Why do so many people overthink the JFKA?

[John Corbett]

In my experience, many JFK CTers view the evidence against Oswald in a vacuum.  Each individual piece of evidence is addressed without regard to other evidence and circumstances.  Oswald's bag is a great example.  Frazier confirms Oswald carried a long bag that morning.  He indicates that Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Frazier asked Oswald about his lunch and was told he didn't bring it that day.  A long bag was found in the TSBD that had Oswald's prints on it.   No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denied that he carried any bag such as Frazier described when he claimed he took only his lunch.  He denied carrying any curtain rods.  Entirely contrary to what Frazier described including Oswald confirming to him that he did not have his lunch and instead having curtain rods.  But because Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag is off by several inches, they ignore the totality of these circumstances to conclude that the 6th floor bag is not the same one Oswald carried to work.  What happened to the bag they believe he carried as described by Frazier is never addressed.  Why Oswald lied to Frazier about his lunch and the curtain rods is not addressed.  And so forth.  Repeat endlessly.

I have made a similar point numerous times over the years. No single piece of evidence, by itself, proves Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For any given piece of evidence there is a probable explanation and one or more less likely explanation that are theoretically possible. The problem for the Oswald defenders, the probable explanation always points to Oswald. Yes, he was the owner of the murder weapon but theoretically, somebody else could have gotten possession of the weapon by hook or by crook, and used it to kill JFK. But the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle seem to refute that possibility. Again, the probable explanation is that Oswald was the shooter. The far less likely explanation is the person who got possession of Oswald's rifle was wearing the same kind of shirt as Oswald when he fired the shots. The odds of that are extremely remote if it happened by coincidence. If it was deliberate by the conspirators, how did they know which shirt Oswald was going to wear to work that day. Or maybe they had a whole closetful of duplicate Oswald shirts and just picked out the one they saw Oswald wearing that morning. Does anyone think that is even plausible. There are dozens of such pieces of evidence which are probative of Oswald's guilt. It strains credulity to think the least likely explanation is the correct one for each of those dozens of pieces of evidence.

For sake of argument, let's say each piece of evidence is only 75% probative of Oswald's guilt. I happen to think it is significantly higher for most of the evidence, but just for his exercise let's go with the 75% value. If one were to cut a deck of playing cards, there is a 75% chance one would not cut to a spade. That means there is a 1 in 4 chance one would cut to a spade. If one cuts the cards twice, there is only a 1 in 16 chance of cutting to a spade on both cuts. If one cuts the cards three times, there is only a 1 in 64 chance of cutting to a spade on all three. Each successive cut of the cards multiplies the chances against cutting to a spade every time by a factor of 4. The odds of cutting to a spade on 10 successive cuts would become astronomical. To believe we could have so many pieces of evidence where the likeliest explanation is Oswald was guilty is not remotely possible if he were actually innocent.

This is why CTs always attack the evidence piecemeal. They can offer a plausible argument for Oswald's innocence by looking at any one piece, but there is no plausible argument for his innocence if one looks at the body of evidence as a whole. Each piece of evidence strengthens every other piece of evidence to the point where there is no possibility of Oswald's innocence. If one takes a single pencil, it's very easy to break it with your bare hands. Put 12 pencils together it becomes very dffiicult to break them. This is why CTs will never try to break more than one pencil at a time.

[Lance Payette]

What the CT community needs is one piece of irrefutable evidence that is central to the LN narrative and is flatly inconsistent with it. It would have to be either (1) something that shows to a certainty that what the LN narrative says took place in Dealey Plaza is incorrect, or (2) shows to a certainty that Dealey Plaza is not the whole story. The CT community has largely shot itself in the foot (feet?) by (1) proposing so many diametrically oppsed alternative scenarios for what took place in Dealey Plaza that it's almost comical, (2) hypothesizing so many diverse conspirators that it's likewise almost comical. To even get the attention of serious historians with anything short of irrefutable evidence, there would have to have been a single plausible theory involving plausible conspirators that cast really serious doubt on the critical elements of the LN narrative insofar as Dealey Plaza is concerned. Instead, we have a hopeless mishmash of mostly raw speculation - and the increasingly preferred theory of an elaborate, multi-faceted conspiracy flowing from the highest levels of government and an elaborate, multi-faceted coverup is one of the most ludicrous and inherently unbelievable of all. And on it goes ...

[John Corbett]

What the CT community needs is one piece of irrefutable evidence that is central to the LN narrative and is flatly inconsistent with it.

Yup. And in 62 years of trying, the CT community has failed to bag that snipe. It makes me wonder why they keep trying.

I was going to compare it to their hunt for the white whale but then I remembered Ahab did find his white whale.