Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?

[Richard Smith]

Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.

No need to ask any more since you repeatedly failed, and will fail, to deliver.

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

Bingo.

I like to bring up Caro's work on LBJ. He's a distinguished serious historian and scholar who's spent more than two decades on Johnson's life. And he's found nothing indicating LBJ's involvement in the assassination. Not a thing.

Does the conspiracy crowd accept this? Of course not. Caro is corrupt or he's incompetent. Or both. Even though you know and I know they haven't read his work. Could he be wrong? Of course. But those saying he's wrong have to show us. But they don't. Actually, they can't. Because, for them, LBJ just did it. No proof is needed.

The conspiracy crowd is a religion. Have you ever noticed how ferociously they attack one another if that person doesn't follow the conspiracy catechism? It's like a sect that will not allow reason to enter their worldview.

I used to be a conspiracy believer (SBT, Oswald's defection to the USSR) but, damned, I wasn't this far gone.

[Bill Chapman]

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

"Right on cue"

Good one

[John Iacoletti]

Your request for an alternative narrative and/or shooter is just a cheap trick to divert attention away from the weakness of your case against Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be.  That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.

Strawman Smith strikes again.

  So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened.  That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case.  That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.

...and he thinks that stating his opinion over and over again somehow makes it true.

Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.  And round and round we will go.

And you have yet to actually provide any that doesn't crumble under the slightest scrutiny.  You just keep restating your conclusions as if that means anything.

[John Iacoletti]

Does the conspiracy crowd accept this? Of course not. Caro is corrupt or he's incompetent. Or both. Even though you know and I know they haven't read his work. Could he be wrong? Of course. But those saying he's wrong have to show us. But they don't. Actually, they can't. Because, for them, LBJ just did it. No proof is needed.

The only people I've seen questioning Caro's work on this forum are your fellow LNers -- in the thread about whether JFK was going to drop LBJ in '64.

Anytime somebody starts claiming what the "conspiracy crowd" thinks, you can bet a strawman is soon to follow.  Why don't you guys ever argue against what actual people write in the actual forum rather than caricatures of your own creation?