Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Translation:  Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence.  But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963.   I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman?  I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence.  If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim.  Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact. 

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?

[Martin Weidmann]

Translation:  Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence.  But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963.   I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman?  I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence.  If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim.  Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact. 

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Stop "translating". You're not very good at it.


I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman? 

Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation? 

So, why did you ask if you missed where I showed the evidence..... you know, the evidence you didn't ask for?

I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence. 

A brief delay in logging the evidence isn't what has happened here. But you, being your normal dishonest self, will continue to ignore that.

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Oh poor boy. Is emotional "Richard" playing up again?

As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense. 

So, if paperwork is missing or incomplete the police can always use as an excuse that they were "busy"? Really?

Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.

So you keep repeating over and over again, yet you never get beyond presenting speculations and assumptions. Why is that?

[Martin Weidmann]

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

What juror? What vote? What are you going on about?

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt.

Now you sound like a prosecutor who has presented a weak unconvincing case and who is complaining about the jury not believing him.

Evidence needs to hold up under scrutiny. What you seem to advocate is; "here's a piece of evidence that indicates Oswald's guilt, but don't look to close at it because if you do it will likely fall apart".

this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald.

What cause? The guy has been dead for more than half a century. I never knew him and don't care about him either way. If he did it, he got what he deserved. I merely want to find out if the evidence that claims he did it is conclusive enough to support that conclusion. Now, why is that a problem for you?

Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room)

So, just because we are not in a courtroom, we should just take your "evidence" on faith. Is that what you are saying?

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him.

Are you sure you're talking to the right person? Show me one of my posts in which I give a most innocent interpretation of Oswald's actions or the evidence against him?

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald?

Why was defending Dreyfus understandable? You are talking with the benefit of hindsight. He was condemned by the French authorities and at the time hardly anybody doubted his guilt until Emile Zola set them all straight.

You talk about Oswald in the same way as most French people talked about Dreyfus prior to Zola's intervention. You do understand that, don't you? Or come to think of it, perhaps you don't.

[Richard Smith]

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?

It's mystifying.  The evidentiary case against Oswald is very strong and straightforward.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to understand how we could have much more evidence than exists.  Almost equally compelling is the improbable nature of any alternative narrative - including everything that would have to have happened - for Oswald to be innocent or some Gomer Pyle-type patsy.     

So what is the explanation for this pedantic endless defense of Oswald:

1) Bias.  A conspiracy behind the JFK assassination comports with a world view that important events are always controlled by some nefarious entity.  So the CIA, FBI, WC, or LBJ is behind everything.  In fact, the conspiracy itself becomes necessary to explain why they can never make a case for proving Oswald's innocence.  Some powerful force precludes it.  An endless loop.  Similar to UFO believers.  They can never be dissuaded from this belief because their inability to make the case for Oswald's innocence is deemed further proof of a conspiracy.

2) Compulsion disorder.  Many CTers appear to share a common trait.  They are obsessed with minutia.  They literally can't see the forest for the trees.  Long rambling posts that have disconnected points that never add up to anything.  They can't filter information into knowledge.  Thus, they become overwhelmed by detail and conclude "something" must have happened.  What they can't quite articulate but something must have happened because a lot of small details can't be explained to their subjective satisfaction.

3) Mental illness.  Some CTers appear to have actual mental issues.  If they believe even half of the nonsense that they espouse, they are suffering from delusions and paranoia.  Outside of an Internet forum with many like minded folks, these people would be put in a straight jacket for some of their nutty theories.  There are serious minded CTers who use evidence in an attempt to make their case, but they are a definite minority.  Oddly, intelligence is not a mitigating factor.  In fact, there some very intelligent CTers who are off their rocker.

4)  Attention.  It's easy to play the contrarian and gain attention.  Ironically, not much different from Oswald himself who played the outsider to garner attention.  So they take issue with every point - no matter how obvious - that lends itself to Oswald's guilt ("Oswald's rifle - LOL").  Repeat endlessly.  I suppose it passes the time like other hobbies.  Whether these folks believe their own nonsense is unclear.  Perhaps they get so caught up in trying to conjure up doubt that they come to believe it.

[Anthony Frank]

If Oswald killed Tippit, it was on orders from his CIA handlers. Oswald was a totally controlled CIA asset.

If he did not kill Tippit, it was the CIA that killed Tippit, after which they gave the gun to Oswald and told him to wait for them in the Dallas theater.

President Ford’s “Commission on CIA Activities in the United States” reported, “Police cover in the form of badges and other identification has, on several occasions, been obtained from local police departments.”

The CIA had no problem working with the Dallas Police to go after Oswald and arrange for his murder at the hands of Jack Ruby two days later.

Killing President Kennedy was part of the CIA’s quest to control the government, and I have it all documented. Click the link.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y

[Bill Chapman]

It's mystifying.  The evidentiary case against Oswald is very strong and straightforward.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to understand how we could have much more evidence than exists.  Almost equally compelling is the improbable nature of any alternative narrative - including everything that would have to have happened - for Oswald to be innocent or some Gomer Pyle-type patsy.     

So what is the explanation for this pedantic endless defense of Oswald:

1) Bias.  A conspiracy behind the JFK assassination comports with a world view that important events are always controlled by some nefarious entity.  So the CIA, FBI, WC, or LBJ is behind everything.  In fact, the conspiracy itself becomes necessary to explain why they can never make a case for proving Oswald's innocence.  Some powerful force precludes it.  An endless loop.  Similar to UFO believers.  They can never be dissuaded from this belief because their inability to make the case for Oswald's innocence is deemed further proof of a conspiracy.

2) Compulsion disorder.  Many CTers appear to share a common trait.  They are obsessed with minutia.  They literally can't see the forest for the trees.  Long rambling posts that have disconnected points that never add up to anything.  They can't filter information into knowledge.  Thus, they become overwhelmed by detail and conclude "something" must have happened.  What they can't quite articulate but something must have happened because a lot of small details can't be explained to their subjective satisfaction.

3) Mental illness.  Some CTers appear to have actual mental issues.  If they believe even half of the nonsense that they espouse, they are suffering from delusions and paranoia.  Outside of an Internet forum with many like minded folks, these people would be put in a straight jacket for some of their nutty theories.  There are serious minded CTers who use evidence in an attempt to make their case, but they are a definite minority.  Oddly, intelligence is not a mitigating factor.  In fact, there some very intelligent CTers who are off their rocker.

4)  Attention.  It's easy to play the contrarian and gain attention.  Ironically, not much different from Oswald himself who played the outsider to garner attention.  So they take issue with every point - no matter how obvious - that lends itself to Oswald's guilt ("Oswald's rifle - LOL").  Repeat endlessly.  I suppose it passes the time like other hobbies.  Whether these folks believe their own nonsense is unclear.  Perhaps they get so caught up in trying to conjure up doubt that they come to believe it.

---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------

BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable

BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham

BOOK III: MINUTIAE
Trivia writ Large:
The Lifeblood of the
Oswald-Lover crowd

BOOK IV: OZZIE RABBIT
AKA LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
HERE WE GO DOWN
THE RABBIT HOLE

[Bill Brown]

Helen Markham, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, William Scoggins, Sam Guinyard and Ted Callaway all attended a police lineup and positively identified Lee Oswald as the man they saw either shoot J.D. Tippit or run from the immediate scene with a gun in his hands. Not one witness who attended a lineup identified someone other than Oswald as the man they saw.