The number one CT nightmare question ...

[Richard Smith]

We have finally come to the end of the discussion!

What discussion? There never was a discussion. All you have been doing is sounding like a broken record repeating the same rubbish all the time.

No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened).

BS. This is just your classic "I can't convince you with my special kind of logic, but that is your fault" crap

It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy. 

What evidence of Oswald's guilt have I ever ignored? Could it be you equate questioning evidence with ignoring it? And since when is having doubts about something contrarian?

You still don't get that I am trying to discuss all possibilities without having a predetermined opinion, like you have.

You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street.  Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty.  It becomes an impossible standard of proof.  For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination.  That doesn't matter to you because he could have been standing outside in the presence of others and your all powerful conspirators coerced them into lying.  It is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense that allows you entertain false doubt of Oswald's guilt regardless of the evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street.  Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty.  It becomes an impossible standard of proof.  For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination.  That doesn't matter to you because he could have been standing outside in the presence of others and your all powerful conspirators coerced them into lying.  It is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense that allows you entertain false doubt of Oswald's guilt regardless of the evidence.

Stop making up stuff and misrepresenting my words.

[John Iacoletti]

What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination?

Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?

[John Iacoletti]

You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street.  Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty.  It becomes an impossible standard of proof.  For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination.

Once you insert your subjective word "credible" in there, you reveal that your standard of proof is insufficient.  You dismiss any evidence to the contrary as not being "credible".  At least 6 other people in the TSBD alone have no alibi at the time of the assassination, "credible" or otherwise.

[Thomas Graves]

Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?

Iacoletti,

Who do you think the evil, evil, evil DPD, CIA and FBI would have framed if Oswald hadn't gone to work that day, or ... gasp ... had been clearly "caught" on film while standing outside during the motorcade?

A different "Alek James Hidell"?

-- MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

"A Hidell" could have been anybody.

[Thomas Graves]

"A Hidell" could have been anybody.

Iacolonetti,

He wouldn't have been nearly that handsome.

Regardless, according to your theory, the bad guys had to not only wait until Oswald and all the other putative Hidells came to work that morning, but hope against hope that at least one of them would stay inside the building and not be seen by any other employees while some guy or gal from the evil, evil, evil CIA was doing the shooting.

LOL

-- MWT 

PS  Why do you naturally assume that evidence implicating Oswald, like the palm print found on the stock of the Carcano, was fabricated?

Do you agree with Trump that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA and FBI-dominated "Deep State," and that Russia's intelligence services are to be preferred to our own?