Who is sitting up in Zapruder @Z456?

[John Iacoletti]

It's hard to ignore the existing evidence pointing at Oswald no matter how flimsy or tainted, and accept the non existence of evidence pointing at anyone else, especially CIA, FBI, Cubans, Mafia, Texas oilmen, SA Greer or Jackie Kennedy.

It's hard to ignore that what little evidence there is pointing at Oswald is flimsy and tainted.

[John Iacoletti]

Thank you. You are the voice of reason.  Over the years of the computer age, every nut with a conspiracy theory has come out of the woodwork with outrageous conspiracy theories.

So because there are some people out there with kooky theories, you should just accept another kooky theory for no good reason?

I never knew such a bunch of foolish people who would support a man who was a violent tempered, wife abusing, irresponsible dad who slapped his mother, pulled a knife on his sister-in-law, admitted that he was a marxist, defected to Russia, told his brother that he hated America, tried to commit suicide, and on and on. If this doesn't paint a picture of a very disturbed, rotten, hateful man, nothing does.  But they support him.  Much like the Charles Manson sympathizers.

This accusation is raised here a lot, and it's a fallacy.  The evidence (or lack thereof) stands on its own.  It has nothing to do with how nice a person he was.  And objectively looking at the facts and finding them wanting doesn't make somebody an Oswald supporter or sympathizer, just a supporter of the truth.

[Steve Barber]

That there were only 4 people within the limousine, not six and it's catching on like wildfire.  The millennials are hard at work pulling things out of thin air.

It's got ya worried doesn't it?.... The timid folk who were afraid to speak out and state that the government was lying  are finding their voice.

The tables are now turning and those who you've been calling "kooks" are becoming the the sane .....

 No, it doesn't have me worried in the least!  Conspiracy kooks don't cause me to "worry" either.  It just shows me how sick and pathetic the younger generation is, no thanks to the conspiracy kooks.  That's all. 

[John Mytton]

That there were only 4 people within the limousine, not six and it's catching on like wildfire.  The millennials are hard at work pulling things out of thin air.

It's got ya worried doesn't it?.... The timid folk who were afraid to speak out and state that the government was lying  are finding their voice.

The tables are now turning and those who you've been calling "kooks" are becoming the the sane .....

It's got ya worried doesn't it?

No



JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

It's hard to ignore that what little evidence there is pointing at Oswald is flimsy and tainted.

It's hard to ignore what evidence there is of Oswald pointing guns at cops

[John Iacoletti]

It's hard to ignore what evidence there is of Oswald pointing guns at cops

It so cute that you keep trying to participate.

[Dan O'meara]

It's hard to ignore the existing evidence pointing at Oswald no matter how flimsy or tainted, and accept the non existence of evidence pointing at anyone else, especially CIA, FBI, Cubans, Mafia, Texas oilmen, SA Greer or Jackie Kennedy.

I accept that a good defence team today would smash a lot of that evidence and I accept Oswald would have fried in 1963 based on the same evidence. What happens in a court does not determine whether a person committed a crime or not though. It only determines whether they should be convicted or not.

Flimsy or not the evidence leads me to Oswald. The only question left is was anyone else involved. Sometimes ya got to try to think rationally and sensibly. Who would shoot JFK from the front and try to frame a shooter from behind? Who would then fake an autopsy in front of so many witnesses or allow so many people into the trauma room at Parkland? Who in a professional capacity would even consider shooting at a moving target in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses if they didn't want caught and the plan exposed? Who the hell would use a Carcano???

The remains of a lunch were found at the Sniper's Nest, a half eaten piece of chicken found on top of the boxes forming the nest. Part of this lunch was a bottle of soda, presumably covered in fingerprints, absolutely key evidence from the scene of the crime. For quite a while everyone assumed the assassin had eaten his lunch there whilst waiting for the President to pass.
So what happened to this absolutely key piece of evidence?
When it was discovered Oswald's fingerprints weren't on it it was destroyed.
So much for following the evidence.
How can you trust evidence when selected parts of it have been destroyed?

The whole thing is tainted by so many charlatans and nutters with theories like Lee and Harvey and even two Roberts and Marguerites. It's insanity. Seems to me conspiracy theorists need to start looking for a conspiracy, not the shooter.

Couldn't agree more
The most distasteful part of it is that many of these losers fly the banner of "Looking for the Truth".
The fact is they are simply trying to prop up their own frail personalities, they take a position on things and will not be dissuaded by any argument. I believe the main reason this issue has not been resolved is due to common sense and reasoned debate being drowned out by these weak-minded fools.