They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[Richard Smith]

I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.

A great example of a complete fool considering his opinion to be reasonable. 

Let's go back to your initial post;

There is no indication this is conjecture on your part. You just state this BS as if it is fact.

This has been explained to you.  When discussing someone's state of mind it is not necessary to provide a disclaimer that it contains conjecture.  Reasonably intelligent people understand this. Once you displayed ignorance of this obvious point it was explained.  By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty.  That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture.  We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture.  In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person.  Therefore, you concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless.  The idiocy of that logic is breathtaking even considering the source.

[Martin Weidmann]

This has been explained to you.  When discussing someone's state of mind it is not necessary to provide a disclaimer that it contains conjecture.  Reasonably intelligent people understand this. Once you displayed ignorance of this obvious point it was explained.  By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty.  That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture.  We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture.  In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person.  Therefore, your concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless.  The idiocy of that logic is breathtaking even considering the source.

By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty. 

Indeed, so why do you present your opinion as fact and refuse to even accept that you could be wrong?

That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture.

Your so-called "reasoned conjecture" is really making stuff up without any supporting evidence

We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture.

Books written by people who are merely giving their opinion.....

In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person.

I have implied no such thing. In fact, even if you did meet the individual in person, you still can only speculate and guess about his or her state of mind. How often have you seen interviews with people saying that they knew somebody for a long time and they never expected he/she would be capable of doing something criminal. Bottom line; you don't even know what your own wife (if you have one) is really thinking!

Therefore, your concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless.

Of course it is. A speculative discussion about somebody's state of mind is a complete waste of time. I gave up trying to understand what people are thinking a long time ago.

[Richard Smith]

By necessity, only Oswald could ever know his state of mind with absolute certainty. 

Indeed, so why do you present your opinion as fact and refuse to even accept that you could be wrong?

That does not, however, preclude reasoned conjecture.

Your so-called "reasoned conjecture" is really making stuff up without any supporting evidence

We have a mountain of books and testimony about him in which to form our conjecture.

Books written by people who are merely giving their opinion.....

In contrast, you stupidly implied that we could know nothing about his state of mind (or presumably anyone else in history) absent a time machine to meet him in person.

I have implied no such thing. In fact, even if you did meet the individual in person, you still can only speculate and guess about his or her state of mind. How often have you seen interviews with people saying that they knew somebody for a long time and they never expected he/she would be capable of doing something criminal. Bottom line; you don't even know what your own wife (if you have one) is really thinking!

Therefore, your concluded that a discussion regarding Oswald's state of mind was pointless.

Of course it is. A speculative discussion about somebody's state of mind is a complete waste of time. I gave up trying to understand what people are thinking a long time ago.

Here we have an outstanding explanation of the endless circle of contrarian lunacy.  No fact that the contrarian doesn't want to accept can ever be proven no matter the amount of supporting evidence. In contrast, no alternative explanation can ever be disproven to the subjective satisfaction of the contrarian no matter how baseless or absurd.  Round and round it goes down the contrarian rabbit hole.  Every single thread is derailed by this nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here we have an outstanding explanation of the endless circle of contrarian lunacy.  No fact that the contrarian doesn't want to accept can ever be proven no matter the amount of supporting evidence. In contrast, no alternative explanation can ever be disproven to the subjective satisfaction of the contrarian no matter how baseless or absurd.  Round and round it goes down the contrarian rabbit hole.  Every single thread is derailed by this nonsense.

When you have anything of significance or interest to say, you will let me know, won't you?

[Richard Smith]

When you have anything of significance or interest to say, you will let me know, won't you?

LOL.   

[John Iacoletti]

And will "Richard" ever learn that a list of unsubstantiated claims does not constitute "supporting evidence", nor does making up fanciful speculative stories?

[Richard Smith]

 The contrarian brothers after being disabused on their nonsense: