How to frame Oswald?

[Martin Weidmann]

Here's my 'basic understanding' of this particular fact: You lot yet have to prove that anyone other than the shooter(s) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

Oh boy... the broken record returns....

You really think that you are being really, really clever here and on to something, right?

Why don't you prove that Oswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day? By trying to do so, you will perhaps understand how stupid your question is.... and that btw is a fact!

[Bill Chapman]

Oh boy... the broken record returns....

You really think that you are being really, really clever here and on to something, right?

Why don't you prove that Oswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day? By trying to do so, you will perhaps understand how stupid your question is.... and that btw is a fact!

So you can't prove any conspiracy. Got it.

Point out where I laid the blame on Oswald. I clearly said 'the shooter(s)'

[Martin Weidmann]

So you can't prove any conspiracy. Got it.

Point out where I laid the blame on Oswald. I clearly said 'the shooter(s)'

Great, you didn't mean Oswald and I never claimed that I wanted to prove a conspiracy or even that there was one.      

Too bad that you jumped to a conclusion again, but hey, you can't win them all?..

But it's good of you to at least acknowledge that you can't prove Oswald knew there was going to be a murder that day. Could be that it might take you a bit more time to understand that with this in mind your question is just silly.

[Bill Chapman]

Great, you didn't mean Oswald and I never claimed that I wanted to prove a conspiracy or even that there was one.      
Too bad that you jumped to a conclusion again, but hey, you can't win them all?..
But it's good of you to at least acknowledge that you can't prove Oswald knew there was going to be a murder that day. Could be that it might take you a bit more time to understand that with this in mind your question is just silly.

Feel free to name your shooter
As for me, I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy

From your OP:

I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder.
>>> Pretty sure it would take a conspiracy to set up a patsy

Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
The fence sitter troll trick of attempting to avoid naming names.

[Bill Chapman]

'' you lot''  LOL

There you go again, attempting to separate yourself from the CT conspiracy-monger roiling masses.

Lord Haughty-Weidmann the Condescender

[Martin Weidmann]

Feel free to name your shooter
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy

From your OP:

I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder.
>>> Pretty sure it would take a conspiracy to set up a patsy

Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
The fence sitter troll trick of not having to name names.

Once again you show everybody what a shallow fool you are.

I would like to try another approach to find out if it was even possible to set up Oswald as the patsy for the Kennedy murder.
>>> Pretty sure it would take a conspiracy to set up a patsy

Only ''pretty sure''? Of course it takes a conspiracy to set up a patsy!

And so, finding out it if was even possible to set up Oswald, by consequence will also provide a clue to whether a conspiracy was possible/likely or not.

Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)

I never said that I was not interested in a conspiracy (if there was one). You confuse me with yourself who has no interest whatsoever in a conspiracy, even if there was one! Unlike you, I have no horse in this race. I just want to find out what really happened. If that means Oswald did it alone, so be it and if it means it was a conspiracy after all, that's ok with me as well.

The fence sitter troll trick of not having to name names.

Says the weasel who never goes beyond ''I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy''

[Martin Weidmann]

There you go again, attempting to separate yourself from the CT conspiracy-monger roiling masses.

Lord Haughty-Weidmann the Condescender

I don't have to separate myself from anything since I was never part of anything in the first place.

The fact that fools like you, Chappy the court jester, can not differentiate between people advancing conspiracy theories (including some extremely crazy ones) and those who are merely interested in finding out what really happened doesn't mean I belong to some group. It just means that people like you are shallow enough to paint everybody with the same brush.

Btw as it is your only purpose to distract discussion away from the topic of the OP, I will be, from now on, ignoring your posts in this thread that do not deal with the actual topic. Now why don't you just run and try to disrupt another thread with your nonsense?

[Bill Chapman]

Once again you show everybody what a shallow fool you are.
>>> The shallow fools are those that claim the all evidence is faked, planted or altered in some way. The uber-fools are those who claim there's no evidence at all.

Only ''pretty sure''? Of course it takes a conspiracy to set up a patsy!
>>> Pretty sure: Meant sarcastically. It's an urban thang

And so, finding out it if was even possible to set up Oswald, by consequence will also provide a clue to whether a conspiracy was possible/likely or not.
>>> ProbablyOswald was behind the motorcade and would have really needed magic bullets to make it appear he was shooting from the front.   

>>Yeah, you're not interested in a conspiracy and don't care who the assassin was (or was that an Iacoletti declaration)
I never said that I was not interested in a conspiracy (if there was one). You confuse me with yourself who has no interest whatsoever in a conspiracy, even if there was one! Unlike you, I have no horse in this race. I just want to find out what really happened. If that means Oswald did it alone, so be it and if it means it was a conspiracy after all, that's ok with me as well.
>>> Everybody comes to these forums looking for a conspiracy. Including we LNers. Haven't hit pay dirt quite yet. Too soon I guess... 

>>The fence sitter troll trick of not having to name names.
Says the weasel who never goes beyond ''I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably killed Kennedy''
>>> Again: Meant sarcastically. Anyway, the WC arrived at 'probable'... the HSCA at 'likely'. Others here declare Oswald either innocent or framed. Nothing supporting those notions has been proven AFAIK