Why did Oswald go get his revolver?

[Martin Weidmann]

There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.

1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?

Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate. "Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed? Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.

I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater. I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.

I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer. Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.

Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit - probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit. At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.

There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.

Agreed.

This is also why the die hard LNs, who think they "know" everything about Oswald and the case and also "know" that they are always right, do not want critical questions being asked, as most of the time they can't or don't want to answer them. They prefer a superficial look at the evidence, so that they can ignore discrepancies, make up their own narrative and jump to flawed conclusions.

All those complaints about people "overthinking" the case tell us all we need to know. They are basically saying that their superficial approach to the evidence is enough for them to reach conclusions and they simply do not want anybody to look any further than they have looked. They are constantly going on about the need to look at the evidence as a whole, but forget or ignore that evidence needs to be authenticated and actually support their conclusions. They completely ignore that not everything that is presented as evidence is proof of something. In criminal cases it frequently happens that first impressions are subsequently proven incorrect by a closer examination of the evidence. Things are not always as they appear to be, but you can't tell that to a die hard LN because he will dismiss it and stick to his first impression conclusions. And in order to fill the gaps in the evidence they will add assumptions to speculation and misrepresent the facts where they need to.

[Martin Weidmann]

People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.

Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?

People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.

Exactly right. In my mind the apparent fear of a die hard LN is that he gets involved in a conversation that could force him to reconsider his opinion about an aspect of the case, simply because he doesn't want to do that.

I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.

Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.

Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?

I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.

This says it all. It's absolute paranoia. John is basically saying that if you don't share his belief that you must be an Oswald defender who desperately wants to exonerate him.

Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.

And here he is saying; no matter what you say, I am and will always be right. My belief that Oswald did it is supreme and if you disagree (or even question it) you are committing blasphemy.

The hilarious part is of course that John doesn't understand that his "Oswald did it" belief is actually also similar to religious dogma.

Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?

And here is the classic LN claim that they are right unless you can prove them wrong, which of course is impossible as they will never accept any evidence you present as valid.

This "guilty unless proven innocent" nonsense is the basis for the entire LN position.

[Lance Payette]

I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.

Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.

Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?

Ah, epistemology - my favorite topic! Religious beliefs cannot be proven in any ultimate ontologiacal sense because they by definition deal with matters beyond our reality. Ditto for atheistic beliefs - the nonexistence of a deity cannot be proven (and some 20% of atheists do hold beliefs that are amazingly "supernatural"). However, there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that bears on the religious questions, as well as reasonable inferences from that evidence, and philosophical reasoning. By diligent study and reflection, one can arrive at a high level of conviction. If someone has done the work and holds a 95% level of conviction in materialistic atheism, Catholicism, Islam or Scientology, I can only explain why I think differently but I can't screech "You're wrong, the truth is obvious!" We see again and again and again on religious forums and many others that a very large percentage of people simply cannot abide doubt or ambiguity. They cannot admit, to themselves or others, "Yes, I hold a high degree of confidence in my convictions, but they are just convictions and I have to acknowledge they could be partially or wholly wrong." Hence, most "discussions" sound a great deal like this forum: "What is the matter with you? Why can you not see how right I am? It's so obvious!"

Atheists also play a game that seems to underlie your posts: "Hey, it's your religious claims that are extraordinary. You have the burden of satisfying me, and it's a damn high bar because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Materialistic atheism is the default position for any intelligent, rational person." This is, of course, completely false. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a deity than the nonexistence of one. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a higher level of reality than the nonexistence of one. This is a game internet atheists play because they are as mindless about their beliefs as most religious believers and this game frees them from the obligation to justify their position. It's all just "Hey, you gotta convince me." No, I don't have to convince anyone but myself. If I were trying to convert an atheist, or vice versa, then indeed the burden would be on he who was trying to do the converting - and the standard still wouldn't be whether I had met some imaginary standard of extraordinariness, but simply whether I had convinced my listener.

Ditto with the JFKA: There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about a logical and internally consistent conspircy theory than about the LN narrative.

Who killed JFK and why is a real-world question and thus differs from religious ones in that respect - but the epistemological principles are largely the same. The fact is, the WC was an agenda-driven inquiry that intentionally avoided some critical questions. The HSCA was staffed largely by conspiracy enthusiasts, had an organized crime orientation, and bought into dubious acoustical evidence. Some 62 years of inquiry and debate has generated lots of new information. Just as with religion, the field is polluted by folks who can't think clearly. (A key epistemological principle is that for beliefs to have epistemic justification - not to be true, but just to be justified - the believer must have "cognitive faculties properly operating in an environment in which they were intended to operate." IMHO, an awful lot of people on a forum such as this would not make it past the "cognitive faculties" threshold.) The LN narrative is a compelling and evidence-based one, but it hasn't eliminated all doubt by any means. If someone is an LN fundamentalist or a CT fundamentalist who can't acknowledge the doubt and uncertainty inherent in his convictions, then the discussion is just like a religious one in which "doubt-free" Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses just screech at each other.

