The number one CT nightmare question ...

[John Iacoletti]

I will now add my fourth question (yes, it gets worse) and reach a conclusion ...

Let's for a moment imagine that Oswald was just manipulated and did not know that something special was going to happen. Well, why didn't he say so. "You know, this woman had a problem, we talked about it and agreed to meet later in the TT."

I therefore believe that Oswald either did it OR had to form part of an organisation which he believed in and was loyal to. If he was betrayed and did not know about the assassination he would have had to be silenced very quickly. The way it was done by Ruby was too risky and could only have been a plan B.

This thread has shown that CT's have no other options as mentioned above, OR accept that "Oswald did it but not alone" and still manage to prove conspiracy.

CT's will have to convince OTHER CT's and review their research.

Otherwise, they will keep walking in circles ...

Not nearly the circles that the "Oswald did it" theorists have to walk in.

The "what I think conspirators would have done" argument is a failure right out of the box.

[Jorn Frending]

Not nearly the circles that the "Oswald did it" theorists have to walk in.

The "what I think conspirators would have done" argument is a failure right out of the box.

In this thread we have shown that Oswald could not have been framed had he been totally oblivious of any event to take take place that day.

Oswald, being framed or not, had to have offered some collaboration or even just been taking plain orders.

I'm offering you the opportunity to still being a CT, why don't you take it? 

[John Mytton]

Feel free to provide some.

LOLOL.

"Feel free to provide some" LOLOLOL!!!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

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

Iacoletti, are you claiming it's possible that sometime after the assassination within a day, they invented enough evidence to arrest Oswald for not one but two murders? WOW!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

"Feel free to provide some" LOLOLOL!!!

JohnM

If you are trying to cover up the fact that you can't provide anything to substantiate your initial claim, you are not doing a very good job.

It's beyond obvious that you have nothing to offer, so why not simply say so instead of playing this silly game?

[Thomas Graves]

My position is that the case against Oswald for the murder of JFK is weak, circumstantial, and tainted, and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Iacoletti,

You didn't answer my question.

Regardless, .... "tainted"?

How so?

Other than the fact that the lineups seemed a bit unfair, can you give me a few examples?

-- MWT 

[Martin Weidmann]

Iacoletti,

You didn't answer my question.

Regardless, .... "tainted"?

How so?

Other than the fact that the lineups seemed a bit unfair, can you give me a few examples?

-- MWT 

Yes, he did answer your question, but he didn't give you the reply you wanted.

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, he did answer your question, but he didn't give you the reply you wanted.

Wrong again, Weidman.

(Are you Judge Judy, btw?)

Since Iacoletti had implied that the bad guys, having monitored Oswald closely both before and during the assassination (and thereby noticing that he hadn't gone out of the building so far as to actually get into the sunlight where he could really, really, really be "caught" on film and blow the "op"), decided they wouldn't have to quickly go to "Plan B" and start framing, immediately after-the-fact, Commie Joe Molina, or "Plan C" -- Big Jack Dougherty, or ..... "Plan Z" ... gasp ... that vicious little VICKI ADAMS, after all, and I was wondering how Iacoletti figured the bad guys (the evil, evil, evil DPD and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI) had game-played out all those contingencies, you know, ahead of time, so to speak.

But he evidently didn't want to answer that question, did he.

-- MWT