Did Ruby really kill Oswald?

[David Von Pein]

I see that things like denial and isolation of evidence are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.

(What a surprise.)

[Martin Weidmann]

I see that denial and isolation are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.

(What a surprise.)

Spoken like a true believer.

Denial? Care to explain?

Could it be that valid questions about dubious and weak, speculative, evidence is the same to you as "denial"?

[David Von Pein]

Denial? Care to explain?

The extensive SBT debate (below) perfectly illustrates what I mean by a conspiracy theorist's "denial". I couldn't have asked for a better made-to-order demonstration:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

And the very same kind of denial exists at this forum too. Always has. And, I surmise, always will.

And now we're even being treated to denial with respect to Ruby shooting Oswald! And it can't get much worse on the "denial" scale than that.

[Martin Weidmann]

The extensive SBT debate (below) perfectly illustrates what I mean by a conspiracy theorist's "denial". I couldn't have asked for a better made-to-order demonstration:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

And the very same kind of denial exists at this forum too. Always has. And, I surmise, always will.

I see. You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT, which can not be duplicated in real time, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered and when somebody doesn't instantly take your word for it, he's in denial... Is that your position?

Please note, I've stayed well clear of any discussion about the SBT, mainly because of of it's speculative nature, but also because IMO it's not sufficiently germane to the overall case, as it's only purpose is to keep the case a one shooter affair. If, by other means, a second shooter could ever be proven (to be honest, I don't think it ever will) the entire SBT will be a moot point in an instant.

If you could present a persuasive argument for the SBT, beyond a reasonable doubt, you might be right in saying that somebody who doesn't believe it is in denial, but that's not the case here.

[David Von Pein]

You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT...

The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Dan O'meara]

The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The Z-film demonstrates it's not speculative at all.
To not recognise what's happening in it is a phenomenon I've described elsewhere as "unseeing"

[David Von Pein]

I see. You present a highly speculative subject matter, like the SBT, which can not be duplicated in real time, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered and when somebody doesn't instantly take your word for it, he's in denial... Is that your position?

In the SBT discussion I linked earlier, I wasn't asking James R. Gordon of The Education Forum (or anyone else) to simply take my word for anything. I presented a multitude of looped video clips to prove my case. Gordon then went into his Ultimate Denial mode for several days, resulting in him banning me from the EF Kingdom, then unbanning me when he realized he was wrong, and then going back to his Ultimate Denial mode yet again.

That particular 2015 SBT discussion should be propped up as an example whenever a CTer continues to ignore (or deny) something that is obvious.