JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Paul May on November 22, 2021, 12:15:24 PM
-
58 years ago today.
What do we know with absolute certainty?
1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.
-
The institutions in USA are corrupt, they lie, and they manipulate the truth. The government(s) in USA refuse to release all the documents related to the JFK assassination.
But yet, lone shooter believers do not seem to question these facts.
-
The institutions in USA are corrupt, they lie, and they manipulate the truth. The government(s) in USA refuse to release all the documents related to the JFK assassination.
But yet, lone shooter believers do not seem to question these facts.
And yet, you did not answer the question.
-
And yet, you did not answer the question.
I answered
What do we know with absolute certainty?
The institutions in USA are corrupt, they lie, and manipulate the truth.
-------------------
Your reply, "1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy." -- this holds almost no weight, these days. Everything is questionable in the post Iraq-War lies of Bush. That was your president! Bush confidently lied to the world, assured of no consequences. Because that's what the institutions have done to their own people for so long there. Facts are easily manipulated in USA, and if not, then they're invented. Just another event in the procession of evil that has taken place, on 11/22/63, and since.
Where do you think USA stands right now in the world, a trusted ally? a trusted partner? a joke of a nation full of people twisted and manipulated by its own media?
Your institutions are not fit to serve the people and I don't blame the calls to burn it all down and start again. USA is almost done. I would ideally like to see a truth curtain go up between the UK and USA. Something similar to what China uses to keep themselves being also being imploded by American stupidity. They encourage their kids to be doctors and scientists. Not twerking transexuals. To have almost all cultural influences of USA kept away from vulnerable minds here I think would be appropriate.
The assassination of JFK and the continual crediting of a lone shooter scenario (by some) are just another (of many) ticking time-bomb's when it comes to USA's home-truths. I guess that's brought out in the denial of releasing the files regarding the assassination, why else? American's maybe cannot handle the real truth(s) of their nation. Exceptional, willful, ignorance!
-
58 years ago today.
What do we know with absolute certainty?
1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.
Who -- Hickey.
Where -- in Queen Mary.
With -- an AR15.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.
Are you willing to stake your life...even your eternal soul on that?
-
The institutions in USA are corrupt, they lie, and they manipulate the truth. The government(s) in USA refuse to release all the documents related to the JFK assassination.
But yet, lone shooter believers do not seem to question these facts.
The government can lie and manipulate the truth in the same world in which a kook takes his rifle and kills the president. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts as you imply. It's the evidence that is conclusive of the issue. And that evidence links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.
-
The government can lie and manipulate the truth in the same world in which a kook takes his rifle and kills the president. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts as you imply. It's the evidence that is conclusive of the issue. And that evidence links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.
One of many of the fundamental differences between the two sides is that the conspiracy side - those that believe there was a large scale government conspiracy behind the murder - think "the government" has nearly unlimited power and ability.
We recognize the limits of the government, how human beings behave, how government bureaucracies work and don't. The political scientist Hannah Arendt, she of the famous "banality of evil" line, put it best. She said, "Oligarchy is rule by the minority, democracy is rule by the majority; bureaucracy is rule by nobody." That someone thinks these bureaucracies can be controlled for half a century to pull off and cover up the assassination is astonishing. They just can't.
-
And that evidence links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.
So far, on every account, you've miserably failed to support your claim with facts.
So has Paul May.
What's new?
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.
All you will ever get from somebody like "Richard Smith" is erroneously being called a contrarian (which is really a person who rejects popular opinion, so the term does not apply here) and being told that the evidence against Oswald is beyond doubt. Other LNs will simply ignore hard questions being asked or come up with utterly stupid theories to "explain" obvious problems with the evidence.
-
58 years ago today.
What do we know with absolute certainty?
That the CIA could've told the truth but they've lied for 58 years now...
-
One of many of the fundamental differences between the two sides is that the conspiracy side - those that believe there was a large scale government conspiracy behind the murder - think "the government" has nearly unlimited power and ability.
That's not true. There are limits to government power and abilities.
