The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[Richard Smith]

I think leaving behind one's wedding ring and 95% of one's meager life savings a few hours before one's short-rifle is found hidden with one's fingerprints on it in one's seven-story, on-the-motorcade-route, place of work is consciousness-of-guilt-in-advance, especially since the two larger bullet fragments found in the limo and the practically-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital were matched to said short-rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle in the world.

You are being taken down the rabbit hole by a contrarian.  It's hopeless.  Here is how it goes.  Every piece of evidence is examined in a vacuum as though it can't be judged in the full context of all the facts and evidence.  So if Oswald makes an unexpected trip to the Paine residence (where he kept his rifle) and left his wedding ring for the first and only time in his marriage along with a large amount of money, this can be dismissed out of hand by a contrarian as having no relevance toward proving Oswald was the assassin.  Other men have left taken off their wedding rings and left money with their wife who didn't assassinate the president.  But how many men who left their wedding rings and cash with their wives that morning worked in the very building from which shots were fired?  How many carried a long bag to work?  How many left their prints on the SN boxes?  How many left their rifle on the floor from which the shots were fired?  How many fled the TSBD, got a gun, and killed a pistol officer?  And on and on.  But a lazy contrarian can just ignore all the surrounding circumstances and just dismiss every individual piece of evidence with LOL. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You are being taken down the rabbit hole by a contrarian.  It's hopeless.  Here is how it goes.  Every piece of evidence is examined in a vacuum as though it can't be judged in the full context of all the facts and evidence.  So if Oswald makes an unexpected trip to the Paine residence (where he kept his rifle) and left his wedding ring for the first and only time in his marriage along with a large amount of money, this can be dismissed out of hand by a contrarian as having no relevance toward proving Oswald was the assassin.  Other men have left taken off their wedding rings and left money with their wife who didn't assassinate the president.  But how many men who left their wedding rings and cash with their wives that morning worked in the very building from which shots were fired?  How many carried a long bag to work?  How many left their prints on the SN boxes?  How many left their rifle on the floor from which the shots were fired?  How many fled the TSBD, got a gun, and killed a pistol officer?  And on and on.  But a lazy contrarian can just ignore all the surrounding circumstances and just dismiss every individual piece of evidence with LOL.

Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.

Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened. Everything saying "X" occurred can be isolated and dismissed as just random events. Poof, event "X" disappears, it never happens.

[John Iacoletti]

You are being taken down the rabbit hole by a contrarian.  It's hopeless.  Here is how it goes.  Every piece of evidence is examined in a vacuum as though it can't be judged in the full context of all the facts and evidence.  So if Oswald makes an unexpected trip to the Paine residence (where he kept his rifle) and left his wedding ring for the first and only time in his marriage along with a large amount of money, this can be dismissed out of hand by a contrarian as having no relevance toward proving Oswald was the assassin.  Other men have left taken off their wedding rings and left money with their wife who didn't assassinate the president.  But how many men who left their wedding rings and cash with their wives that morning worked in the very building from which shots were fired?  How many carried a long bag to work?  How many left their prints on the SN boxes?  How many left their rifle on the floor from which the shots were fired?  How many fled the TSBD, got a gun, and killed a pistol officer?  And on and on.  But a lazy contrarian can just ignore all the surrounding circumstances and just dismiss every individual piece of evidence with LOL.

LOL

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.

This is a common whine by people who spin and misrepresent the evidence in order to be Oswald prosecutors.

Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened.

As it should be.  Several pieces of non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims, or questionable, tainted, or unverifiable circumstantial evidence do not magically combine to give anybody a "reliable conclusion as to what happened".  Your desire to have an answer doesn't justify making one up out of whole cloth.

[Tom Graves]

This is a common whine by people who spin and misrepresent the evidence in order to be Oswald prosecutors.

As it should be.  Several pieces of non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims, or questionable, tainted, or unverifiable circumstantial evidence do not magically combine to give anybody a "reliable conclusion as to what happened".  Your desire to have an answer doesn't justify making one up out of whole cloth.

John "Abt" Iacoletti,

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Thousands, or just hundreds?

[John Iacoletti]

John "Abt" Iacoletti,

Cute.

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Thousands, or just hundreds?

Nice strawman.  Let's say the answer is 0 though.  Does that somehow prove that Oswald did it?

[Richard Smith]

Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.

Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened. Everything saying "X" occurred can be isolated and dismissed as just random events. Poof, event "X" disappears, it never happens.

The contrarian knows as well as anyone here that Oswald did it.  He is just playing endless OJ defense attorney for some reason that only a psychiatrist could explain.  One of two people in the entire history of this forum that I refuse to discuss the case with. I will engage with the most outlandish loons - the Hickey did it or JFK faked his death with an exploding sock puppet people - but not this contrarian.