11/22/21

[Jon Banks]

Lee Harvey Oswald never got his day in court.

Much of the so called evidence against him wouldn’t be admissible if his case went to trial and some of the exculpatory evidence that the Warren Commission ignored would’ve had to be addressed by prosecutors.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many insults.  The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.  There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.  It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people).  The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.  There is nothing further to explain to you.  I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense.   When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.  Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense. 

And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.  Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not.  If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.  You can't have it both ways.   I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.  But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.

So many insults.

Unjustly claiming to be the victim of abuse is something all the entitled ones have in common. Pointing out your failures is not an insult. It's a statement of fact.

The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.

Only in your opinion, which is one you seem unable to defend.

There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.

So, what is exactly is your purpose for being active on this forum, if it isn't discussing the case and the evidence?

The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.

Ah.. the classic appeal to authority fallacy. What we are discussing here is if the evidence is authentic and conclusive as well as whether the WC "official investigation" got it right. There isn't much point in presenting the conclusions of the official investigations as somehow proof that those investigations got it right. If you feel the official investigations got it right, you need to say why you have that opinion, but you never do. Or should I say can't?

I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense. 

That's a lame excuse to cover up the fact that your are simply unable to defend the evidence and the conclusions that were based upon it. One could even conclude that you don't have the confidence in the evidence to discuss and examine it.

When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.

And there is the old classic "I am right until you prove me wrong" BS again.... Nothing ever changes with you.

And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.

Really? Then show me one post of mine in which I have put forward a conspiracy theory. If you can't do that, your claim is just another strawman.

If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer

Exactly the point I made earlier. To you anybody who disagrees with your opinion has to be a CT, in your opinion.

If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did

Did you figure that out by yourself? Wow....

and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.

And there's another strawman....

I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.

And the usual complaint about the allegedly "impossible standard of proof". In reality, what you are actually saying here is that the case against Oswald is so weak and the evidence so questionable, that there is no way you can defend it in a credible way. It's just another cop out.

All you have written in your last post comes down to this: It is your opinion that the evidence against Oswald is persuasive and your opinion prevails until proven wrong (which will be impossible to prove as you will never accept it).

You are just blowing hot air and are probably doing so without understanding the irony of you desperately defending the fact that you are not defending the evidence against Oswald.

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.

[Martin Weidmann]

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention...

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.

Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention...

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.

Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.

[Martin Weidmann]

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

Go ahead.

If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.

So, now you are already changing from implying that I never challenge CTs to that I don't challenge them enough. Shifting the goalposts, as you are doing, confirms that you are the one making stuff up.

It seems that you haven't figured out yet that I am no crusader. If a silly claim pops up in a conversation I'm already having, then I might respond to it, but other than than I couldn't care less if some wacko claims that JFK was killed by aliens. I'm not going to waste my time responding to something like that. Instead I just ignore it. If you feel the need to respond to those wacky theories, be my guest, but don't expect others to do the same.

What I don't understand is why you and Richard Smith are constantly complaining about the evidence being scrutinized. If the evidence is only half as conclusive and persuasive as you two claim it is, then it shouldn't be a problem if somebody takes a closer look, right? Yet, here you are again, complaining about exactly that. What's up with that? Feeling insecure, perhaps?

Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.

I haven't seen Stone's latest movie, nor am I interested in watching it. I wasn't impressed by his original JFK movie either.

I take it this means you don't really want to enter into a discussion about the actual physical evidence in this case? Because that's what I asked you, right? Thank you for proving my point. 

[Richard Smith]

If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.

But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.

You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.   For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.  It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.  LOL.

[Martin Weidmann]

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.   For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.  It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.  LOL.

Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. 

Oh the dramatics....  In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway

For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination.  So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.

What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.

It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously.  Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.

Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?

But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;

Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.   

Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.

and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?