But what the US intelligence agencies have done well since the times of Allan Dulles is manipulate the Press and control the "narrative". The CIA has had many epic screwups over the last few decades but what they do best is control the news media narrative.
Look at the Benghazi incident for a recent example. The news media initially focused on the State Dept consulate and the ambassador being killed and only acknowledged the CIA employees who were killed and wounded that night at a Black Site in Benghazi after House Republicans blew the cover on the CIA's role.
Granted, I don't think the news media should always blow the cover on covert ops but the Press' willingness to help intelligence agencies manage "the narratives" is troubling to me. I prefer a Press that is adversarial towards the government, not one that helps the government keep secrets or lie.
Here's another example:
L.A. Times Disowns Reporter Outed as a CIA Collaborator
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/la-times-disowns-reporter_b_5770388
The reporter failed-up and now covers national security issues for NBC News.
We recognize the limits of the government, how human beings behave, how government bureaucracies work and don't. The political scientist Hannah Arendt, she of the famous "banality of evil" line, put it best. She said, "Oligarchy is rule by the minority, democracy is rule by the majority; bureaucracy is rule by nobody." That someone thinks these bureaucracies can be controlled for half a century to pull off and cover up the assassination is astonishing. They just can't.
The compartmentalization of government bureaucracies makes them more prone to secrecy, corruption, and cover-ups, not less.
And with the CIA specifically, those who commit crimes and corruption in the name of covert ops are usually rewarded while national security Whistleblowers get prosecuted or sent into exile.
Gina Haspel, who played a role in the CIA's torture programs and helped destroy evidence continued to be promoted until she became CIA director under Trump.
The best way to keep bureaucracies in check is Sunlight or transparency. As of today, the CIA and Pentagon have very little accountability or reason to fear Congressional oversight.
Which is very dangerous for the future of democracy in the USA...
-
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.
All you will ever get from somebody like "Richard Smith" is erroneously being called a contrarian (which is really a person who rejects popular opinion, so the term does not apply here) and being told that the evidence against Oswald is beyond doubt. Other LNs will simply ignore hard questions being asked or come up with utterly stupid theories to "explain" obvious problems with the evidence.
It's circular logic for most on the LN side.
-
58 years ago today.
What do we know with absolute certainty?
1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.
Hey Paul. If the above is so, wouldn't all the files have been released by now? From what I gather there are some which are still under wraps, so to speak. Why? Also, maybe someone can answer this question. Is it true, even President Biden (just recently) decided not to release the said documents? Why? If LHO was guilty and acted alone?
-
President Biden (just recently) decided not to release the said documents? Why? If LHO was guilty and acted alone?
Because Joe Biden was told not to release said documents...
... just as he is always told what to do or not to do.
Does he know what is in those documents? Doubtful.
And doubtfully cares anyway.
-
Apparently Trump knows what's remaining in the JFK files, because he chickened out of releasing them.
-
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.
All you will ever get from somebody like "Richard Smith" is erroneously being called a contrarian (which is really a person who rejects popular opinion, so the term does not apply here) and being told that the evidence against Oswald is beyond doubt. Other LNs will simply ignore hard questions being asked or come up with utterly stupid theories to "explain" obvious problems with the evidence.
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened. In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers. They are like Inspector Clouseau. They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one. Why? Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend. Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof. Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist. How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination. It just is. Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole. Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ.
-
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened. In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers. They are like Inspector Clouseau. They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one. Why? Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend. Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof. Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist. How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination. It just is. Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole. Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ.
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.
Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.
In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.
Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.
Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.
To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right? :D
You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.
-
Hashtag #CIAKILLEDJFK is trending on Twitter today.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE01xAbX0AMPZsU?format=jpg&name=small)
Russian Trolls? 8)
-
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.
A private citizen can't go out and start collaring snipers 58 years later...so this proves that Oswald was the assassin?
-
The Gang of 12+ caught The Gang of 4 with his pants down in Oak Cliff. Up yours; to those who think their 'serious' 'discussions' are nothing more than deflection from the fact that Oswald won the 'Ambusher of the Day' award by a 2-0 margin.
