JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[supposenot]

Don't be silly. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence disproving the existence of a conspiracy in the JFK murder (could such evidence even exist?). There are only discredited conspiracy theories (i.e., falsified). Unless of course you have court-admissible evidence of the non-existence of a conspiracy, in which case I suggest you provide it now.

 

[I Ratant]

Langwidge, I see.
You have to PROVE a conspiracy by showing all the errors in all the evidence that shows LHOLNdidit. All by his lonesome.
Using the fingerprint kerfluffle as a starting point bodes poorly for the enterprise.

 

[JayUtah]

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence disproving the existence of a conspiracy...

Nor can there ever be any such evidence. Look up "proving a negative."

Unless of course you have court-admissible evidence of the non-existence of a conspiracy, in which case I suggest you provide it now.

First of all "court-admissible" is an artificial standard of proof in this case. And certainly no conspiracy theory has managed it. Second, a court does not and cannot ask for evidence of the "non-existence" of something. Third, you're shifting the burden of proof.

If you have a better idea of what happened on that day, and can prove it with evidence that makes your idea seem more plausible than the prevailing hypothesis, then provide it. If you don't have that or can't prove it, then a few decades have demonstrated that few people are interested in listening.

 

[Mudcat]

Welcome to the boards, supposenot.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

 

[JayUtah]

Langwidge, I see.
You have to PROVE a conspiracy by showing all the errors in all the evidence that shows LHOLNdidit. All by his lonesome.
Using the fingerprint kerfluffle as a starting point bodes poorly for the enterprise.

I disagree slightly. The only way to prove a conspiracy is to have it and prove it. Eroding faith in the "lone gunman" theory without providing a more viable, testable conspiracy-related alternative doesn't establish any affirmative claim.

 

[supposenot]

Sorry, but none of you are addressing the Wallace fingerprint, or the points that I raised WRT to the probability of there being an innocent explanation. You're just ignoring it.

So I maintain my position on the matter.

The onus is not upon me to solve the crime completely, with no loose ends left over. That is a wholly unrealistic demand, even for nonspiracists.

As for the LHO evidence, I keep an open mind. At the moment I would say that if there was a conspiracy, LHO was probably part of it. The evidence against him (while flawed in some regards) is just too overwhelming.

 

[Garrison]

Don't be silly. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence disproving the existence of a conspiracy in the JFK murder (could such evidence even exist?).

Yes it can in the shape of the overwhelming body of evidence for LHO being the only shooter and acting alone in planning the assassination. It is down to those believe in a conspiracy to provide positive evidence for a conspiracy. Until such time the idea of a conspiracy can be dismissed. Combing through the accepted account for the errors and inconsistencies that are bound to exist in the aftermath of a traumatic and chaotic event is not a substitute for said positive evidence either.

 

[supposenot]

Again, you fail to address the Wallace print ID. That is hard forensic evidence, not nit-picking over eyewitness testimonies.

Care to talk about that?

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, but none of you are addressing the Wallace fingerprint, or the points that I raised WRT to the probability of there being an innocent explanation. You're just ignoring it.

Have you read this entire thread, plus the 200-page previous thread from which this was split, where most of us have participated for the past two years? Or did you just plop yourself down in the middle of it and assume everything you want to talk about is new to us?

So I maintain my position on the matter.

And your position is, exactly?

The onus is not upon me to solve the crime completely, with no loose ends left over.

Yes, the onus is on you to provide a better theory and prove it. It doesn't have to tie up all the loose ends, but you have to have fewer loose ends than the theory you're attempting to undermine. Otherwise you fail your own standard of proof.

As for the LHO evidence, I keep an open mind. At the moment I would say that if there was a conspiracy, LHO was probably part of it. The evidence against him (while flawed in some regards) is just too overwhelming.

Yes, it's the standard procedure in JFK conspiracy theorism to simply "exonerate" Oswald according to some ad hoc standard of criminal defense and pretend the job is done.

We don't care.

If you can contribute to the historical question of who killed JFK by providing and proving a better theory, then we're interested. If you're just going to be the umpteenth person who has "shown that Oswald was innocent -- oh, the cleverness of me!," then you don't have anything we're interested in.

 

[JayUtah]

Again, you fail to address the Wallace print ID. That is hard forensic evidence, not nit-picking over eyewitness testimonies.

Care to talk about that?

What is your theory for how the print evidence got to the state you describe it in?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, but none of you are addressing the Wallace fingerprint, or the points that I raised WRT to the probability of there being an innocent explanation. You're just ignoring it.

If you read this thread, and the predecessor it has been discussed.

Even if the identification were not shaky, and was as ironclad as the CT lobby tend to claim, it does not prove Wallace was there for any foul means. For a start there is no reason to believe the print was from the shooting, the window for which usable latent prints can be retrieved from cardboard, such as the box the print was found on is small so it is more likely the print was left some time after the shooting during the investigation.

Given that the CT lobby tend to portray Mac Wallace as a private fixer and trouble shooter for LBJ, the limited time frame for the print, and the nature of the events it is possible the print was left during the shooting, but to accept this we would first have to discount the most obvious explanation: That immediately after the murder of the president the vice president sent a trusted troubleshooter to unofficially report on the investigation.

