Why would the conspirators let Oswald have a midnight press conference?

[Jon Banks]

Well it certainly looks like a press conference and if Oswald had anything to say he would have said it.

JohnM

If he was part of the Conspiracy, why would he incriminate himself and others?

If he was framed, how would he know who framed him?

[Rob Caprio]

Where did you read that?

Why does that matter? Is it true or not?

[Rob Caprio]

Well it certainly looks like a press conference and if Oswald had anything to say he would have said it.

JohnM

You clearly have no idea what a press conference is if you think this looks like one.

[Richard Smith]

The evidence against Oswald for John Iacolletti exists in a sort of twilight zone: it's not real but it's also not faked, it exists but it doesn't exist, it's not authentic but also not inauthentic.

Using this approach - placing the evidence in a sort of undefined and indeterminate area - he can both dismiss it out of hand but can also deny that he is claiming that it is faked or manufactured.

Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.

You nailed it exactly.  John is a dishonest contrarian.  The single worst poster on this board.  He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.  Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?  We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.  Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.   It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.  The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client. 

[Steve Howsley]

Why does that matter? Is it true or not?

It matters because you have a track record of being a little loose with the truth.

Before anyone comments on your claim you should reference your source. Even a raving CTer would expect you to do that.

My bet is that your source (if you have one) is another low grade poster on a CT forum.

[John Iacoletti]

You nailed it exactly.  John is a dishonest contrarian.  The single worst poster on this board.  He takes issue with the evidence against Oswald as being suspect and then suggests it is a "strawman" argument to conclude that he is implying a conspiracy.  Who exactly faked or manufactured all this evidence if not a conspirator?  We are only left to ponder this intentional void in John's logic.  Like Inspector Clouseau, he suspects everyone and he suspects no one.   It is a lazy way to stay in a discussion without having to provide any supporting evidence while attempting to set an impossible standard of proof for others.  The time honored defense attorney approach to a case where all the evidence is stacked against his client.

Says the lazy, dishonest contrarian who when asked for evidence that Oswald killed JFK, either gives none at all or rattles off a bunch of conclusions about the evidence that are either completely false, unproven, or misleading rather then providing any actual evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Okay.  Where do I start?  Let's start with these six (there are plenty more):

The shell fragments allegedly found inside the limo, which were linked through ballistics to the rifle found up on the sixth floor.  Were these fragments really found inside the limo or were they planted?

What is your evidence that they were found inside the limo?

The two shell casings found in Oak Cliff, one by Barbara Davis and one by Virginia Davis.  Were these two shells really found at the scene by these girls?

What is your evidence that the two shells in evidence (and which two shells anyway?) were found at the scene by the Davis girls?

The paper trail and money order leading to Oswald's purchase of the rifle allegedly found up on the sixth floor.  Was this paper trail faked?  Was the money order faked?

What is your evidence that these paper trails lead to Oswald?

The paper trail leading to Oswald's purchase of the revolver allegedly used to kill Tippit.  Was this paper trail faked?

What is your evidence that this paper trail leads to Oswald

The revolver in evidence, allegedly taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater.  Is that really the revolver taken from Oswald or did the real murder weapon disappear and Gerald Hill plant into evidence a revolver linked to Oswald?

What is your evidence that CE143 was taken from Oswald when he was apprehended inside the theater?

What I've noticed is that when nutters can't defend the provenance of what they consider to be evidence, they quickly rush to shift the burden of proof and insist that you prove that somebody faked it.  Even evidence that doesn't even have anything to do with who murdered Kennedy.

If you can't (for example) reliably prove that Oswald filled out the 2-inch order coupon that a microfilm picture was taken of with anything other than a biased, unscientific judgment call (and you cannot), then there is no need for any of your "paper trail" to have been "faked" by anybody.  If there is no evidence that Oswald picked up a parcel from the post office containing CE139 (and there is not), then there is no need for any of your "paper trail" to have been "faked" by anybody.  That's why they are strawmen.  You want to pretend that either the evidence we have proves what you think it proves, OR that some vast conspiracy that nobody ever claimed faked it all.  You can't prove your case, so you shift the burden to the other side of the false dichotomy.

[John Iacoletti]

Of course, that's a complete intellectual dodge. It exists. How did it come to exist? Either Oswald made it or someone else did. Who is that someone else? Those are our choices. Choosing (c) neither is, frankly, a dodge.

No, it's not a "dodge".  It's the only intellectually honest answer.  The time to believe a claim is true is when you have a good reason to believe it.  Just choosing an answer that you cannot support is no virtue.