----------
GANG of
FOUR ;)
----------
1) Lee Harvey Oswald
Head scumbag
Aka Alek Hidell/O.H. Lee/Dirty Harvey
2) Alek Hidell
In charge of armament procurement
3) O.H. Lee
In charge of safe-house procurement
4) Dirty Harvey*
In charge of killing poor dumb cops
*
Dirty Harry
"Smith, Wesson... and me"
------------------------------
Dirty Harvey
Smith, Wesson.. and Lee
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NJLRHsP/GANG-OF-FOUR.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
-
Also, maybe someone can answer this question. Is it true, even President Biden (just recently) decided not to release the said documents? Why? If LHO was guilty and acted alone?
Because the documents protect sources and methods that they don't want to release and in fact have an obligation to protect. There may also be information about heretofore unknown operations. Much of this likely has little to do with the JFK case.
-
Because the documents protect sources and methods that they don't want to release and in fact have an obligation to protect. There may also be information about heretofore unknown operations. Much of this likely has little to do with the JFK case.
Thumb1:
-
Because the documents protect sources and methods that they don't want to release and in fact have an obligation to protect. There may also be information about heretofore unknown operations. Much of this likely has little to do with the JFK case.
Then they should be reviewed by the congressional intelligence committees and sorted out there.
BTW--These sources and methods are a little out dated aren't they? I mean after 58 years...it's obviously not the same world.
Of course there is nothing nefarious to be concerned with when it comes to the CIA or the FBI right? ::)
-
I know the CIA gets a bad rap over suspicion of their involvement with JFK's assassination but one thing which seems overlooked by the CT community is how there has been some disagreement within the intelligence community (going back to the Angleton era) about whether or not Oswald had accomplices.
Some former intelligence officers believe that the Russians and Cubans had prior knowledge and were involved in some way.
Former CIA Operative Argues Lee Harvey Oswald's Cuba Connections Went Deep
https://time.com/4753349/oswald-kennedy-declassified-documentary/
Former CIA chief's new book claims Oswald was KGB agent, killed JFK on order from then-Soviet leader Khrushchev
https://disrn.com/news/former-cia-chiefs-new-book-claims-oswald-was-kgb-agent-killed-jfk-on-order-from-then-soviet-leader-kruschev
Former CIA analyst Brian Latell: ‘Cuban intelligence officers were complicit in Kennedy’s death’
https://jfkfacts.org/former-cia-analyst-brian-latell-cuban-intelligence-officers-were-complicit-in-kennedys-death/
I find some of those theories to be compelling but still believe that it was most likely a domestic plot against JFK.
-
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.
Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.
In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.
Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.
Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.
To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right? :D
You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.
Yawn. Down the rabbit hole we go again.
-
58 years ago today.
What do we know with absolute certainty?
1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.
In the short time I've been looking into this case, the only thing I know, with absolute certainty, is that there is not a single piece of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.
Not a single piece!
Talking about "absolute certainty" over this matter reveals a belief system. A faith-based perception. Perhaps even indoctrination.
-
Yawn. Down the rabbit hole we go again.
See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position.
-
See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position.
[/quote
Perfect contrarian response. Derail the discussion with personal insults. Take no position on the matter being discussed. Down the rabbit hole.
-
See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position.
Perfect contrarian response. Derail the discussion with personal insults. Take no position on the matter being discussed. Down the rabbit hole.
Perfect contrarian response.
The broken record plays again (and again, and again, and again......)
A contrarian is somebody who goes against popular belief. In this case there is no popular belief. All there is, is your opinion, which is far from popular or credible. Just how often does this need to be explained to you before you start using words correctly?
Derail the discussion with personal insults.
Projection. The one who is constantly insulting people, simply because they disagree with you, is you!
Take no position on the matter being discussed.
Wrong twice!
I do take a position when I question the authenticity or validity of a piece of evidence, but perhaps that's just too difficult for you to understand.
And with you, there is no discussion. You never ever discuss anything..... instant dismisal, ridicule and misrepresentations is all you ever have to offer.
-
Then they should be reviewed by the congressional intelligence committees and sorted out there.
