Explain the logic of Prayer Man please

[John Iacoletti]

There does not have to be an elaborate conspiratorial reason for everything. An argument can have epistemological warrant - i.e., be epistemologically justified - even if it is wrong. However, it cannot be epistemologically justified if the proponent cannot articulate a coherent rationale. I simply challenge CTers to articulate a rational, coherent theory as to how the designated patsy who is ostensibly shooting from the 6th floor could be allowed to be standing in full view on the front steps. You apparently cannot do it, and that's fine. Given all the Prayer Man brouhaha, however, I'm just surprised that no one can. It does tend to suggest that CTers don't think at the level of niceties like "Does this make any sense?" If your theory is that the conspirators actually were complete bumbling fools - well, OK, that's a coherent rationale of sorts, although it seems unlikely in the context of a Presidential assassination.

Prayer man is either Oswald or it is not.  It doesn't have to "make sense" to you in the context of a strawman Conspiracy with a designated patsy.

[Lance Payette]

Prayer man is either Oswald or it is not.  It doesn't have to "make sense" to you in the context of a strawman Conspiracy with a designated patsy.

In your zeal for one-line inanity, you persistently miss the point. Perhaps slow down and think? No, Prayer Person doesn't have to make sense to me. It has to make sense IN THE CONTEXT OF WHATEVER THEORY IS BEING ASSERTED BY THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS IT IS OR COULD BE OSWALD.

While I understand that you live in Kantian La-La Land where nothing is real, most people accept that Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor and that he was either up there shooting or a patsy. Any conspiracy that has him as a patsy has to explain Prayer Person IN THAT CONTEXT.

Moreover, I can think of NO theory whereby he wouldn't have been screaming "I WAS ON THE STEPS!!! TEN PEOPLE MUST'VE SEEN ME!!!" if he were, in fact, on the steps. Ergo, I am simply interested in the thinking of anyone who asserts a likelihood that Prayer Person is Oswald.

[Tom Graves]

In your zeal for one-line inanity, you persistently miss the point. Perhaps slow down and think? No, Prayer Person doesn't have to make sense to me. It has to make sense IN THE CONTEXT OF WHATEVER THEORY IS BEING ASSERTED BY THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS IT IS OR COULD BE OSWALD.

While I understand that you live in Kantian La-La Land where nothing is real, most people accept that Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor and that he was either up there shooting or a patsy. Any conspiracy that has him as a patsy has to explain Prayer Person IN THAT CONTEXT.

Moreover, I can think of NO theory whereby he wouldn't have been screaming "I WAS ON THE STEPS!!! TEN PEOPLE MUST'VE SEEN ME!!!" if he were, in fact, on the steps. Ergo, I am simply interested in the thinking of anyone who asserts a likelihood that Prayer Person is Oswald.

Lance,

Maybe the oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals who planned the assassination, "patsied" Oswald," killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle, created and planted CE-399, and participated in the cover up WANTED Oswald to be photographed in the dark recesses of the front entrance -- just so we'd be arguing about his presence or non-presence there some sixty-two years after THE BIG EVENT.

-- Tom

[John Iacoletti]

In your zeal for one-line inanity, you persistently miss the point. Perhaps slow down and think? No, Prayer Person doesn't have to make sense to me. It has to make sense IN THE CONTEXT OF WHATEVER THEORY IS BEING ASSERTED BY THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS IT IS OR COULD BE OSWALD.

The only person here trying to put this into the context of a larger "theory" is YOU.

While I understand that you live in Kantian La-La Land where nothing is real, most people accept that Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor and that he was either up there shooting or a patsy.

Who appointed you the spokesperson for "most people"?

Moreover, I can think of NO theory whereby he wouldn't have been screaming "I WAS ON THE STEPS!!! TEN PEOPLE MUST'VE SEEN ME!!!" if he were, in fact, on the steps. Ergo, I am simply interested in the thinking of anyone who asserts a likelihood that Prayer Person is Oswald.

Well, obviously no people saw or remembered Prayerman or we would already know who it was.  And that's not surprising given that they were all watching the motorcade. Unfortunately we know very little about what Oswald may or may not have screamed except through the filter of law enforcement.

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe the oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals who planned the assassination, "patsied" Oswald," killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle, created and planted CE-399, and participated in the cover up WANTED Oswald to be photographed in the dark recesses of the front entrance -- just so we'd be arguing about his presence or non-presence there some sixty-two years after THE BIG EVENT.

"Killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle".  LOL.

[Lance Payette]

The only person here trying to put this into the context of a larger "theory" is YOU.

Who appointed you the spokesperson for "most people"?

Well, obviously no people saw or remembered Prayerman or we would already know who it was.  And that's not surprising given that they were all watching the motorcade. Unfortunately we know very little about what Oswald may or may not have screamed except through the filter of law enforcement.

BINGO! You just joined Dan O'Meara in the bin of Those Who Are Simply Not Worth My Time. You, Dan and the Harvey & Lee brigade (they're in there too) can amuse each other.

If you didn't have 11,000 posts, I truly would think you might be a 15-year-old in mommy's basement. Your posts are so unfailingly witless as to be almost fascinating for their sheer neener-neener witlessness.

Right, conspiracy theorists don't need no stinkin' theory. They just need ... well, what DO they need to be conspiracy theorists anyway? Is "The Lone Nut narrative is just, like, so totally dumb, man" a theory in itself? Maybe I've been under a misapprehension that conspiracy theorists at least thought they were articulating a coherent position when in fact it's simply "The Lone Nut narrative is just, like, so totally dumb, man."

Anyway, enjoy the bin. Bye-bye.

[John Iacoletti]

BINGO! You just joined Dan O'Meara in the bin of Those Who Are Simply Not Worth My Time. You, Dan and the Harvey & Lee brigade (they're in there too) can amuse each other.

This is your go-to when you cannot respond to the points raised.

Basically what you are doing is whining that we are not arguing within the context of your narrowly defined assumptions, therefore you are going to take your ball and go home.

But not without flouncing with an insult for good measure.  Which is part of the standard LN script.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  Why should I be compelled to come up with one?  Just so you can shift the burden away from your own failing narrative?

Like your propaganda is some gift that should be sought out and cherished?