? It's nice of the LN Community to Silently run away from a once heralded claim that never did have a shred of evidence to back it up.

Comrade Storing,

People who, unlike you, can think rationally and scientifically, are willing to modify (and in some cases completely abandon) their hypotheses based on the introduction of new evidence.

Max Holland was right to point out that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. He thought it happened at hypothetical (as in not-caught-on-film-because-Zapruder-wasn't-filming-at-the-time) "Z-107," but Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce showed in a journal article published in 2020 that it was more likely at hypothetical "Z-124," as indicated, for example, by the fact that in Z-141, Rosemary Willis isn't looking at the limo passing by her, but has already begun looking back towards the TSBD.

https://www.acsr.org/post/estimating-occult-timing-of-surprise-gunshot-sounds-in-silent-film-via-observed-start-of-human-vol

And, as I've recently shown you, it's possible that James Tague was struck by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcnCy17Hwqqw3zBCK7ls8peA3DxmVzhk/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawMhX_FleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE4VkU5OWFad0pmb1lWbEZuAR5CqzVfS_kwwhC_esko7HReWTqLEm4HwHGKLg7IekI23kvFroXG0TSxU8jJ7A_aem_AKz6PqzUnM04cOaEZOVC6g

-- Tom

[Richard Smith]

To answer Tom's query seriously - what fun is that? - the most common complaint by CTers and LNers alike is that their antagonists are "closed-minded" fanatics who filter all arguments and evidence through a lens of preconception and will never be budged by anything. I must say, I share this perception.

AND YET, I myself am proof of the contrary! For at least 35 or 40 years my perspective was "How could ANYONE possibly think Oswald acted alone???" Go back 20 or so years and my posts on City-Data and then the Ed Forum were solidly, 100% CT-oriented.

Why was this? I was steeped in NOTHING BUT conspiracy literature, from Lifton on down. I lacked the evidence-evaluating and critical-thinking skills that I would hone over 40 years of legal practice.

What changed my mind? First and foremost, an in-depth study of Oswald the man - literally everything I could find. Suddenly, the LN narrative seemed a lot more plausible. Then, of course, I became more familiar with the LN literature and arguments and could see the gaping holes and absurdities in the CT narratives.

But what was really the key? This will be a problem for most of you, CTers and LNers alike: I HAD NO IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT OR AGENDA. JFK meant nothing to me. Who killed him meant nothing to me, other than an historical puzzle. The consequences of his death for the America of today didn't concern me. The JFKA was, and is, just an interesting puzzle, a real-world whodunnit. That's the problem I think most LNers and CTers have - they are wedded to some ideological or political agenda that REQUIRES a CT or LN perspective for reasons only marginally related to the JFKA.

It's the evidence that convinces me that Oswald killed JFK.  The rifle belonged to him.  That rifle was used to kill JFK.  There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald ever possessed that rifle.   Oswald's nutty background is just consistent with the conclusion derived from the evidence.  He could have been a choir boy, however, and the evidence still would link him to the crime.  I have no reason to be biased against him.  I would accept a conspiracy if that were what the evidence demonstrated.  For example, I accept that John Wilkes Booth was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln because the evidence proves it.  Because a belief in a JFK conspiracy is not based on evidence, in fact the absence of evidence is often cited as more proof of a conspiracy pursuant to a cover up, it is impossible to use evidence or reason to sway a JFK CTer.  It is a faith-based belief system.  Like a religion.  If we had a time machine, they would not accept what they could see with their own eyes.

[Tom Graves]

It's the evidence that convinces me that Oswald killed JFK. The rifle belonged to him. That rifle was used to kill JFK. There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald ever possessed that rifle. Oswald's nutty background is just consistent with the conclusion derived from the evidence.  He could have been a choir boy, however, and the evidence still would link him to the crime. I have no reason to be biased against him. I would accept a conspiracy if that were what the evidence demonstrated. For example, I accept that John Wilkes Booth was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln because the evidence proves it. Because a belief in a JFK conspiracy is not based on evidence, in fact the absence of evidence is often cited as more proof of a conspiracy pursuant to a cover up, it is impossible to use evidence or reason to sway a JFK CTer. It is a faith-based belief system. Like a religion. If we had a time machine, they would not accept what they could see with their own eyes.

Plus, the fact that to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of fake evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) coverup.

[Lance Payette]

Plus, the fact that to believe the JFKA was a conspiracy is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of fake evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!) coverup.

But this isn't inevitably true. Not every conspiracy theory requires oodles and gobs or any massive cover-up. That happens to be the currently prevailing theory because it fits the prevailing ideological/political agenda I described, in which the JFKA is just a chess piece. The more elaborate theories also appeal to the well-documented conspiracy-prone mindset.

