The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow, your obsession with me has risen to a new level, how creepy, you sad miserable little man.

JohnM

What now... you are always going on about winning. My comment is factual.

Only a fool would call that an obsession.

[John Corbett]

I was speaking of the first quote which is entirely an invention of yours.

You should be more clear about what you mean. And that wasn't a quote. To call it one only exposes your paranoid mindset.

So, you don't understand the concept of "basically saying"? You don't understand that what follows isn't a verbatim quote?

If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.

Neither eye nor any other LN wrote that.

You have an eye that writes? Wow.... and nobody claimed LNs wrote that. You are really struggling with all this, aren't you?

Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.

That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. That's right. They leave it up to the good sense of the jury to weigh the evidence and make logical inferences from it. As it applies to fiber evidence, it is no proof positive that fibers came from a particular item because there is the theoretical possibility it could have come from an identical item. The jury is left to decide what the likelihood of that is. Had the case gone to trial, the jury would have to ask themselves what the likelihood the fibers came from identical shirt to the one that was worn by the owner of the rifle. Ditto for the fibers found on the jacket.

So, for once we agree. The jury usually weighs the evidence after the prosecution and defence have presented their case. That never happened in the JFK case, so why you keep bringing stuff like this up time after time is beyond me.

I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing. As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.

You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?

Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!
[/quote]

Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin. These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy. Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little Barsteward might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan.  The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.

You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.

My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.

I don't think in terms of winning or losing. Only people who are ego driven are concerned with having to win.... You know, people like you and John Mytton and a few others...

You did make the following statement:
"But keep digging your hole, if you like"

Note that what I put in quotes is word-for-word what you wrote. I didn't make up something you didn't say. I took your suggestion that I was in a hole to mean you thought you had gained the upper hand in this discussion. If that's not what you intended, just say so.

[Martin Weidmann]

If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.

Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.


I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing. As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.

You must think you are winning this debate. By any chance, are you of Iranian descent?

Winning this debate? You really have me confused with some delusional fool who actually thinks it is possible with rational points and authentic evidence to ever get you to accept or admit defeat about anything!


Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin. These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy. Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.
It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little Barsteward might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan.  The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.
My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.
You did make the following statement:
"But keep digging your hole, if you like"

Note that what I put in quotes is word-for-word what you wrote. I didn't make up something you didn't say. I took your suggestion that I was in a hole to mean you thought you had gained the upper hand in this discussion. If that's not what you intended, just say so.

If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.

Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.

I wasn't paraphrasing either, because that would imply that somebody actually said something similar. The words were in quotation marks to highlight words used ironically.

You are really really struggling with this, aren't you?

I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing.

No, on both counts. Fibers can not prove who fired a rifle nor do they prove that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car. But I agree, it probably wasn't a coincidence that fibers were found on the rifle and Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162). We do however likely disagree about why it wasn't a coincidence.

As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.

I don't even know what a Oswald denier is, nor do I need an excuse to dismiss "highly probative evidence of his guilt". The reason I reject your claims is that you constantly are using flawed reasoning, ignoring discrepancies and jumping to predetermined conclusions. Only in your mind is this fiber BS "highly probative evidence of his guilt". In the real world it works differently, regardless of what happened in some trial in the past. Every trial is different and trying to make a comparison to somehow prove a point is a fool's errand.

Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin.

Hilarious. There is only a "strong consensus" if you read certain books and follow certain media outlets. Having said that, this is the Appeal to Authority fallacy in it's purest form, you do understand that? Don't you have a mind of your own?

For nearly five centuries the history books have said that Richard III killed the boys in the tower, or at least had them killed. Now we know it was Henry VII Tudor, to whom Richard III lost his crown, who most likely made up that story to justify his own reign. He also predated his reign with one day before the battle of Bosworth, so he could claim he was already king when he defeated the usurper Richard of York. History books and opinions are constantly updated and revisited. It's the victor who writes the history. If they get away with it or not depends on critical thinkers who challenge claims.

These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy.

Even if he was indeed a patsy, he still would have had to have been part of such conspiracy, whether he understood that at the time or not. Now before you go off on this. I have no idea if there actually was a conspiracy or not, nor do I know how Oswald would have fitted in.

Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.

Well, that's simply not true.

It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little Barsteward might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan.  The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.

So much anger and aggression. Hardly the words of a rational reasonable person. 

I'm glad Oswald got murdered

I'm not, because if he had not been murdered he could have told his side of the story and a trial would have eliminated a lot of assumptions and speculations.

[John Corbett]

If it wasn't a quote why did you put it in QUOTATION MARKS? Punctuation has meaning. If you are paraphrasing, you have no business putting a statement in quotes.

Again, when you put a statement in quotes, it implies the words came from somebody else.

I wasn't paraphrasing either, because that would imply that somebody actually said something similar. The words were in quotation marks to highlight words used ironically.

You are really really struggling with this, aren't you?

You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?

I brought up the fibers as evidence that Oswald was the one that fired the rifle. The fibers also are evidence it was Oswald's jacket that was recovered from under the car. While fiber evidence isn't proof positive, it is a very strong indication that it was Oswald who fired the rifle and Oswald was the one who tossed the jacket under the car. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the two items in question came from a shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing.

No, on both counts. Fibers are can not prove who fired a rifle nor do they prove that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car. But I agree, it probably wasn't a coincidence that fibers were found on the rifle and Oswald's grey jacket (CE 162). We do however likely disagree about why it wasn't a coincidence.

You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.

As a dedicated Oswald denier, a theoretical possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all the excuse you need to dismiss highly probative evidence of his guilt.

I don't even know what a Oswald denier is

HINT: Look in the mirror

nor do I need an excuse to dismiss "highly probative evidence of his guilt". The reason I reject your claims is that you constantly are using flawed reasoning, ignoring discrepancies and jumping to predetermined conclusions. Only in your mind is this fiber BS "highly probative evidence of his guilt".

A jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.

In the real world it works differently, regardless of what happened in some trial in the past. Every trial is different and trying to make a comparison to somehow prove a point is a fool's errand.

So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald.

Why would I admit defeat. There is a strong consensus in history books, journals, news organizations, etc. that Oswald was the assassin.

Hilarious. There is only a "strong consensus" if you read certain books and follow certain media outlets. Having said that, this is the Appeal to Authority fallacy in it's purest form, you do understand that? Don't you have a mind of your own?

Fair enough. Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.

For nearly five centuries the history books have said that Richard III killed the boys in the tower, or at least had them killed. Now we know it was Henry VII Tudor, to whom Richard III lost his crown, who most likely made up that story to justify his own reign. He also predated his reign with one day before the battle of Bosworth, so he could claim he was already king when he defeated the usurper Richard of York. History books and opinions are constantly updated and revisited. It's the victor who writes the history. If they get away with it or not depends on critical thinkers who challenge claims.

You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.

These resources also mention the fact that many people suspect he was part of a conspiracy.

Even if he was indeed a patsy, he still would have had to have been part of such conspiracy, whether he understood that at the time or not. Now before you go off on this. I have no idea if there actually was a conspiracy or not, nor do I know how Oswald would have fitted in.

Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs.

Even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.

Well, that's simply not true.

Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.

It is only the loons who think he was innocent of both murders. As for me, I'm glad Oswald got murdered because he deserved it for what he did. I have no doubt he would have been convicted and sentenced to die but I seriously doubt the execution would have been carried out because SCOTUS struck down all existing death penalty statutes in 1972. The little Barsteward might still be thumbing his nose at us from the Texas state prison. There would probably even be people telling us he deserved parole. That almost worked for Sirhan Sirhan.  The California parole board recommended he be released. In one of the few good acts of Gavin Newsom's career, he vetoed his parole board's decision. It's still possible Sirhan will eventually be released which would be a damn shame. He should have gone to the gas chamber 50 years ago.

So much anger and aggression. Hardly the words of a rational reasonable person.

My anger turned to glee when NBC's Frank McGee announced Oswald had died from his gunshot wounds. Oswald needed killing and Jack Ruby killed him.
Good job, Jack.

I'm glad Oswald got murdered

I'm not, because if he had not been murdered he could have told his side of the story and a trial would have eliminated a lot of assumptions and speculations.

