Dallas Morning News: Gary Mack and the evolution of a JFK conspiracy theorist

[William Seger]

43. You're just assuming the consequent.

What was "smart" about such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax, requiring so much cooperation from so many people, so much faking of evidence and so much covering up of the "real" evidence? If you were going to plot to assassinate a President, wouldn't you try to come up with a simple plan with minimal risk of something going wrong and/or getting caught? Does putting a second shooter behind the picket fence in a crowded Dealey Plaza meet that requirement?

Of course, being that outrageously implausible doesn't mean it didn't happen -- maybe "they" really were that stupid -- but it does mean you need some danged convincing evidence. Where is it?

> Not sure how you infer that I said/think the Zapruder film is fake...??

Because the Zapruder film unambiguously shows that the fatal shot came from behind. If you think he was shot from somewhere else, then you must believe the film is fake. (But hey, according to Fetzer, EVERY movie and photo shot in Dealey Plaza that day was fake or altered. But he also thinks the moon landings were a hoax and no Boeings were flown into buildings on 9/11, so his mental health is questionable.)