I could quite easily - given anything resembling actual evidence and reasonable inferences - be convinced of a more realistic conspiracy. As I've noted previously, Hancock's and Boylan's latest book about Oswald is pretty much the LN narrative from A to Z, right up to (but not including) Dealey Plaza. As Hancock has made clear in his other books, he does believe in a conspiracy, but a much more limited and realistic one. I remain unconvinced because I believe it still requires the reinvention of Oswald, but I'm open-minded. The two huge problems for any conspiracy theory, as I've said previously, remain (1) the real Oswald and (2) Dealey Plaza. Those are two very big hurdles for any conspiracy theory.

When we encounter the genuinely close-minded fanatics on either side, LN or CT, I believe we are seeing ideological, political and psychological factors that are driving the bus but have little to do with the historical truth of the JFKA. For these folks, LN and CT alike, the JFKA is a symbol that transcends the actual event. It is, as Richard suggests, essentially a religion on both sides.

After spending the years and years and years I have spent dealing with the epistemology of religious belief and nonbelief, I am pretty confident of my analysis on this issue. Damn few people can really face up to what they believe - or tell themselves they believe - and why. Damn few people who say they just follow the evidence really do. That is why, if I were a gung-ho CTer, and perhaps even a gung-ho LNer, I would become very familiar with epistemology and the many, many studies of religious and conspiratorial belief - and then I'd take a long look in the mirror.

[Tom Graves]

But this isn't inevitably true. Not every conspiracy theory requires oodles and gobs or any massive cover-up. That happens to be the currently prevailing theory because it fits the prevailing ideological/political agenda I described, in which the JFKA is just a chess piece. The more elaborate theories also appeal to the well-documented conspiracy-prone mindset.

I could quite easily - given anything resembling actual evidence and reasonable inferences - be convinced of a more realistic conspiracy. As I've noted previously, Hancock's and Boylan's latest book about Oswald is pretty much the LN narrative from A to Z, right up to (but not including) Dealey Plaza. As Hancock has made clear in his other books, he does believe in a conspiracy, but a much more limited and realistic one. I remain unconvinced because I believe it still requires the reinvention of Oswald, but I'm open-minded. The two huge problems for any conspiracy theory, as I've said previously, remain (1) the real Oswald and (2) Dealey Plaza. Those are two very big hurdles for any conspiracy theory.

When we encounter the genuinely close-minded fanatics on either side, LN or CT, I believe we are seeing ideological, political and psychological factors that are driving the bus but have little to do with the historical truth of the JFKA. For these folks, LN and CT alike, the JFKA is a symbol that transcends the actual event. It is, as Richard suggests, essentially a religion on both sides.

After spending the years and years and years I have spent dealing with the epistemology of religious belief and nonbelief, I am pretty confident of my analysis on this issue. Damn few people can really face up to what they believe - or tell themselves they believe - and why. Damn few people who say they just follow the evidence really do. That is why, if I were a gung-ho CTer, and perhaps even a gung-ho LNer, I would become very familiar with epistemology and the many, many studies of religious and conspiratorial belief - and then I'd take a long look in the mirror.

Dear Lance,

Although there are a few apparent anomalies attendant to the JFKA, I believe that the vast majority of the evidence indicates that a psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist and former Marine sharpshooter/U-2 radar operator by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (whom JFKA CT!!! John M. Newman, based on circumstantial-but-document-based evidence, posits was sent to Moscow in a planned-to-fail mole hunt by a KGB!!! "mole" in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security who just happened to be father-figure-requiring James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior*) killed JFK all by himself -- with or without logistical help from the KGB or the DGI.

To believe otherwise, i.e., that the assassination was a conspiracy by the evil, evil CIA or [fill in the blank] is to believe that oodles and gobs of bad guys were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of false evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films and x-rays, and . . . gasp . . . the all-important (and evidently continuing!) cover up.

-- Tom

*The only problem I have with Newman's theory is that, according to it, it took the "mole" 15 months to send Oswald to Moscow, as indicated by the fact that CIA's spy, GRU Lt. Col. Pyotr Popov, told his handler in West Berlin, (probable "mole") George Kisevalter, about the U-2 leak in April of 1958, and Oswald didn't start leaving active duty until July 1959.

Newman tries to minimize the implausibility of this long period of time by saying the "mole" first chose Oswald from other candidates and then insisted that he learn some Russian, but I see no Russian-language requirement for someone who is simply going to go to the American Embassy, announce his desire to terminate his American citizenship and announce to Consul Snyder and the hidden KGB microphones that he intends to commit espionage against the U.S.