A trial would have resulted in his conviction and death sentence, a sentence the very likely would never have been carried out. Oswald would have had a chance to live a long life behind bar. I'm glad he never got the chance.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?
You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.HINT: Look in the mirrorA jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.
So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald.
Fair enough. Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.
You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.
Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs. Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.
My anger turned to glee when NBC's Frank McGee announced Oswald had died from his gunshot wounds. Oswald needed killing and Jack Ruby killed him.
Good job, Jack.
A trial would have resulted in his conviction and death sentence, a sentence the very likely would never have been carried out. Oswald would have had a chance to live a long life behind bar. I'm glad he never got the chance.

You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?

No. It's not my problem thay you don't understand what quotation marks are used for.

You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.

Nice one. Moving the goalpost away from your ridiculous claims that fibers prove who fired the rifle and/of that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car.

Thank you for confirming that I do not need to show evidence because I never made any claim. It's actually a lot more fun to see you speculate, and you instantly started doing exactly that. What makes you think that I think fiber evidence was planted? If fibers similar to Oswald's shirt were found in a jacket that we know belonged to Oswald, then there is no reason to believe the fibers were planted. As for the rifle and the fibers found on that; if you claim those fibers matched the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, you need to prove that and it's pretty obvious you can't.

A jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people. So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald. 

I know nothing about that case, but even if that case and Oswald's case were perfectly similar, that still doesn't mean you will automatically the same outcome. A jury can be swayed by the arguments of a good prosecutor or defence lawyer (remember O.J.'s "I it don't fit you must aquit) and frequently juries get it wrong. All you need to look at are all the cases the innocence project has gotten overturned. You can't compare one case to another, no matter how hard you try.

Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.

Just how many "thinking people" have you talked to, to justify that claim?

Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.

I don't use history books or other material written by writers with an agenda, so I'm not going to do that. The only JFKA related book I've ever read is the WC report. I stayed well clear of all the other opinions by so-called researchers on both side. What I know about the case is what I found out by doing my own research. You should try it....

But I'll throw you a bone; even the plaque fixed to the former TSBD building says "when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President Kennedy. Say enough, really....

You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.

Silly remark, which only shows your "us against them" mindset. I don't have CT comrades and I don't have to be vindicated for the simple fact of rejecting the BS you're trying to sell about this entire case.

Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs.

So, now you are a mind reader? What beliefs should I be supporting? I've told you what I think and even that's not good enough for you. Stop nagging, will ya!

Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.

Oh boy, you claimed that "even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.". No mention of polls or anything. So, why don't we start with you claim and you provide evidence for it? If you don't, I'll take that as an admission for you making it up.

[Martin Weidmann]

Coming back to a bit of previous conversation. Possibly I may have misunderstood what you were saying when you responded to my remark;

You couldn't even handle being schooled about the existence of documents about the Frazier polygraph, which you falsely claimed didn't exist and I made up. You even tried to weasel your way out of that one.

with;

My memory isn't as sharp as it once was but I don't recall making such a statement and given your propensity for creating strawman arguments by making up things that other people never actually said, I sure as hell am not going to take your word for it. Please tell us the thread, the date, and the time I made such a statement. If you can't do that, I'll take that as a tacit admission you made this one up too.

You probably referred to this;

Note to Martin Wiedmann:
This is how one provides a cite to support a statement one has made. I realize it's not possible for you to do this when you have just made something up out of thin air.

I didn't know how to post images on this forum, but I've had some help, so here is the evidence that you said didn't exist.



 

Consider yourself schooled!

OK. I was wrong. You didn't make this up. You just lied about it. Earlier, you stated:

"The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day"

Please point out anything in either document you posted that Day exhibited "massive panic". Sounds like Day's reaction was rather matter of fact.

Let me guess, you are now going to make a big deal out of the fact that I used the words "didn't exist" when you actually said I "just made something up out of thin air."

[John Corbett]

You are really rationalizing your duplicitous conduct, aren't you?

No. It's not my problem thay you don't understand what quotation marks are used for.

