The number three CT nightmare question ...

[Jorn Frending]

When is a CT successful?

A) when proving a conspiracy?

Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen thus it must have been a conspiracy, we can all go home now

B) When proving not only conspiracy but proving also who actually pulled the trigger.

Whatever circumstance debunking the LN scenario is useless unless you prove who did it, how he did it and who was behind it.

C) When presenting a general pattern which makes sense relating a bigger number of events to each other without one single event destroying the entire pattern.

This method may not give instant satisfaction but allow for teamwork and help to establish which area of investigation to concentrate on.

If a CT does not know what to expect from himself how does he know what to expect from other CT's.

[Jorn Frending]

Over the years many researchers have specialized in certain events like proving that Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen, the inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the impossibility of the snipers nest.

Most often our subject of interest depend on our background. In my case, with partly military background, I still find the snipers nest impossible.

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

Of course there are also researchers who find excitement in naming shooters all over  Dealey Plaza or making points based on politics or other personal bias.

In any case I mostly prefer to use method C as described above yet appreciating the enormous work of others on both sides of the fence.

The reason for my three "nightmare" questions will appear in another thread ...

[Walt Cakebread]

Over the years many researchers have specialized in certain events like proving that Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen, the inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the impossibility of the snipers nest.

Most often our subject of interest depend on our background. In my case, with partly military background, I still find the snipers nest impossible.

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

Of course there are also researchers who find excitement in naming shooters all over  Dealey Plaza or making points based on politics or other personal bias.

In any case I mostly prefer to use method C as described above yet appreciating the enormous work of others on both sides of the fence.

The reason for my three "nightmare" questions will appear in another thread ...

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

I agree, Jorn.      Sometimes I feel that I must be an illiterate who is unable to express his views to others.    I feel like I might be writing in some obscure language.

[Jorn Frending]

It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.

I agree, Jorn.      Sometimes I feel that I must be an illiterate who is unable to express his views to others.    I feel like I might be writing in some obscure language.

  ...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

...

Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups. That's simply ridiculous.

And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.

You are raising questions that I think completely destroy the conspiracy claim that Oswald was framed, that he was totally innocent. To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.

[John Iacoletti]

Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups.

Agreed. Who’s saying that?

And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.

Because of some unfair, biased lineups and a gun and shells of questionable provenance? My goodness. How could anybody look at that and think it’s all hunky-dory?

To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.

Easy to claim. Harder to prove.

[Jorn Frending]

Perhaps we got off topic rather quickly ...

This post is not like the other "nightmare questions" because it refers to the CT community itself rather than to the case ...

I'm referring to three different attitudes being a CT in the OP, the first post in this thread, where I refer to my own approach ...

It could be interesting to know the point of view of other forum members! ...

[Izraul Hidashi]

Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups. That's simply ridiculous.

And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.

You are raising questions that I think completely destroy the conspiracy claim that Oswald was framed, that he was totally innocent. To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.

Ah yes... kinda just like it's one thing to ignore evidence of rifles that don't match and impossible timelines of a man who can shoot a president at 12:30, walk calmly to a soda machine, buy a coke, talk to a cop, walk 7 blocks to catch a bus, get on that bus, get caught up in traffic, get a transfer, get off that bus, walk 3 or 4 blocks to find a taxi, offer it to an old lady, take the taxi 2.4 miles through traffic and stop lights, get dropped off 3 or 4 blocks from his house, walk home, hang out for 5 minutes, grab a gun, wait for another bus stop, say screw it and walk over a mile just in time to murder a cop at 1:15, then ditch his jacket, but not his gun, empty the shells from the revolver so cops can have even more great evidence, then sneak into a movie, buy popcorn, and wait to be arrested.

And let's not forget ignoring the 2 wallet stories, right? Cause that makes perfect sense. Oh and don't forget ignoring the shot that we all see come from the front right, which just happens to be exactly where 2 men with rifles can be seen in photos and videos, all in favor for the story of a spombleprofglidnoctobunsty shot marksmen who killed a president with a rifle that the army testers deemed trash. In fact, basically stated there was no way that piece of crap rifle could have killed anyone, other than by accident.

So if you're trying to compare which story is more plausible, only a simple minded oaf would think the official story is plausible. People who are too lazy to have to think much rather swallow whatever nonsense the habitual lying government spews. And the swallowers never seem to want to address all the evidence that we can see, like 2 different rifles. Why would there be 2 different rifles? If you don't know there was 2 different rifles then you obviously haven't done much research. On the off chance you might be too lazy, let me help you...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/x3s37GcDTL67cGjg8        https://photos.app.goo.gl/Pn5DW5g7vZgq2sEz6


So here's a swallowers chance to explain to CT'rs why there's 2 rifles. And speak slowly so the CT'rs can take notes.  If you can't explain that, then guess what... there's probably a good reason for that. There should only be one. But there isn't. There's 2. Maybe Oswald was talented enough to use 2 rifles at the same time? Who knows. But to ignore stuff like that is the definition of crazy. Not knowing that government is full of spombleprofglidnoctobunsty corrupt liars is naive. Accepting any explanation from a government that has a program called the "Freedom of Information Act" that redacts any and everything worth a damn is just gullible.