It's not my burden to present "just what evidence" makes me believe what I believe, and that exercise is futile with a fundamentalist anyway. My modicum of doubt about the LN narrative is based on a host of factors, some of which I've explained here. One is just that a Mafia hit in many ways just "makes more sense" and is inherently more believable to me than the LN narrative. Did Carlos Marcello actually confess to Jack Van Laningham? Did Santo Trafficante actually confess to Frank Ragano? I'm not saying absolutely yes to either, but the accounts are evidence that demands to be considered and evaluated. This is true of virtually every aspect of the JFKA. If someone has done his homework and decided the WC narrative is true, that's fine - but the mistake is thinking that one's convictions equate to ontological truth, that it is heresy even to challenge them, and that anyone who holds different convictions is ipso facto wrong.

[John Corbett]

Ah, epistemology - my favorite topic! Religious beliefs cannot be proven in any ultimate ontologiacal sense because they by definition deal with matters beyond our reality. Ditto for atheistic beliefs - the nonexistence of a deity cannot be proven (and some 20% of atheists do hold beliefs that are amazingly "supernatural"). However, there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that bears on the religious questions, as well as reasonable inferences from that evidence, and philosophical reasoning. By diligent study and reflection, one can arrive at a high level of conviction. If someone has done the work and holds a 95% level of conviction in materialistic atheism, Catholicism, Islam or Scientology, I can only explain why I think differently but I can't screech "You're wrong, the truth is obvious!" We see again and again and again on religious forums and many others that a very large percentage of people simply cannot abide doubt or ambiguity. They cannot admit, to themselves or others, "Yes, I hold a high degree of confidence in my convictions, but they are just convictions and I have to acknowledge they could be partially or wholly wrong." Hence, most "discussions" sound a great deal like this forum: "What is the matter with you? Why can you not see how right I am? It's so obvious!".

It's a binary question. Either there is a Supreme Being or there is not. Billy Graham and Madalyn Murray O'Hair both died completely convinced that their answer to that question was the correct one even though one of them had to be wrong. One thing I can say for sure. Only one of them might have been rudely surprised to learn the answer.

Atheists also play a game that seems to underlie your posts: "Hey, it's your religious claims that are extraordinary. You have the burden of satisfying me, and it's a damn high bar because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Materialistic atheism is the default position for any intelligent, rational person." This is, of course, completely false. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a deity than the nonexistence of one. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a higher level of reality than the nonexistence of one. This is a game internet atheists play because they are as mindless about their beliefs as most religious believers and this game frees them from the obligation to justify their position. It's all just "Hey, you gotta convince me." No, I don't have to convince anyone but myself. If I were trying to convert an atheist, or vice versa, then indeed the burden would be on he who was trying to do the converting - and the standard still wouldn't be whether I had met some imaginary standard of extraordinariness, but simply whether I had convinced my listener.

This is why I don't argue about religion with people. There is simply no way of proving one POV or the other. That is not true of the JFKA. We do have evidence that tells us unambiguously who killed JFK. I saw without hesitation that in 62 years no one has produced credible evidence that person had any accomplices. I accept the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald had one or more accomplices in his crime. Given how thoroughly the JFKA has been researched and the passage of 62 years, I find the chances of any such evidence surfacing to be extremely remote.

Ditto with the JFKA: There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about a logical and internally consistent conspircy theory than about the LN narrative.

All I can say is there is ample evidence of the latter and none for the former.

Who killed JFK and why is a real-world question and thus differs from religious ones in that respect - but the epistemological principles are largely the same. The fact is, the WC was an agenda-driven inquiry that intentionally avoided some critical questions. [/quote

Such as?

The HSCA was staffed largely by conspiracy enthusiasts, had an organized crime orientation, and bought into dubious acoustical evidence. Some 62 years of inquiry and debate has generated lots of new information. Just as with religion, the field is polluted by folks who can't think clearly. (A key epistemological principle is that for beliefs to have epistemic justification - not to be true, but just to be justified - the believer must have "cognitive faculties properly operating in an environment in which they were intended to operate." IMHO, an awful lot of people on a forum such as this would not make it past the "cognitive faculties" threshold.) The LN narrative is a compelling and evidence-based one, but it hasn't eliminated all doubt by any means. If someone is an LN fundamentalist or a CT fundamentalist who can't acknowledge the doubt and uncertainty inherent in his convictions, then the discussion is just like a religious one in which "doubt-free" Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses just screech at each other.

I say without hesitation that there is zero doubt that Oswald killed JFK and I will generously concede the theoretical possibility the had accomplices. I would put the chances of that being the case around 0.01%. The only question in my mind is how many zeros belong to the right of the decimal point.

It's not my burden to present "just what evidence" makes me believe what I believe, and that exercise is futile with a fundamentalist anyway. My modicum of doubt about the LN narrative is based on a host of factors, some of which I've explained here. One is just that a Mafia hit in many ways just "makes more sense" and is inherently more believable to me than the LN narrative. Did Carlos Marcello actually confess to Jack Van Laningham? Did Santo Trafficante actually confess to Frank Ragano? I'm not saying absolutely yes to either, but the accounts are evidence that demands to be considered and evaluated. This is true of virtually every aspect of the JFKA. If someone has done his homework and decided the WC narrative is true, that's fine - but the mistake is thinking that one's convictions equate to ontological truth, that it is heresy even to challenge them, and that anyone who holds different convictions is ipso facto wrong.

In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, you give me no reason to reconsider my absolute belief that Oswald killed two men on 11/22/1963. As the late Carl Sagan once said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". I know Oswald was a double murderer. If you choose to base your beliefs on something other than evidence, that is your right. I choose not to go down that road and I wonder why anybody would.