[Patrick C]

(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

---

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

"The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence."

Again absolute tripe. "not established by the evidence"...........

Oswald's rifle was found in the snipers nest
The rifle fired the shots that struck JFK
Oswald fled
He was charged with shooting a cop
He resited arrest attempting to draw his pistol and use it
He lied to police over an dover

And there are another 40+ points of guilt and you think it is not established - then you misunderstand and misrepresent the evidence or perhaps you are ignoring it!

---

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

---

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

"The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence."

Again absolute tripe. "not established by the evidence"...........

Oswald's rifle was found in the snipers nest
The rifle fired the shots that struck JFK
Oswald fled
He was charged with shooting a cop
He resited arrest attempting to draw his pistol and use it
He lied to police over an dover

And there are another 40+ points of guilt and you think it is not established - then you misunderstand and misrepresent the evidence or perhaps you are ignoring it!

"It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in."

There was no such campaign. I expect it is a pretty normal reaction for an ordinary person to be scared silly when interviewed by the FBI or the DPD after an assassination ......most would find it pretty unpleasent. As for the SS.......exactly when did the SS interview witnesses.....? Sorrels locally was present during investigations, can you cite for examples of SS staff interviewing witnesses and threatening them...?