Let's try the Law School Approach: Argue the Other Side

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 14, 2016, 11:35:38 AM9/14/16

to

Let's see how this goes: LNers spend a week arguing the pro-conspiracy and
Oswald was setup side while all CTers spend a week arguing the LN side.

I'll start the Oswald wasn't the shooter with these two:

(1) Oswald's rifle was sitting in a hot, humid garage for nearly two
months. He hadn't practiced with it, done maintenance on it, or taken care
of it. You don't take an old, poorly maintained rifle and use it to try
and kill the president. Or anyone else. Look at how he planned to kill
Walker. He was meticulous and careful.

With JFK he showed no signs of preparation at all.

(2) The FBI note again. Someone going to shoot the president is not going
to go to the FBI headquarters and leave a threatening note. That
potentially raises all sorts of flags about you. And you're not going to
do it if you think the FBI is already following you and harassing your
wife.

Again, contrast this behavior with the attempt on Walker.

Oswald was set up.

Bud

unread,

Sep 14, 2016, 8:31:22 PM9/14/16

to

I`ve got nothing. I`ve never seen any compelling reason given or
evidence offered for believing Oswald was set up.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 15, 2016, 3:54:14 PM9/15/16

to

I agree, Bud. Why would I start adding in elements of a wholly unprovable
and speculative frame-up theory when the evidence (which includes OSWALD'S
OWN INCRIMINATING ACTIONS!) doesn't require any such frame-up of Oswald at
all?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html

bigdog

unread,

Sep 15, 2016, 3:58:58 PM9/15/16

to

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:35:38 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

About 25 years ago on the old Prodigy board I proposed something similar.
Since would couldn't get the conspiracy hobbyists to offer a complete
scenario of the shooting, I challenged the LNs to come up with one. My
conspiracy involved Oswald being a hired gun. If I remember right, I had
"they" being the Mafia and one of their guys knew Oswald worked along the
parade route and that he needed the money so they offered him a ton of
cash to do the deed. After he got caught, they sent in Jack Ruby to shut
him up. That's the best I could do. I couldn't possibly come up with
something as silly as Oswald was innocent. There's no way I could possibly
make that fit the evidence. I also couldn't keep up this charade for a
week. I'm one and done.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 15, 2016, 9:31:35 PM9/15/16

to

Oh, but we were having so much fun.
what name did you use on Prodigy?

deke

unread,

Sep 16, 2016, 11:04:34 PM9/16/16

to

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:35:38 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Let's see how this goes: LNers spend a week arguing the pro-conspiracy and
> Oswald was setup side while all CTers spend a week arguing the LN side.
>

Sorry, I'd have to turn that offer down. To me, arguing the LN side would
be like trying to argue for a flat earth theory with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Just too much of a stretch.

claviger

unread,

Sep 17, 2016, 5:13:26 PM9/17/16

to

What if someone like the Mob or KGB threatened to kill LHO's family unless
he shot the President. Does that make LHO innocent?

Bud

unread,

Sep 17, 2016, 10:03:12 PM9/17/16

to

Yes, who would think that the person seen killing people that day might
be guilty? What a stretch!

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Sep 18, 2016, 9:16:27 AM9/18/16

to

Not quite. The crime happened in Texas. I don't think Texas would allow
that defense.