I have always felt that if there are documents that still need to be witheld (which is likely) that a new panel should be empowered to review them to attempt to assure researchers that there is nothing amiss there.
BTW--These sources and methods are a little out dated aren't they? I mean after 58 years...it's obviously not the same world.
Of course there is nothing nefarious to be concerned with when it comes to the CIA or the FBI right? ::)
On methods, here is a quote from my article:
"The agency fought to withhold a document captured from Imperial Germany during World War I because it revealed a method of making invisible ink that was an antecedent of a method still used by intelligence agencies."
So, in one way the method was obsolete but it pointed to a new method.
On sources, here is a quote from Mark Zaid:
"… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."
-
Perfect contrarian response.
A contrarian is somebody who goes against popular belief. In this case there is no popular belief. All there is, is your opinion, which is far from popular or credible.
Just how often does this need to be explained to you before you start using words correctly?
Derail the discussion with personal insults.
Projection. The one who is constantly insulting people, simply because they disagree with you, is you!
Take no position on the matter being discussed.
Wrong twice!
I do take a position when I question the authenticity or validity of a piece of evidence, but perhaps that's just too difficult for you to understand.
And with you, there is no discussion. You never ever discuss anything..... instant dismisal, ridicule and misrepresentations is all you ever have to offer.
And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. Claim that someone has not provided "evidence." What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known? Even to you. The case against Oswald is known to everyone here. There is no reason to go over it again and again. You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever, but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game. Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary. Repeat over and over and over...ZZZ.
-
And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. Claim that someone has not provided "evidence." What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known? Even to you. The case against Oswald is known to everyone here. There is no reason to go over it again and again. You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever, but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game. Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary. Repeat over and over and over...ZZZ.
And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole.
And the broken record plays again......
Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."
Well, you most certainly haven't, so that claim is correct.
What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?
Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad. You assume Oswald's guilt and then select the evidence that, in your opinion, supports that predetermined conclusion, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing all the problems there are with that evidence.
You clearly have not understood the difference between evidence and proof.
The case against Oswald is known to everyone here. There is no reason to go over it again and again.
Yes there is. That's what this forum is actually about.
You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever,
No. Wrong on all counts. I don't discount any evidence, but I do question problematic parts of it and want people like you to defend the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
I also don't imply that the evidence is the product of fakery, but I do question the validity and authenticity of that evidence when there is good reason to do so.
And I don't present "outlandish counter explanations" because you have never ever presented anything that needed to be countered.
but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.
How can I be a CTer, when I don't have a theory about any kind of conspiracy. What you can't get through your thick skull is that I couldn't care less about a conspiracy, if there was one. My only interest in this case is to determine if the evidence presented against Oswald can withstand scrutiny and justify the conclusions you and your ilk are drawing from it. You can behave like a cry baby all you want, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you have demonstrated clearly that you are unable or unwilling to defend the official narrative, which tells me all I need to know.
Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.
Commentary like me telling you that you are unable to defend the official narrative, is that what you mean? Is that what you call "making it personal"? Did I hurt your feelings?
What makes you the entitled one, thinking that your opinion is always the right one and that everybody else is stupid and beneath you? Who do you think you are to insult people left, right and center, just because they disagree with you?
-
And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. Claim that someone has not provided "evidence." What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known? Even to you. The case against Oswald is known to everyone here. There is no reason to go over it again and again. You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever, but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game. Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary. Repeat over and over and over...ZZZ.
It's a Catch-22 of sorts here:
Major M.W. Chucklehead continues to pretend that he doesn't insult ppl
Run, Chucky... run
-
And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole.
And the broken record plays again......
Claim that someone has not provided "evidence."
Well, you most certainly haven't, so that claim is correct.
What exactly are we to make of that since the evidence of Oswald's guilt is well known?
Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad. You assume Oswald's guilt and then select the evidence that, in your opinion, supports that predetermined conclusion, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing all the problems there are with that evidence.
You clearly have not understood the difference between evidence and proof.
The case against Oswald is known to everyone here. There is no reason to go over it again and again.
Yes there is. That's what this forum is actually about.
