Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Bill Chapman]

No need to get nasty, just because I don't want to play your silly game.

I wasn't even trying, but it seems that I somehow succeeded to make you seem the obvious ........ fool.

Tell us what's silly about straightening out Oswald apologists.

Enjoy:


BILL CHAPMAN

And again:


BILL CHAPMAN

[Martin Weidmann]

Tell us what's silly about straightening out Oswald apologists.

Enjoy:

And again:

Tell us what's silly about straightening out Oswald apologists.

Oh, where to start?.... First of all it's silly to even believe there is such a thing as an Oswald apologist.
Secondly, it is silly to believe that a WC apologist LNr somehow has the capacity to straighten out anything....
It's also silly to believe that these pathetic Western Union gifs have any value and/or impress somebody.... They don't!

Should I go on..... Nah, that's enough already

[Bill Chapman]

Tell us what's silly about straightening out Oswald apologists.

Oh, where to start?.... First of all it's silly to even believe there is such a thing as an Oswald apologist.
Secondly, it is silly to believe that a WC apologist LNr somehow has the capacity to straighten out anything....
It's also silly to believe that these pathetic Western Union gifs have any value and/or impress somebody.... They don't!

Should I go on..... Nah, that's enough already

 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? That's a good one. How would an Oswald apologist  act differently than coming here day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after year defending him? Literally thousands of posts, hundreds of hours defending him. What would a "real" apologist do differently?

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent. But Oswald? This miserable wife beater? He was a traitor, he was willing to aid the Soviets. And abandon his family. He wanted to go to Cuba. And leave his pregnant wife and child behind. He turned his back on his family, his friends and his country.

And people spend their time defending this miserable person?

[Martin Weidmann]

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? That's a good one. How would an Oswald apologist  act differently than coming here day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after year defending him? Literally thousands of posts, hundreds of hours defending him. What would a "real" apologist do differently?

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent. But Oswald? This miserable wife beater? He was a traitor, he was willing to aid the Soviets. And abandon his family. He wanted to go to Cuba. And leave his pregnant wife and child behind. He turned his back on his family, his friends and his country.

And people spend their time defending this miserable person?

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists?

Yes, indeed, but that's probably way above your head. The WC apologists will swallow anything the WC told them no matter how questionable it is and will do anything to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. There are no Oswald apologists because in order to be one you first need to accept that he was guilty and then defend him nevertheless. I don't know anybody who actually believes he's guilty and still defend him. Personally, I couldn't care less about Oswald. If he did it, I'm not going to apologize for him, but it needs to be proven - not just assumed - that he did it.

Oswald apologists only exist in the mind of die hard WC apologists.

As far as the remainder of you post goes, you've just exposed the emotional side of your argument. To somebody like you Oswald needs to be guilty because you actually hate somebody who you don't know and has been dead for more than half a century. It's Salem stuff.... take a step back and consider what you just said and ask yourself if that's a reasonable stance!

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent.

Dreyfus was innocent. It has nothing to do with this case.

[Bill Chapman]

There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists?

Yes, indeed, but that's probably way above your head. The WC apologists will swallow anything the WC told them no matter how questionable it is and will do anything to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. There are no Oswald apologists because in order to be one you first need to accept that he was guilty and then defend him nevertheless. I don't know anybody who actually believes he's guilty and still defend him. Personally, I couldn't care less about Oswald. If he did it, I'm not going to apologize for him, but it needs to be proven - not just assumed - that he did it.

Oswald apologists only exist in the mind of die hard WC apologists.

As far as the remainder of you post goes, you've just exposed the emotional side of your argument. To somebody like you Oswald needs to be guilty because you actually hate somebody who you don't know and has been dead for more than half a century. It's Salem stuff.... take a step back and consider what you just said and ask yourself if that's a reasonable stance!

I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent.

Dreyfus was innocent. It has nothing to do with this case.

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Awww... poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-hoo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

[Richard Smith]

Which only shows that you have learned nothing and have no respect for normal police procedures and the legal requirement to provide a credible chain of custody for each piece of evidence.

rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald,

This is by far the most idiotic comment in your pathetic rant. The chain of custody's main purpose is to credibly link a piece of evidence to a suspect. Such a link is not automatically assumped as you seem to believe or favor. It is not necessary to rebut evidence without a credible chain of custody. Just how ignorant are you?

Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation?  You haven't even managed that.  You just keep repeating the claim.  And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer. An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."

It's been more than half a century; we've had numerous investigations AFTER the Warren Commission including both government and media ones, e.g., CBS News, PBS, the Washington Post, ABC. Investigative journalists and historians have done investigations or works on the major figures - Robert Caro on LBJ, books on Hoover, Tim Weiner on the CIA. And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."