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

[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]

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.

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]

Joffrey van de Wiel:

I don't suspect the JFKAC was well-funded or backed by powerful people.

Who would want to fund a non-existent conspiracy?

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.

That had to be a guess because there's no evidence of that.

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.

How much planning would it take for one guy to stick a rifle out a window and shoot another guy a short distance away?

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.

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.

[John Corbett]

Spoken like a true narrow minded and condescending LN.

The time for being open minded about Oswald's innocence expired a long time ago. He was the assassin as the evidence clearly proves.

 
There are many researchers that have "educated themselves" and have come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt.

My experience has been those are people who are really, really bad at weighing evidence. 

I have "educated myself" enough to conclude that LHO never fired a shot on November 22, 1963.

Case in point.

 
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.

Such as?

 
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).

The WC got it right from the start. It has made far more sense than any conspiracy book I've read or all the arguments I've read online over the past 35 years combined. Bugliosi's book was an affirmation of the WCR, swatting down all the silly alternative theories that had been made up to that point.