Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?

[Benjamin Cole]

Joffrey van de Wiel:

I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.

My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.

They got lucky on the motorcade route.

How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.

The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.

[Larry Baldwin]

The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt.
<Br><BR>
The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence.

Spoken like a true narrow minded and condescending LN.  There are many researchers that have "educated themselves" and have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt.  I have "educated myself" enough to conclude that LHO never fired a shot on November 22, 1963.  And I didn't need the "myriad conpiracy books" (sic) or Oliver Stone's JFK to do so.  There is plenty of evidence that proves as much.  However, it could never be accepted by the LN that soley relies on their own "Textus Receptus" (i.e. the WC) or Bugliosi's thinly argued 53 points  of which all have been argued against throughout this forum (at least it was prior to the forum reset).

 

[John Corbett]

Joffrey van de Wiel:

I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.

Who would want to fund a non-existent conspiracy?

My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.

That had to be a guess because there's no evidence of that.

They got lucky on the motorcade route.

How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.

How much planning would it take for one guy to stick a rifle out a window and shoot another guy a short distance away?

The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.

More speculation with zero supporting evidence.

That's the great thing about imagination. You can dream up anything you like and no evidence is required. It is so limiting when you stick with what there is actually evidence to support.

[John Corbett]

Spoken like a true narrow minded and condescending LN.

The time for being open minded about Oswald's innocence expired a long time ago. He was the assassin as the evidence clearly proves.

 
There are many researchers that have "educated themselves" and have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt.

My experience has been those are people who are really, really bad at weighing evidence. 

I have "educated myself" enough to conclude that LHO never fired a shot on November 22, 1963.

Case in point.

 
And I didn't need the "myriad conpiracy books" (sic) or Oliver Stone's JFK to do so.  There is plenty of evidence that proves as much.

Such as?

 
However, it could never be accepted by the LN that soley relies on their own "Textus Receptus" (i.e. the WC) or Bugliosi's thinly argued 53 points  of which all have been argued against throughout this forum (at least it was prior to the forum reset).

The WC got it right from the start. It has made far more sense than any conspiracy book I've read or all the arguments I've read online over the past 35 years combined. Bugliosi's book was an affirmation of the WCR, swatting down all the silly alternative theories that had been made up to that point.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History addresses every criticism leveled at the WCR (at least the ones invented up to the time his book was published)_ He does a thorough job of demolishing every one of them. There are two absolute truths of the JFKA. One is the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The other is there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice in the crime. Since CTs have no evidence, their only avenue to establishing a conspiracy is to tear down the findings of the WC rather than present any positive evidence there was a conspiracy. If people applied as much skepticism to criticisms of the WCR as they do to the WCR, there would be a lot fewer CTs. 

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to believe the WCR, nothing is going to stop them.

The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books.

The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.

Take for instance Oswald's supposed motive. If I remember correctly, the Warren Commission stated that Oswald resented all authority and wanted to make a name for himself and go down in history like John Wilkes Booth. I am unfamiliar with any evidence that proves this supposition.
Wouldn't it be odd for an individual who disliked authority to try to gain entry into the USSR via Cuba, where the authority of the government(s) is a major element of the organization of the state and part of everyday life of the citizens?

Another issue that puzzles me is the fact that Oswald himself, during his interrogation, and his acquaintances told the law enforcement officials that he liked President Kennedy. The various (would-be) assassins that tried to kill President Trump have not, to my knowledge, made similar statements - the same goes for the creepy weirdo who shot Charlie Kirk.

An angle that was explored in a documentary on the Discovery Channel was the 'Cuban connection.' This story first popped up out of Mexico City right after the assassination. A red-headed Negro supposedly handed Oswald $6000 to eliminate the President. I think the evidence for this is flimsy if non-existent, but the Discovery Channel reinvigorated the story, albeit based on different 'evidence.'