Neither are strictly legitimate reasons, and both rely on a LOT of shaky CT "evidence" to be considered kosher, but to jump directly to "Mac Wallace shot JFK" with out any supporting evidence beyond the print, or even "there was a conspiracy" is silly. It ignores the majority of evidence in favour of a single outlaying piece of evidence for which alternate explanations can be offered.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The onus is not upon me to solve the crime completely, with no loose ends left over. That is a wholly unrealistic demand, even for nonspiracists.

Actually, yes it is. What is your comprehensive alternative hypothesis for who, how, why, etc? We'll be able to discuss your own hypothesis better once we know what it is.

 

[supposenot]

If you read this thread, and the predecessor it has been discussed.

Sorry, but even if life weren't too short to read the Collected Works of the JREF, I doubt it.

Even if the identification were not shaky, and was as ironclad as the CT lobby tend to claim,

Evidence for it being 'shaky', please.

it does not prove Wallace was there for any foul means.

No, a convicted murderer and personal acquaintance of LBJ being on the scene would be completely unremarkable, wouldn't it? Doubtless he was just admiring the view. (Tardy sarcasm flag)

For a start there is no reason to believe the print was from the shooting, the window for which usable latent prints can be retrieved from cardboard, such as the box the print was found on is small so it is more likely the print was left some time after the shooting during the investigation.

Sorry, but you're way off-beam: The FBI eliminated all TSBD employees and all SOC officers as fingerprint suspects. Which leaves us with that hypothetical unidentified individual who just happened to have Wallace's fingerprints.

Given that the CT lobby tend to portray Mac Wallace as a private fixer and trouble shooter for LBJ, the limited time frame for the print, and the nature of the events it is possible the print was left during the shooting, but to accept this we would first have to discount the most obvious explanation: That immediately after the murder of the president the vice president sent a trusted troubleshooter to unofficially report on the investigation.

It's possible, I suppose. It's possible that JFK killed himself and Zapruder forged his film to mislead the world. But are you really suggesting that a convicted murderer on the scene, with ties to the murder's chief benefactor, is not suspicious? I would suggest that this falls under the category "Keeping your mind so open that your brain falls out."

Neither are strictly legitimate reasons, and both rely on a LOT of shaky CT "evidence" to be considered kosher, but to jump directly to "Mac Wallace shot JFK" with out any supporting evidence beyond the print,

Remind me, what does the LHO evidence chiefly consist of?

In any event, the forensic evidence is not the sole evidence of Wallace's involvement.

or even "there was a conspiracy" is silly. It ignores the majority of evidence in favour of a single outlaying piece of evidence for which alternate explanations can be offered.

That's your characterisation, and you are welcome to it.

 

[supposenot]

Actually, yes it is. What is your comprehensive alternative hypothesis for who, how, why, etc? We'll be able to discuss your own hypothesis better once we know what it is.

Actually, no it's not. "Sir, this is not good logic. You may abuse a tragedy although you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table. It is not your trade to make tables."

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, but even if life weren't too short to read the Collected Works of the JREF, I doubt it.

You demand that we read what you wrote on the subject and address it. But you refuse to read what we have already written on the subject and comment on it.

Remind me, what does the LHO evidence chiefly consist of?

Try again. You don't get to boil the case down to one or two "bellwether" items and dismiss them. If you can't provide a better supported and more comprehensive case than what's already on the books for another hypothesis, then you don't get to win.

That's your characterisation, and you are welcome to it.

Yes, we are. Which means that in many cases these conspiracy theories are widely unconvincing. You would do well to listen to people who are telling you why they're unconvincing.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, no it's not.

Yes, it really is. I've written extensively on the subject of why it is. But it's part of the thread that occurred prior to your arrival -- you know, the part you won't read and seem to want to pretend doesn't exist.

 

[supposenot]

Yes, it really is. I've written extensively on the subject of why it is. But it's part of the thread that occurred prior to your arrival -- you know, the part you won't read and seem to want to pretend doesn't exist.

As I said, life's too short. If you have a compelling reason as to why I am required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over (something which defeated the Warren Commission), then it wouldn't hurt you to reiterate it would it? Unless of course you don't want to, for some suspicious reason (see? Casting doubt on your opponent's integrity is easy-peasy, but I'm sure you wouldn't stoop to that...)

 

[I Ratant]

Flesh it out, boy.
Who, why, when, with what... working from that so-far ignored fingerprint.
Should make an hilarious interesting.
Don't crib from the other Ctwinkie books, we all have them. Be original.... well, it can't help but be that...

 

[supposenot]

For the severalth time, I do not have to solve the crime completely. And you are failing to address the fingerprint evidence. This is somewhat like talking to a crowd of somnambulists.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, life's too short.

No. You came here voluntarily to discuss these issues. If you can't be bothered to read the discussion that you've invited yourself to, and require it all to be provided for you again de novo, then you won't get much attention.

If you have a compelling reason as to why I am required to solve the crime completely with no loose ends left over...

Straw man; I never levied any such burden upon you. You are, however, obliged to provide a better theory and defend it.

I'm not casting doubt on your integrity. I'm casting doubt on the dismissive, condescending approach you've taken to presenting your case.

Let's go back and look at your first post. It is based principally on a number of authoritative sounding pronouncements and attestations of fact. So either you were there, and are also a fingerprint expert, or else you're borrowing these arguments and attestations of fact from some source you haven't named.

I'm betting it's the latter. So then in that case it behooves us to ask what you did to determine that source was factually correct and reliable before you put faith in its conclusions.