I have had a JFKA epiphany!

[John Iacoletti]

When the internet became a reality, I was a Gee Whiz conspiracy enthusiast. On any number of forums, I questioned how any fool could possibly believe the JFKA was ANYTHING BUT a conspiracy. My first posts on the Ed Forum - I can't recall exactly when that was, but perhaps 2016 - were solidly in the conspiracy vein. Not whacked-out CTer because I'm simply not whacked-out, but solidly CT-oriented. Like most CTers, I had no coherent theory - but by God there OBVIOUSLY had to have been an elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.

I was a smoker until I wised up and saw the light.
I was a non-Christian until I wised up and saw the light.
I was a meat-eater until I wised up and saw the light.
I was a Democrat until I wised up and saw the light.

There are fewer thing more annoying (and less persuasive) than personal testimonials from true-believer converts.

I have utterly no emotional or quasi-religious attachment to the Lone Nut narrative.

You absolutely do, though I'm not surprised you are in denial about it.  Otherwise you would have spent at least as much time (or any time) sanity-checking the "Oswald-did-it" theory as you do trying to knock down CT windmills.

If presented with genuinely compelling evidence, I would cheerfully return to Conspiracy World in a heartbeat.

Great, then you should understand that if you were able to present genuinely compelling evidence, your story would be accepted too.

[John Iacoletti]

There may be extensive issue-specific theorizing, such as (for example) "why CE 399 cannot have done what the LN narrative insists it did." But this theorizing is not fitted into any coherent theory of the JFKA. The theory, to use the term loosely, is more in the vein of "the LN narrative has to be wrong because CE 399 is bogus." When one asks, "Please explain how what you are saying about CE 399 makes sense to you in the context of your own theory about the JFKA," you get crickets because there is no theory.

We all are guilty of going off into the weeds when it comes to minutia.  In the end, it doesn't matter if CE 399 could have done what the LN narrative insists it did, because whether it did or not, it tells us exactly nothing about who or what killed JFK.

[Jon Banks]

Oswald doesn't need to be cleared since no compelling evidence-based argument has ever been made for his guilt.

But not everybody is going to be interesting in making up another unprovable story to replace your unprovable story.  Sometimes the most honest answer to an inquiry is "we don't know and we likely never will".

The LN-faithful just want there to be other incoherent and contradictory theories so that they can shift the focus off of their own incoherent and contradictory theory.

^I Agree 100%

The most honest answer is that we may never completely know the truth about what happened.

[John Iacoletti]

Did you know that Knox Labs started their "study" by using a digital game video, and that their positioning of JFK and JBC in the limo in the final product was grossly incorrect?

"Incorrect" by what standard?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's a mystery to me why someone would posts thousands of times at a JFK Assassination Forum and only defend Oswald against the allegations while never once giving his or her theory as to what happened that day in Dallas. What is the person trying to accomplish?

This is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald Didn't Do It" Forum.

[John Iacoletti]

It's a mystery to me why someone would posts thousands of times at a JFK Assassination Forum and only defend Oswald against the allegations while never once giving his or her theory as to what happened that day in Dallas. What is the person trying to accomplish?

If I had a theory I would present it.  Why do I have to have one?  Not everybody likes to make up fanciful stories without evidence and insist they are true. Does that somehow make YOUR fanciful story automatically any more correct?

This is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald Didn't Do It" Forum.

It also isn't "Oswald did do it" forum.  Or fan-fiction forum.

[Tom Graves]

"Incorrect" by what standard?

Look at Zapruder frames 190 or-so through 224 and then look at their 5:08-long video at 1:37 and judge for yourself.