JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
Mark Ulrik:
--- Quote from: Joffrey van de Wiel on May 02, 2026, 11:18:11 PM ---
[...] I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement [...]
--- End quote ---
I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Mark Ulrik on Yesterday at 08:47:22 AM ---I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?
--- End quote ---
The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The only reason for believing Oswald could be innocent is a desire to believe there was a conspiracy and since there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, negating the findings of the WCR is the only path to that conclusion. Hardcore Oswald-deniers will come up with any cockamamie excuse they can think of to dismiss each and every piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. Vincent Bugliosi has identified over 50 such pieces of evidence. It becomes a rather silly exercise when one has to invent so many excuses to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Conspiracy believers could argue for conspiracy with Oswald as the shooter. Such a scenario is theoretically possible. If Oswald had even a single accomplice, say a getaway driver who got cold feet and bailed on him at the last minute, you would still have a conspiracy. The evidence under that scenario would look exactly the same as it does with Oswald as a lone gunman, but since there is no evidence of such an accomplice or any other accomplices, there really isn't much reason to believe there was a conspiracy at all.
The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence. Such people have allowed themselves to be duped into believing things such as the impossibility of the SBT or a second shooter on the GK. If they had a thorough knowledge of the evidence, they would know the evidence doesn't support either of those beliefs. Some really smart people fall into that trap. Bill Maher is one such person. I disagree with him about 75% of the time on political issues but I am still a fan because I find him both funny and smart. It seems obvious to me he was taken in by Oliver Stone's bogus courtroom reconstruction of the SBT, bogusly claiming the SBT was impossible. Either that or he got it from a conspiracy book that has made much the same invalid arguments.
Benjamin Cole:
Joffrey van de Wiel:
I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.
My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.
They got lucky on the motorcade route.
How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.
The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.
Larry Baldwin:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:17:16 PM ---The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt.
<Br><BR>
The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence.
--- End quote ---
Spoken like a true narrow minded and condescending LN. There are many researchers that have "educated themselves" and have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt. I have "educated myself" enough to conclude that LHO never fired a shot on November 22, 1963. And I didn't need the "myriad conpiracy books" (sic) or Oliver Stone's JFK to do so. There is plenty of evidence that proves as much. However, it could never be accepted by the LN that soley relies on their own "Textus Receptus" (i.e. the WC) or Bugliosi's thinly argued 53 points of which all have been argued against throughout this forum (at least it was prior to the forum reset).
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 04:05:48 AM ---Joffrey van de Wiel:
I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.
--- End quote ---
Who would want to fund a non-existent conspiracy?
--- Quote ---
My guess is a couple of guys split off from G2, or possibly Alpha-66 (itself penetrated by G2), and conspired with or manipulated LHO (who had a propensity to shoot at major public figures---see General Walker) regarding the JFKA.
--- End quote ---
That had to be a guess because there's no evidence of that.
--- Quote ---
They got lucky on the motorcade route.
How much planning does it take to point rifles at the President and shoot? All three participants likely had military or para-military backgrounds. LHO did.
--- End quote ---
How much planning would it take for one guy to stick a rifle out a window and shoot another guy a short distance away?
--- Quote ---
The GK smoke-and-bang show as a diversion in an interesting idea. A snub-nose .38, the default conceal-carry weapon of the day, would have served perfectly for such a role.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own concusions.
--- End quote ---
More speculation with zero supporting evidence.
That's the great thing about imagination. You can dream up anything you like and no evidence is required. It is so limiting when you stick with what there is actually evidence to support.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version