The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.
CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day.
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Weighing one side against the other has led me to that probability.
The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.Exactly. And so it remains a theory.
Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
CTers might claim that the truth was covered upOh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative,Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk, yet a conspiracy/cover up is the automatic go to default if and when it can not be proven conclusively that Oswald was in fact the lone gunman.
Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Weighing one side against the other has led me to that probability.Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.