Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.

This is what happens when a "reasonable and objective" researcher turns into a fanatically zealot. It's impossible to have a normal conversation with somebody like this. Kinda sad, really!

[Lance Payette]

I was always kind of a free-floating CTer (i.e., no specific theory) because all I read was gee-whiz CT literature for decades. With deeper - much deeper - study, I gravitated to the LN position. After extensive study of Oswald, I will admit that I have a certain degree of sympathy or empathy for him; I really don't see him at all the way most LNers seem to do - more the "goofy mixed-up kid from a badly broken home" than the "murderous sociopath." I cannot explain his role in the JFKA in a way that is entirely satisfactory to me, based on all I know about him (which I think is about as much as can be known). It almost seems that there HAS to be more to the story than the LN narrative provides; the LN narrative could well be correct in its bottom-line conclusion, but my sense is that "something is missing." Many hardcore LNers seem to me to try too hard to insist there are no mysteries and nothing to talk about. As far as CT theories go, the one that makes by far the most sense to me is the Mafia. Not the Mafia++++, but just the Mafia or even a single Mafioso like Marcello. The Mafia had an incredibly strong, multi-faceted motive, the JFKA would have been little more than business as usual for them, and Oswald would have been an absolutely perfect patsy. A tight, tightly controlled, no-cover-up-necessary JFKA. Connecting Oswald and the Mafia is, however, a challenge. John Orr's Mafia theory strikes me as weak in this respect.

[John Corbett]

I have zero sympathy or empathy for Oswald. I can think of no American who has ever done more harm to our country. I wish the SOB had been hit by a bus on 11/21/1963. Most people would have never heard of him and that would be just fine. As far as I'm concerned, he lived 3 days longer than he should have.

[Lance Payette]

I have zero sympathy or empathy for Oswald. I can think of no American who has ever done more harm to our country. I wish the SOB had been hit by a bus on 11/21/1963. Most people would have never heard of him and that would be just fine. As far as I'm concerned, he lived 3 days longer than he should have.

I am not applauding or condoning whatever he did in connection with the JFKA, up to and including being a Lone Nut. I'm saying that I have empathy for who he was and what factors likely led him to do it. I would have the same empathy if he'd assassinated the local dogcatcher. The fact that JFK was the victim really doesn't change that analysis. I don't see anything about Oswald that should give me some visceral hatred for him. I guess we could debate what "harm to the country" he actually did, but LBJ was firmly at the helm within a matter of days and in some ways was a far more qualified President. About the only thing to which JFK worshippers can point is that the Vietnam War likely would not have escalated to the same extent if JFK had lived and been reelected. Even that is speculation to some degree, but the rest is mostly the rose-colored glasses that people wear when a leader dies young and tragically. Probably the whole JFKA thing has created a great deal of public skepticism about government, which can be viewed as a harm (or maybe not), but the way the WC proceeded largely justifies that skepticism.

[John Corbett]

I am not applauding or condoning whatever he did in connection with the JFKA, up to and including being a Lone Nut. I'm saying that I have empathy for who he was and what factors likely led him to do it. I would have the same empathy if he'd assassinated the local dogcatcher. The fact that JFK was the victim really doesn't change that analysis. I don't see anything about Oswald that should give me some visceral hatred for him. I guess we could debate what "harm to the country" he actually did, but LBJ was firmly at the helm within a matter of days and in some ways was a far more qualified President. About the only thing to which JFK worshippers can point is that the Vietnam War likely would not have escalated to the same extent if JFK had lived and been reelected. Even that is speculation to some degree, but the rest is mostly the rose-colored glasses that people wear when a leader dies young and tragically. Probably the whole JFKA thing has created a great deal of public skepticism about government, which can be viewed as a harm (or maybe not), but the way the WC proceeded largely justifies that skepticism.

I hope Oswald never had a minute of happiness in his life. After what he did, he deserved everything bad that happened to him including Jack Ruby shredding his guts with a well place .38 Special bullet. I hope he was conscious up until he went into surgery and was feeling excruciating pain. People choose to be what they are. He chose to be an evil monster.

[Martin Weidmann]

I hope Oswald never had a minute of happiness in his life. After what he did, he deserved everything bad that happened to him including Jack Ruby shredding his guts with a well place .38 Special bullet. I hope he was conscious up until he went into surgery and was feeling excruciating pain. People choose to be what they are. He chose to be an evil monster.

I said you were a fanatical zealot and you've just proven it. I rest my case.

The level of hatred you display against a man who has been dead for more than six decades, isn't healthy. You may need professional help.

[Lance Payette]

I said you were a fanatical zealot and you've just proven it. I rest my case.

The level of hatred you display against a man who has been dead for more than six decades, isn't healthy. You may need professional help.

I would also strongly dsipute John's statement that "people choose to be what they are." Oswald was only 24. He had been shaped by a broken home and a chaotic life with the mother from hell. Every attempt to find a better life had gone awry. He was intelligent, idealistic and frustrated at his inability to achieve what he thought he was capable of achieving. Ernst Titovets, who probably knew him better than anyone, found him likeable, amusing and incapable of anything like the JFKA. I don't completely excuse him, but "evil monster" is way over the top.

Slightly humorous, or at least I think so: I came from a truly traumatic childhood, alone in the home with two incorrigibly alcoholic parents. In 1968, I was a freshman in Apache Dorm at the University of Arizona. One of my good friends informed me that the other residents on our floor had voted me the person "most likely to go up in a tower and start shooting people" as Charles Whitman had done at the University of Texas in 1966. I was deeply flattered and amazed they were so perceptive. Fortunately for me, I got some breaks Oswald never got thanks to a very wealthy grandmother.