An Open Letter to Lance Payette

First topic message reminder :

Lance,

I once admired your even-handedness. What happened to that? The Lone-Nutters and Tin-Foil Hatters are just opposite sides of the same coin. I think you say a much in a slightly different way, yet you have begun arguing in the same manner, using the same tactics as the Nutters.

Which means that there are some elephants  that you seem to want to step around and avoid. Let me enumerate them.

1. Every suspect is entitled to offer an alibi and to have that alibi investigated in order to have themselves cleared as a suspect if the alibi stands up. Oswald's alibi was not investigated, despite Chief Curry's belated admission that they never could put Oswald on the 6th floor. The alibi was instead, buried and lied about after he was dead.

Investigating people's claims about their actions and whereabouts at the time an event took place is a common theme in crime dramas and standard operating procedure in real cases.
https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-140303696/alibi-evidence-in-criminal-investigations-and-trials

2. The known record of the Dallas Police and DA's Office in railroading innocent people. This included knowingly sending at least one innocent man to the electric chair. Innocent Project stats show more innocent people sent to prison by Dallas County than in any other jurisdiction in the US. That is one mutherfucking elephant to avoid right there. 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/dallas-county-cases-where-dna-has-proven-innocence/ This story represents 24 cases of exoneration in 10 years and obviously does not include those actually executed.

Nevertheless, you maintain confidence in the evidence against Oswald, which includes

3.1 A positive paraffin test for nitrates on the hands. Hands which seconds earlier had been pressed onto an inkless pad to obtain palm-prints - an inkless pad that contained nitrates.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10483&relPageId=569

Here is where you tell me that the paraffin tests were useless and I reply "no, they were not. The cops used them to try and scare suspects into confessing and this case, to also try Oswald through the media."  

3.2 A bunch of evidence with no, or only a partial, provable chain of possession, This includes the so-called Magic Bullet - as luck would have it, a critical find since the recovered bullet fragments were too small for matching. 
http://22november1963.org.uk/was-lee-oswald-framed-for-the-jfk-assassination

3.3 The wackiest bunch of witnesses since Jehovah was seen walking on water - including a bus driver who thought he was there to ID someone else; a cab driver who had Oswald wearing about 4 layers of clothing and who swore he could tell all he needed to know about person by looking at them - and swearing before the commission that his passenger was a drunk; an hysteric related to members of Barrow gang; Howard Brennan who would later call himself God's Eyewitness to History or some such crap and who initially refused to ID Oswald; a cop who couldn't tell what floor he was on or whether he was on the stairs or in a lunchroom and a housekeeper who was described by her employer as a habitual teller of tall tales.

4. Another elephant you've avoided is that while no one claimed to see Oswald on the steps, likewise no one claimed to see Joe Molina (who was in a more prominent spot and was there longer) or any of the African-American employees. I guess some people are just naturally invisible. 

Lance, a critical part of building a case is creating a timeline that puts your suspect at the scene with the means to have committed the crime. The cops had such a timeline in all 24 cases in the above linked exonerations. These were therefore all false timelines. Think about that, and consider it in relation to how the timeline with Oswald can be accepted with any confidence, given what I have laid out here.

You are welcome to join here if you would like to respond.

Lance debating...



I hope Milhouse had his own area of the garden to do his constitutional...

I hope for his sake the wind doesn't change direction...

Lance Payette wrote:The point of these little exercises on my part is to demonstrate how often these Conspiracy Capitalists who try to wow and overwhelm you with their knowledge are actually serving up a pastiche of sloppy research (by themselves or others whom they uncritically parrot),

You keep making my point for me. Uncritical parroting happens on both sides - but is far worse on the LN side. Name a single LN author who has actually investigated any claims made by the Warren Commission. And if authors do not, you can be sure none of the forum LNers do, including yourself. That you don;t seem to get (much less care) that this should work both ways, is what really pisses me off - especially since I did hold out hope you could be reasoned with on this issue. 

half-truths, 

e.g. Ruby was friendly with some cops.

complete fantasy, 

e.g. Oswald was a wife-beater

rank speculation 

e.g. Oswald took home some wrapping paper for the rifle

and dark innuendo,

e.g. He wanted to mark his mark on history

all garnished with just enough historical truth to give it a veneer of plausibility

e.g. he did not have an idea childhood, he was a truant, he spent time in the SU, he had issues with his military discharge status

especially if you're too lazy to do your own fact-checking (which in my case has seldom required more than 30 minutes).  

Fact checking! Yay! 

That is what we do do here. But not just on one side of the picket fence. That's lazy. That biased.  

When you expose them, they just move on as though nothing had happened, as Jim does here.

O the irony!

People who stand on the claim of having done monumental work based on logic for forty years goes out the window if they cannot apply it to this case.

If Einstein or Aristotle came up with the same crap as Lance, they would be as wrong as he is.

The amount of brain cells does not matter if you cannot engage them in the simple examination of evidence in this case. Getting stuck on "conspiracy theories" of the past or the "Warren Commission" as gospel, is what one does when they do NOT engage the little gray cells.

As much as Lance may claim such engagement in other venues, the evidence of his using any of it in this case is sorely, nay, completely, lacking.

Terry W. Martin wrote:People who stand on the claim of having done monumental work based on logic for forty years goes out the window if they cannot apply it to this case.

If Einstein or Aristotle came up with the same crap as Lance, they would be as wrong as he is.

The amount of brain cells does not matter if you cannot engage them in the simple examination of evidence in this case. Getting stuck on "conspiracy theories" of the past or the "Warren Commission" as gospel, is what one does when they do NOT engage the little gray cells.

As much as Lance may claim such engagement in other venues, the evidence of his using any of it in this case is sorely, nay, completely, lacking.

Wordsmithery at its best.

Lance is a loyer...just like the august members of the WC. Loyer training 101....look away when you throw sand.

He says that he is giving up on JFK research and has asked Gordon to delete his account.

"asked Gordon to delete his account."

Oh, what a pitty.
This was his Titanic.
Too short lived, tragic but entertaining till the end.

Ed

Well he has not returned to the EF since then so I guess he meant it when he said that he would retiring from JFK research.

His presence and his offerings will not be sorely missed.