JFK Assassination Forum

Several observations:

1. Nobody was going to be executed. Not even Oswald. He would have been found guilty and sentenced to death but he couldn't have extended the appeals process until SCOTUS vacated the death penalty in 1972.

2. Oswald didn't need anybody to carry out the assassination. It only required one man with reasonable proficiency with a rifle.

3. Any conspiracy theory, large or small, requires connecting the conspirators to the gunman, who was Oswald.

4. There is nothing implausible about the SBT. The geometry works perfectly. A shot fired from the sniper's nest through JFK's throat couldn't have missed JBC. He was perfectly aligned to receive that bullet.

5. Conway Twitty had hit record that would apply to all conspiracy theories. It's Only Make Believe. There is no evidence Oswald was acting on behalf of anybody but himself.

Earlier you indicated you have a 30.06 rifle. So, I would guess that you might be a deer hunter. Let’s try an analogy with a deer hunter up high in a tree stand that has prepared provisions for a comfortable and stable seated and supported shot into a clearing. A deer comes along and is moving towards the clearing right below the hunter. The deer hunter knows for certain that that deer will emerge very soon into that clearing and present itself such that the hunter has a perfect comfortable and supported shot into the deer’s vital organs zone. Why the heck would the deer hunter decide to stand up and shoot at the deer before it gets to the clearing. How many deer hunters do you know that would take a very low percentage early shot under those conditions?

Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.

I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.

This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.

Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.

Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:

1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible

There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:

1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy

The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.

This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.

As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.

Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.

Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.

I do, but you clearly don't. You always pretend to know more than anyone else but then make one blundering statement after another.

LOL! One, CE 543 was supposedly fired during the assassination, but obviously it was not, even according to your amateurish take on Nicols' testimony. Two, this does not explain why there are no chambering impressions on CE 543. 

This is just silly, not to mention dishonest. Yes, that is indeed the point, which I made clear. I tend to doubt that you've even read Thompson's analysis of CE 543. If you did, you didn't understand it.

This is another one of your silly and dishonest strawman attacks. Why don't you quote from Thompson's analysis, hey? I wonder if you just don't know that Thompson argues that at least four shots were fired.

LOL! Are you in junior high or something? The level of silliness and dishonesty in your strawman arguments is pitiful. I notice you snipped Dr. Thomas's comments. Gee, I wonder why.

I know far more than you do about firearms. You're a silly troll who pretends to understand issues that you clearly don't understand. Your tactic is to make ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments because you can't deal credibly with the evidence.

Why don't you address the arguments about CE 543 made by recognized firearms experts that I present in my article? I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to read my article on CE 543.

People should know that you're a peddler of the fringe two-shots-only lone-gunman scenario, a theory that even 98% of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject as ridiculous, including Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, and Jim Moore.