You discount that evidence, imply it is the product of fakery while entertaining all manner of outlandish counter explanations supported by no evidence whatsoever,
No. Wrong on all counts. I don't discount any evidence, but I do question problematic parts of it and want people like you to defend the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
I also don't imply that the evidence is the product of fakery, but I do question the validity and authenticity of that evidence when there is good reason to do so.
And I don't present "outlandish counter explanations" because you have never ever presented anything that needed to be countered.
but then deny you are a CTer because taking any position would expose the absurdity of your lazy contrarian game.
How can I be a CTer, when I don't have a theory about any kind of conspiracy. What you can't get through your thick skull is that I couldn't care less about a conspiracy, if there was one. My only interest in this case is to determine if the evidence presented against Oswald can withstand scrutiny and justify the conclusions you and your ilk are drawing from it. You can behave like a cry baby all you want, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you have demonstrated clearly that you are unable or unwilling to defend the official narrative, which tells me all I need to know.
Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.
Commentary like me telling you that you are unable to defend the official narrative, is that what you mean? Is that what you call "making it personal"? Did I hurt your feelings?
What makes you the entitled one, thinking that your opinion is always the right one and that everybody else is stupid and beneath you? Who do you think you are to insult people left, right and center, just because they disagree with you?
So many insults. The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence. There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you. It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people). The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations. There is nothing further to explain to you. I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense. When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us. Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense.
And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone. Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not. If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime. You can't have it both ways. I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof. But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.
-
So many insults. The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence. There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you. It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people). The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations. There is nothing further to explain to you. I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense. When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us. Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense.
And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone. Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not. If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime. You can't have it both ways. I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof. But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.
But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.
You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald never got his day in court.
Much of the so called evidence against him wouldn’t be admissible if his case went to trial and some of the exculpatory evidence that the Warren Commission ignored would’ve had to be addressed by prosecutors.
-
So many insults. The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence. There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you. It is a matter of public record. You know the evidence (or at least have the same opportunity to understand it as anyone else had you not spent your time here insulting people). The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations. There is nothing further to explain to you. I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense. When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us. Simply playing the defense attorney over and over is rabbit hole nonsense.
And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone. Perhaps thou dost protest too much? If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer whether you are willing to come out of the closet or not. If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime. You can't have it both ways. I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof. But therein lies the path down the rabbit hole.
So many insults.
Unjustly claiming to be the victim of abuse is something all the entitled ones have in common. Pointing out your failures is not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
The case against Oswald is clear and supported by evidence.
Only in your opinion, which is one you seem unable to defend.
There is nothing that I or any other LNer need to do to defend or explain the evidence to you.
So, what is exactly is your purpose for being active on this forum, if it isn't discussing the case and the evidence?
The case against Oswald is clear from the official investigations.
Ah.. the classic appeal to authority fallacy. What we are discussing here is if the evidence is authentic and conclusive as well as whether the WC "official investigation" got it right. There isn't much point in presenting the conclusions of the official investigations as somehow proof that those investigations got it right. If you feel the official investigations got it right, you need to say why you have that opinion, but you never do. Or should I say can't?
I'm not playing the game of going through every piece of that evidence so you can roll out your contrarian nonsense.
That's a lame excuse to cover up the fact that your are simply unable to defend the evidence and the conclusions that were based upon it. One could even conclude that you don't have the confidence in the evidence to discuss and examine it.
When you have some explanation or theory for the evidence that links Oswald to the crime get back to us.
And there is the old classic "I am right until you prove me wrong" BS again.... Nothing ever changes with you.
And the bizarre song and dance about not being a CTer is not fooling anyone.
Really? Then show me one post of mine in which I have put forward a conspiracy theory. If you can't do that, your claim is just another strawman.
If you cast doubt on the mountain of evidence in this case against Oswald, by implication you are a CTer
Exactly the point I made earlier. To you anybody who disagrees with your opinion has to be a CT, in your opinion.
If Oswald didn't do it, then someone else did
Did you figure that out by yourself? Wow....
and a considerable number of people would be involved in framing him to account for all the evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
And there's another strawman....