You wouldn't say why you don't think it was a coincidence because that would put the burden on your to show evidence for your claim. I'm going to guess you are implying the fiber evidence was planted even though we both know you have no evidence that happened. If that's not what you were implying, why don't you tell us what you were implying when you said it was no coincidence.

Nice one. Moving the goalpost away from your ridiculous claims that fibers prove who fired the rifle and/of that it was Oswald's jacket that was found under the car.

That is what the fibers indicate for anyone capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting the right answer. I guess that leaves you out.

Thank you for confirming that I do not need to show evidence because I never made any claim.

You seem to lack the intellectual courage to actually tell us what you believe. You seem to be more interested in playing word games. I've seen your kind before over the last 35 years. People who troll forums just to play word games without ever saying what they believe because that would require you to support what you say.

It's actually a lot more fun to see you speculate, and you instantly started doing exactly that. What makes you think that I think fiber evidence was planted? If fibers similar to Oswald's shirt were found in a jacket that we know belonged to Oswald, then there is no reason to believe the fibers were planted. As for the rifle and the fibers found on that; if you claim those fibers matched the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, you need to prove that and it's pretty obvious you can't.

More trolling. You add nothing to the discourse.

A jury convicted Wayne Williams primarily on fiber evidence. Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people. So tell us why fiber evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Wayne Williams case but isn't probative in the case against Oswald. 

I know nothing about that case, but even if that case and Oswald's case were perfectly similar, that still doesn't mean you will automatically the same outcome. A jury can be swayed by the arguments of a good prosecutor or defence lawyer (remember O.J.'s "I it don't fit you must aquit) and frequently juries get it wrong. All you need to look at are all the cases the innocence project has gotten overturned. You can't compare one case to another, no matter how hard you try.

I don't need a jury to tell me Oswald murdered two men on 11/22/1963 and you don't need a jury to play your silly games.

Apparently they didn't think it was BS. Neither do most thinking people.

Just how many "thinking people" have you talked to, to justify that claim?

The same number as I had before I started engaging with you.

Cite just one respected news or historical publication that doesn't identify Oswald as the assassin. I would have no problem citing plenty that do.

I don't use history books or other material written by writers with an agenda, so I'm not going to do that. The only JFKA related book I've ever read is the WC report. I stayed well clear of all the other opinions by so-called researchers on both side. What I know about the case is what I found out by doing my own research. You should try it....

You've never given any indication you know shit about the case. You're only here to play games. That's pretty obvious.

But I'll throw you a bone; even the plaque fixed to the former TSBD building says "when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President Kennedy. Say enough, really....

The fact the built a museum on the same floor Oswald fired his shots from and created a glassed in enclosure around the location he fired from and installed a webcam there is a better indication of who they believe killed JFK.

You really are an optimist if you think 500 years from now you and your CT comrades will be vindicated.

Silly remark, which only shows your "us against them" mindset. I don't have CT comrades and I don't have to be vindicated for the simple fact of rejecting the BS you're trying to sell about this entire case.

You don't seem to have a pair either. I respect people who will say what they believe and defend those beliefs honestly, even if I disagree with them. That doesn't include you. You get your jollies by trolling. You've made that obvious.

Very convenient. By remaining agnostic, you relieve yourself of the burden of providing evidence to support your beliefs.

So, now you are a mind reader? What beliefs should I be supporting? I've told you what I think and even that's not good enough for you. Stop nagging, will ya!

I've come to realize you have no beliefs. You're a troll.

Every poll I remember doesn't even bother to ask people if the think Oswald was innocent. Apparently they pollsters take it as a given that Oswald was guilty. Given the amount of evidence against him, that is a very understandable POV. I have a vague memory of seeing a poll somewhere that included the option that Oswald was completely innocent and that number was in the single digits. I've searched for a poll that offers that as a choice and have come up empty. If you know of such a poll, by all means, post it.

Oh boy, you claimed that "even among CTs, the majority belief is that Oswald was one of the assassins.". No mention of polls or anything. So, why don't we start with you claim and you provide evidence for it? If you don't, I'll take that as an admission for you making it up.

I'm done playing your silly Bahookie trolling games. When you grow the stones to tell us what you believe and are willing to support those beliefs, let me know. Until then, you aren't worth the time of day.