Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Bill Chapman]

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least one person in 50 would come clean, tell someone or at the very least leave a deathbed confession.
I doubt anyone would go to jail as a co-consparitor. To convict someone as that they'd first have to completely admit that it was a complete cover up in the first place.

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.

I admit, I have only skimmed this forum. No offence to anyone on here who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, but I prioritise getting my information from books written by respected researchers, whether they be LNs or CTs. I've read lots by both camps and, sorry if I don't share the same view as you, but from what I've read so far, I'm finding myself to be in the LNs camp.

As far as LNs losing every single debate on this forum, if you class every argument being cut down by a "They were forced to lie", "Have you got actual evidence that that happened? If not, then its not true" or "You're just an idiot who is brainwashed and believed everything you are told" as winning a bebate, then yes, LNs lose every debate. Personally, I don't class this as being a conclusive winning conclusion to every argument.
As you can tell, I'm quite new to this forum and instead of getting sensible answers for queries I put forward (completely willing to listen and open to explanations that could potentially change my mind) so far all I've got from CTs are personal insults, aggressive behaviour and not one worthy reply to any questions.

Like I said, I'm willing to be proven wrong on here, but nobody seems willing to have a non-aggressive conversation. Hence why I say I prefer (or am rather forced) to get my information from books

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
>>> By all accounts? Seems you're reading only conspiracy-monger books.

"Deathbed confession" of involvement in Kennedy assassination
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=67340;topic=660.250

[Excerpts]

According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain and furthermore falsified accounts of Hunt's supposed confession. The Los Angeles Times said they examined the materials offered by the sons to support the story and found them to be "inconclusive".[67]

[Zeon Mason]

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.

[Martin Weidmann]

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton. It's fine, I enjoy a bit of banter but I was just pointing out it had no relevance to my post.

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton.

I can fully understand that you don't want to be compared to Mytton. What sane person would?

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

Why are you putting words in Peter's mouth?

All he did was ask you when he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy? Why do you answer his question with a question?

[Martin Weidmann]

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?

I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

How do you know that "one of them would have cracked..."?

I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.

Let's see if I understand this correctly.... Instead of examining the actual evidence, you prefer your conclusion to be based on the opinion of the author or those authors who, in your mind, present the most persuasive case?

[Vincent Baxter]

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
>>> By all accounts? Seems you're reading only conspiracy-monger books.

Fair point, sir! Im not going to lie and pretend I'm the equivalent of the Britannia Encyclopaedia on the E.Howard Hunt confession, but I've read stuff both for & against it and, by my own reckoning, haven't found anything worthy to be classed as conclusive evidence.
Considering all the conspiracy theories still being thrown around on this forum, I would think it's pretty safe to say that even the most ardent of conspiracy theory believers didn't find anything valid in the, alleged "genuine", confession either as they're still banging on about their own theories.

Would you mind me asking you a question? If someone asked you now who shot JFK would you say it was 100% "A French man on the grassy knoll"?

[Vincent Baxter]

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton.

I can fully understand that you don't want to be compared to Mytton. What sane person would?

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

Why are you putting words in Peter's mouth?

All he did was ask you when he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy? Why do you answer his question with a question?

And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue. I'm sure he'll appreciate you butting in and making him look like a bellend who can't speak for himself.

Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.

I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was? But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:

"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"

I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine. I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.

[Vincent Baxter]

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

How do you know that "one of them would have cracked..."?

Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't. It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there. Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" 

Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and shit your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.