Well, what about Exapno’s post?
The point is, using LHO as your assassin is idiotic. Having a barkeeper in charge of silencing your assassin is even dumber. The entire incompetent sequence of events beggars belief in a conspiracy that is supposedly competent enough be unexposed for 50 years.
Too late, ThelmaLou. The CTers have already drowned us in expandio al absurdum (theories that require hundreds of people to have kept silent for five decades) or denyio al absurdum (ignoring established facts so they can make up their own version of reality).
So tut-tutting me for a little absurdio is, well, absurd.
Who do you think was behind the assassination attempt of General Walker
Now I get the love for CTs. ThelmaLou apparently maintains an unusually low threshold of disbelief throughout life.
Note to self: in the future, make irony less subtle.
Yes, but I have a higher standard for you. Is that a mistake?
Your subtle wit certainly fooled everybody in that thread.
There’s just a time you can’t take one more stupid question that no one even passingly familiar with the facts should have asked.
This, to me, is absolutely the oddest claim that seems to get repeated over and over.
JFK was not a particularly powerful president. He was not pushing any particularly odd programs. He was hardly shutting down the military or the various spy agencies.
What was the purpose of an assassination that could not have been accomplished just as easily by rigging the next election (that was only twelve months away)?
My personal theory has always been that it was a hit taken out by Joe DiMaggio as revenge for Kennedy having had Marilyn Monroe killed.
He offended all the Cold Warriors during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK and his brother were alone in limiting escalation and turning down the advice of the Pentagon and CIA, exactly the opposite of what they did for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Compare and contrast the two episodes. BOP was a disaster because they uncritically accepted advice. CMC did not end in disaster for the US.
And there were high-ranking military folks at the time who would have preferred a disaster? 
To the extent I’m following you, I’m not following you.
There were definitely high ranking people what wanted to bomb the sites right away. That would have been a disaster as some missiles were already in place, which didn’t come to light for decades. We came within minutes of both conventional and nuclear war during the CMC, and it didn’t come to war because Kennedy and Khrushchev both went against the advice of their military advisers, but Kennedy more so. Khrushchev was removed from power in 1964, probably for his handling of the CMC.
Curtis LeMay.
Let’s not forget that there was at least one four star general that even LeMay considered insane and reckless.
Which is all the proof we need to accuse this nameless general of shooting Kennedy?
Wait, I thought your theory was rogues in the CIA. How does the military fit in?
See, this is the problem with CTs. You work backward. You start with a solution and then find a trail - any trail, of any sort - to lead it back to the question. That might work for the police with an ordinary killing; if they know who benefits they can look for evidence. But it’s also dangerous. We know that police have often made mistakes in doing so, because they let the theory overcome the evidence, and sometimes have even manufactured the evidence to fit the theory. Better evidence, like DNA identification, has come along and proven that their original theories were wrong freeing dozens of people who have been in jail for decades.
The Kennedy assassination is similar. Better evidence, like computer recreations, has indeed appeared, although in this case they serve to reinforce the original findings. Other apparent evidence, like the phantom recording of a fourth bullet, has been discredited by more sophisticated analysis. The case against Oswald just gets stronger with additional evidence. Which is exactly what you would expect if it were true.
None of that actual scientific evidence matters to some people, which is why we label them as conspiracy theorists and mock them. They need to come up with wilder and wilder scenarios to keep their cherished beliefs. It’s very hard now not to say that Oswald was a shooter, but instead of giving up they say things like: well, maybe he was hypnotized by a conspiracy of haters in the government. If you don’t understand why that generates ridicule the problem is entirely yours. We don’t have to prove that any fantasy scenario you can make up is wrong. You are responsible for providing the evidence that would make us abandon the mountains of rational, physical evidence that exists. And there is a mountain of evidence that lone nuts try to kill presidents. A few members of fanatical organizations have as well, but no evidence of government agents. Or organized crime. Or any type of organization that could successfully hide such an operation.
If you want us to believe something that has never happened over something that happens with sad regularity, make a real case. Don’t just throw stories unsupported by evidence at us.
Couldn’t this be said of every President, ever?
[QUOTE=MacMillan Dictionary]
patsy
someone who is blamed for something that they did not do
someone who is stupid and can be tricked easily
[/QUOTE]
It appears to me that you are 100 per cent discounting definition 1, the definition that Oswald was apparently using. Or do you think he was attempting a stupidity defense?
“Patsy” means more than simply a person being falsely accused. The word “patsy” connotes someone who is blamed by someone who knows he didn’t do it. It’s a setup, he’s the fall guy.
But you knew that.