What evidence of a conspiracy would we expect to find?

[John Corbett]

You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence.

It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just present evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the JFKA. Got any?

[Martin Weidmann]

You can keep saying "zero evidence" to everyone who disagrees with you, but your opinion that the evidence is inadequate does not equate to zero evidence. {/quote]

It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just present evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the JFKA. Got any?

The case against Oswald is highly circumstantial with very few dots of physical evidence, interpreted in one particular way, to connect.

You most surely won't agree with this, but by using the same physical evidence and applying a different interpretation a circumstantial case can also be made for some kind of conspiracy.

Now before you ask, I am not going to spend a great deal of time to explain the details of that case as your fanatical approach to this case would automatically make that a waste of time.

I will say this; there are so many anomalies and things that simply don't make any sense and/or add up, that the mere number of those arguments would not only create reasonable doubt about the case against Oswald but also strongly point into the direction of some sort of set up and thus conspiracy.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Marina testified to the WC in Russian and had an interpreter.

Note in this exchange that she said Oswald tried to get her and the baby to return to Russia by herself and before the Walker attempt.

[Lance Payette]

It should be easy to prove me wrong. Just present evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the JFKA. Got any?

Well, yes I do, if Ragano statements were true. Jesus, for someone who think he's so clever, you seem almost brain dead.

[John Corbett]

Well, yes I do, if Ragano statements were true. Jesus, for someone who think he's so clever, you seem almost brain dead.

I ask for evidence and you give me a big fat IF. Since when do unsworn hearsay statements become evidence. Do you even understand what constitutes evidence? You sure haven't given any indication that you do.

[Benjamin Cole]

LP--

Interesting question.

I think both SBT'ers-LNT'ers and CT'ers got off the track by either formulating that there was a large conspiracy, or then refuting the obvious flaws in large CT's.

A small, informal or ad hoc conspiracy, of low level Alpha 66'ers or G-2'ers, which left no written evidence behind, and which was only tangentially connected to any institution is my preferred CT narrative.

Detecting such a conspiracy would be difficult, say if LHO was dead ad the other two perps kept quiet. Then what? Who knows anything?

The WC had an inclination from the start to go LNT; we know that from LBJ's instructions to Russell and Warren.

(I can't get past Gov. JBC holding his Stetson at Z-272, or his body being thrust forward at ~Z-295.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

The evidence (there is that hallowed word!) seen in the Z-film is indisputable; Connally is pushed forward ~Z-295.

I doubt JBC could hold onto to his Stetson hat after being shot through the wrist by a large "tumbling" slug.

Yet, JFK is indisputably shot at Z-313.

The GK smoke-and-bag show indicates another perp as well.)

The Mafia? Possibly, but there seems to be oodles of connections between LHO and intel agencies, and very little linking him to the Mob. 

Caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.