[John Corbett]

The predicament for people like me is that there is no neutral ground to dwell on; one either qualifies as a LN or a CT, an objective, open minded approach is very hard to maintain. Yes, I am critical of the Report but also of many of the conspiracy books. \

It seems like a binary choice to me. Either a lone gunman killed JFK or there was a conspiracy. If one believes the latter, I think that makes him a conspiracy theorist, i.e. a CT. I've always thought the term LN was a misnomer because I don't think legally Oswald qualified as a lone nut but since the term has been around so long, no point in confusing things by changing it now.

The 'overwhelming evidence' you say convinced you that Oswald assassinated the President hasn't convinced me. At least not completely. The unfortunate fact that the Dallas police allowed the suspect to get lynched prevented a trial, during which many of the questions I have could have been cleared up.

There's an adage that says never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.  I just discovered there is actually a name for that called Hanlon's Razor. The DPD failed to secure the garage which allowed Ruby to enter with his handgun. Oswald was originally supposed to be transferred by armored car but when it tried to back down the ramp into the garage but it discovered it was too tall to fit. To help the armored car leave the ramp, the cop who was supposed to be guarding the ramp stepped away to hold up traffic and by happenstance, that's when Jack Ruby arrived and he just walked down the unguarded ramp. I don't think Ruby had any prior intention of killing Oswald. I think when he saw Oswald's face, he became enraged and shot Oswald out of anger. Admittedly, that's speculation but it certainly fits with Ruby's movements that morning. Had he intended to kill Oswald, I think he would have gotten there earlier. 

Take for instance Oswald's supposed motive. If I remember correctly, the Warren Commission stated that Oswald resented all authority and wanted to make a name for himself and go down in history like John Wilkes Booth. I am unfamiliar with any evidence that proves this supposition.
Wouldn't it be odd for an individual who disliked authority to try to gain entry into the USSR via Cuba, where the authority of the government(s) is a major element of the organization of the state and part of everyday life of the citizens?

Determining Oswald's motive is pure speculation, even by the WC. Nobody knows for sure why Oswald did what he did nor do we need to know why to know that he did it. There's plenty of evidence for that. Whatever Oswald's motive was, he took it to his grave.

Another issue that puzzles me is the fact that Oswald himself, during his interrogation, and his acquaintances told the law enforcement officials that he liked President Kennedy. The various (would-be) assassins that tried to kill President Trump have not, to my knowledge, made similar statements - the same goes for the creepy weirdo who shot Charlie Kirk.

Mark Chapman got John Lennon's autograph hours before he shot him dead. We make a mistake when we expect irrational people to act rationally. If we did know why Oswald killed JFK, it probably wouldn't make sense to us. I said earlier that I didn't think Oswald was legally insane, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a loose screw somewhere inside his head.

An angle that was explored in a documentary on the Discovery Channel was the 'Cuban connection.' This story first popped up out of Mexico City right after the assassination. A red-headed Negro supposedly handed Oswald $6000 to eliminate the President. I think the evidence for this is flimsy if non-existent, but the Discovery Channel reinvigorated the story, albeit based on different 'evidence.'

The problem I have with these stories trying to connect Oswald's Mexico City trip to the assassination is that at the time, nobody could have foreseen months later that Oswald would end up working in a building overlooking the motorcade route. Not even Oswald would have known that. That's a problem for all conspiracy theories, whether one believes Oswald was an active participant or simply a patsy.

Oswald got his job at the TSBD 6 weeks before the assassination. That was before the motorcade route had been determined or that there would even be a motorcade. Originally, the Texas trip was only going to be a one day affair and John Connally was against having a motorcade because he didn't think they had time for one. It was only after the White House agreed to make it a two day trip that JBC dropped his objection to the motorcade. He was put in charge of planning the details including the site for the luncheon. It was the choice of the Trade Mart that dictated the motorcade would drive past the TSBD. The motorcade would have gone down Main Street in downtown Dallas no matter which site was selected but had one of the other sites under consideration been selected, the motorcade would have gone through down Main Street in the opposite direction and would not have driven in front of the TSBD. It was pure happenstance that the motorcade went right by Oswald's workplace and for Oswald, it became a crime of opportunity.