The preponderance of the evidence

[John Iacoletti]

I've asked several times for someone to prove that anyone else but the shooter (including their shooter) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

None so far. Too soon I guess.

...which is equal to the number of times you've justified your position that Oswald probably did it.

On the other hand, there is some evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination via Rose Cherami, Joseph Milteer, Eugene Dinkin, Homer Echevarria, and Richard Case Nagell.

[Jack Trojan]

People have been trying to poke holes in the evidence for well over 50-years. I haven't seen any convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary. Especially when considering both sides of the controversy with an open mind.

Poke holes in what evidence? You seem to think that unless we can prove Oswald's innocence, the default position is that he was a lone nut. Sorry but critical thinking has no default position and the onus is on you to prove he was a lone nut and not a patsy. Instead you LNers resort to pseudo-skepticism, because your so called evidence does not rise to the level of proof and your arguments are not logically sound. More holes than swiss cheese.

[Alan Ford]

Hi Alan, thanks for the compliments. Hope that makes as much sense to you as your post does to me.

 

Here's a dumbed-down version for you, Mr Collins:
Stop boasting about your gullibility! 

[Alan Ford]

So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why.  That's what I figured.  You're just convinced.

The preponderance of the evidence points to Mr Collins' not wishing to get drawn into awkwardly detailed discussion about the case. It would only expose the double standard of 'credibility' he applies to evidence!

[Charles Collins]

So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why.  That's what I figured.  You're just convinced.

I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly  considering it from both sides brought me to this point.

I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.

[Jack Trojan]

Especially if these characters breed
Looks like Oswald got his wish to be a somebody and be remembered for 10,000 years

Except for a few LNer mouthbreathers, LHO will be remembered by everyone as a patsy. But I doubt that was his wish.

[Jack Trojan]

I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly  considering it from both sides brought me to this point.

I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.

By the official report, do you mean the WC report? HA! What about the HSCA report?