Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Martin Weidmann]

We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all. Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group. He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one. I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.

We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground

So now it's only some of the time?

which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all.

Really? How do you figure, when you don't know what he was doing all of the time? Do you often jump to conclusions for which there is no factual evidence?

Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group.


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one.

So we are told? but, even if true, what does that actually prove?

I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.


Something else you've just been told and want to believe, right?

[John Mytton]

21. In a similar vein, if Oswald, as part of a conspiracy, was scheduled to murder the president of the United States, how likely is it that his physical, mental, and emotional immersion in, and preparation for, such an extremely important and dangerous mission was so minimal, and his concern about it so little, that just two or so weeks before the scheduled murder, the main thing on his mind was to go into the local office of the FBI in Dallas and threaten to blow up the building if one of the agents didn?t stop bothering his wife?
RHVB



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

21. In a similar vein, if Oswald, as part of a conspiracy, was scheduled to murder the president of the United States, how likely is it that his physical, mental, and emotional immersion in, and preparation for, such an extremely important and dangerous mission was so minimal, and his concern about it so little, that just two or so weeks before the scheduled murder, the main thing on his mind was to go into the local office of the FBI in Dallas and threaten to blow up the building if one of the agents didn?t stop bothering his wife?
RHVB


JohnM

I wonder how Bugs "knows" that Oswald threatened to blow up the FBI building.... Really?

[Bill Chapman]

You make the case for why it wasn't Oswald. 

He makes the case for Oswald doing it alone.

[Bill Chapman]

I wonder how Bugs "knows" that Oswald threatened to blow up the FBI building.... Really?

Didn't the woman at the front desk at FBI/Dallas say something about that. I recall some sort of controversy about what Oswald actually said to her. Maybe it's not confirmed about any bomb. But even Bugs said he wrote the book as if he were in court, so can anyone blame him for the shotgun approach; just throw everything including speculation at the jury and see what sticks. In the so called 'shotgun fallacy' the ideal situation is to fire all barrels (no matter how silly some things seem to some people), with the goal of getting people to start to think that there's so much to it that it must be true.

Someone once said that trials are not about the truth. They are about who wins the argument.

[Steve Howsley]

We do know some of what he was doing but details are thin on the ground

So now it's only some of the time?

which is in itself an indication that he wasn't up to much at all.

Really? How do you figure, when you don't know what he was doing all of the time? Do you often jump to conclusions for which there is no factual evidence?

Despite 55 years of inquiries by hundreds of people there is no proof of Oswald being a key player in any organised group.


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

He even had to make up his own group with a membership of one.

So we are told? but, even if true, what does that actually prove?

I guess when it came time to pay his membership dues he'd take a dollar from the right pocket of his trousers and slip it into the left pocket. He was a legend in his own lunchtime but a nobody to most people.


Something else you've just been told and want to believe, right?

Martin, It all leads to Oswald acting alone. I don't know what part if any you think Oswald played in a conspiracy but I haven't seen credible evidence that he was in cahoots with anyone. People build their conspiracy sand castles each day but when the tide comes in it's all washed away. If anyone has rock solid evidence that Oswald is either innocent or that he was a key player in a grand conspiracy then I'm yet to see it. After 55 years I'm as close to certain that such evidence won't be forthcoming as it simply doesn't exist.

I started out many years ago as someone who loved a good conspiracy but before I was 'sold' I insisted on seeing the 'evidence' stack up. The more I read about the assassination the more (much to my initial disappointment!) I was swayed by the LN evidence. It's not as exciting as a conspiracy theorist's fantasies must be but I much prefer to live in the real world.

I don't expect anyone to be persuaded by the above. I don't care either. It's simply an honest statement on what I know to be true.

[Ray Mitcham]

Didn't the woman at the front desk at FBI/Dallas say something about that. I recall some sort of controversy about what Oswald actually said to her. Maybe it's not confirmed about any bomb. But even Bugs said he wrote the book as if he were in court,acting as prosecuting counsel so can anyone blame him for the shotgun approach; just throw everything including speculation at the jury and see what sticks. In the so called 'shotgun fallacy' the ideal situation is to fire all barrels (no matter how silly some things seem to some people), with the goal of getting people to start to think that there's so much to it that it must be true.

Someone once said that trials are not about the truth. They are about who wins the argument.

Fixed it for you in red. Chappers.