CTers: Do yourself a favor and focus on plausibility

[John Corbett]

JM -

I absolutely agree that this was Oswald's primary motive. It fits equally well with the LN narrative and a conspiracy narrative in which Oswald thought he was doing what the LN narrative posits him doing but was actually the dupe* of others with an entirely different motive. The problem (if one wants to explore conspiracy possibilities) is plausibly connecting him to these mysterious "others." He was pretty vocal and visible about his pro-Castro sympathies, but how would he and his employment in the TSBD have become known to these "others?" Since Byrd owned the TSBD building and Cason was president of the TSBD company, I suppose this is one selling point of Dan's theory if he can account for how either of them would have known of Oswald's background.

*I am sick of "patsy." "Dupe" is my new thing. 

Theoretically possible doesn't equate to plausible. You need evidence that the people who you think duped Oswald knew he worked at a building overlooking the motorcade route and that they persuaded him to carry out the assassination. Imagination is a poor substitute for evidence.

[Lance Payette]

Theoretically possible doesn't equate to plausible. You need evidence that the people who you think duped Oswald knew he worked at a building overlooking the motorcade route and that they persuaded him to carry out the assassination. Imagination is a poor substitute for evidence.

Unlike zealots of any stripe, I don't actually "need" anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned. Insofar as a plausible conspiracy theory is concerned, I don't think the conspirators needed to know Oswald was working in a building overlooking the motorcade route before recruiting him. He was an in-your-face Castro supporter and Marxist whose sympathies could have been known to many people and who could have been involved in anti-JFK discussions well in advance of the JFKA. It could have been Oswald who approached the others and said "Holy cow, JFK is going to be right in front of the building in which I'm working!" Certainly, as Dan recognizes, convincingly tying Oswald into "the plot" is the primary obstacle to even the most plausible conspiracy theory.

[John Corbett]

Unlike zealots of any stripe, I don't actually "need" anything insofar as the JFKA is concerned.

No you don't. Imagination suffices when cooking up JFKA conspiracy theories. However, if you want to make a compelling argument, you need to do a little better. Some evidence would be nice.

Insofar as a plausible conspiracy theory is concerned, I don't think the conspirators needed to know Oswald was working in a building overlooking the motorcade route before recruiting him. He was an in-your-face Castro supporter and Marxist whose sympathies could have been known to many people and who could have been involved in anti-JFK discussions well in advance of the JFKA.

Why would they recruit someone if they didn't know he had a perch overlooking the motorcade route. Did they just get lucky?

It could have been Oswald who approached the others and said "Holy cow, JFK is going to be right in front of the building in which I'm working!"

If Oswald was going to shoot JFK, why would he need to approach anybody? Why not just do it an not tell anybody?

Certainly, as Dan recognizes, convincingly tying Oswald into "the plot" is the primary obstacle to even the most plausible conspiracy theory.

It is not an obstacle. It is an essential element for anyone positing Oswald was part of a conspiracy and not just acting alone. This is the one element that all conspiracy theories lack. Compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the assassination. For over 6 decades, CTs have used imagination in lieu of evidence to support their theories. If they can conceive it, they will believe it. 

[Lance Payette]

Why would they recruit someone if they didn't know he had a perch overlooking the motorcade route. Did they just get lucky?

Free your mind, Grasshopper. Does a patsy dupe require a perch overlooking the motorcade route? If he was in fact a dupe, he could have fulfilled his dupedom from anywhere. He would have been recruited as a dupe not because he had a perch but because who he was fit perfectly with where the Bad Guys were trying to point - i.e., Cuba. The fact that JFK was planning to visit Dallas was known considerably in advance of 11-22 - indeed, before Mr. Dupe had visited MC or begun work in the TSBD. It may be that the TSBD was the best he could do at the time and then, voila, turned out to be perfect. If Oswald were a non-dupe, pretty much the same logic applies. In fact, the sixth floor of the TSBD seems so Stoopidly Risky to me that I have difficulty fitting it into any plausible narrative, LN or CT, other than "Maybe the dupe will get lucky and actually hit JFK and our pro won't even be needed. If he's killed, we don't care. If he survives, we don't care. Either way, he serves his purpose."

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

If Oswald was going to shoot JFK, why would he need to approach anybody? Why not just do it an not tell anybody?

Free your mind and enter into the bliss of non-dualistic thinking, Grasshopper. If the LN narrative were correct, he would not need to approach anyone. If he were already part of a conspiracy, however, either as a dupe or a participant, he would be informing his co-conspirators that the time was right and he was sitting in the proverbial catbird seat. The Bad Guys would then implement other aspects of the plan - a shooter in the Dal-Tex or County Records building, perhaps, or a guy in the storm drain with CIA-issued ice bullets, or Umbrella Man with his poison flanchettes, or ... whatever.

It is not an obstacle. It is an essential element for anyone positing Oswald was part of a conspiracy and not just acting alone. This is the one element that all conspiracy theories lack. Compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the assassination. For over 6 decades, CTs have used imagination in lieu of evidence to support their theories. If they can conceive it, they will believe it.

You are on the edge of enlightenment, Grasshoppper. "If they can conceive it, they will believe it" is right out of the Tao ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the name that can be named is not Lee Harvey Oswald"). You are merely repeating what open-minded sages such as Dan* and myself have cheerfully acknowledged - yes, a plausible conspiracy theory must account for Oswald in some evidence-based way. John Orr thinks he has done this, but I will reserve judgment until I more clearly understand what he is claiming. (*Mr. O'Meara is currently a probationary sage but is making solid progress toward full satori.)

I really think that no more than five episodes of Kung Fu would be sufficient to free you from the mental prison in which you are currently trapped.

"Live long and prosper." No, wait, that was Mr. Spock. Oh, well, whatever.