I can understand your reluctance to take any position on this case since that would require something more of you than just pedantic nitpicking of individual pieces of evidence against Oswald and suggesting others must make the case to your subjective impossible standard of proof.
And the usual complaint about the allegedly "impossible standard of proof". In reality, what you are actually saying here is that the case against Oswald is so weak and the evidence so questionable, that there is no way you can defend it in a credible way. It's just another cop out.
All you have written in your last post comes down to this: It is your opinion that the evidence against Oswald is persuasive and your opinion prevails until proven wrong (which will be impossible to prove as you will never accept it).
You are just blowing hot air and are probably doing so without understanding the irony of you desperately defending the fact that you are not defending the evidence against Oswald.
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.
-
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.
But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.
You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.
You clearly haven't been paying much attention...
But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.
I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.
Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?
-
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way.
You clearly haven't been paying much attention...
But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.
I would appreciate it if you stop lying and making up stuff.
Btw what piece of physical evidence do you want to discuss? Just name one and we'll discuss it.... well?
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.
Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.
Go ahead.
-
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.
Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.
Go ahead.
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.
So, now you are already changing from implying that I never challenge CTs to that I don't challenge them enough. Shifting the goalposts, as you are doing, confirms that you are the one making stuff up.
It seems that you haven't figured out yet that I am no crusader. If a silly claim pops up in a conversation I'm already having, then I might respond to it, but other than than I couldn't care less if some wacko claims that JFK was killed by aliens. I'm not going to waste my time responding to something like that. Instead I just ignore it. If you feel the need to respond to those wacky theories, be my guest, but don't expect others to do the same.
What I don't understand is why you and Richard Smith are constantly complaining about the evidence being scrutinized. If the evidence is only half as conclusive and persuasive as you two claim it is, then it shouldn't be a problem if somebody takes a closer look, right? Yet, here you are again, complaining about exactly that. What's up with that? Feeling insecure, perhaps?
Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.
I haven't seen Stone's latest movie, nor am I interested in watching it. I wasn't impressed by his original JFK movie either.
I take it this means you don't really want to enter into a discussion about the actual physical evidence in this case? Because that's what I asked you, right? Thank you for proving my point. Thumb1:
-
If he played this weird game with the conspiracists, with those making claims that Oswald was a CIA agent or the rifle was planted or "X" or "Y" (it's a very long list of claims) - if he challenged their evidence and their conclusions - then this game would be acceptable in a strange sort of way. I'm not familiar with people discussing any other event this way; essentially making every piece of evidence for any claim disappear. But challenging everyone on every side equally would be consistent.
But he applies this impossible standard only to the allegation/belief that Oswald, alone, killed JFK. When it comes to that argument we get this absurd standard of proof that must be surmounted. Then when asked okay, how do this evidence come to be?, who created it? where did it come from?, we get the disappearing act.
You meet all sorts of odd people on the internet. This is one of those occasions.
Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination. So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard. It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously. Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out. LOL.
-
Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history. For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination. So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard. It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously. Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out. LOL.
Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.
Oh the dramatics.... :D In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway
For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination. So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.
What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.
It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously. Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.
Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?
But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;
Then you make it personal with a lot of commentary.
Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.
and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?
-
Using the standard of proof applied by the contrarian to Oswald's guilt, it would be impossible to prove that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or any other fact in human history.
Oh the dramatics.... :D In reality it's the cheapest cop out there is; not willing to present evidence or defend it because of a pathetic claim that it won't be enough to convince a crititical thinker anyway
For example, there is no evidence linking Booth to the gun (e.g. a photo of him holding it, serial numbers, order forms, prints), no evidence linking the gun to the assassination, chain of custody problems with the gun (two different people claimed to have found it), no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln as that term is pedantically interpreted by the contrarian (they just heard a loud bang and turned to look seeing Booth at that moment holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head - so maybe Lincoln committed suicide and Booth was unlucky enough to just pick it up), Ford's Theatre was Booth's "place of work" so he had every right to be there, there are some witnesses who claimed it wasn't him, and Booth just happened to take a joy ride out of town right after the assassination. So there must be doubt of his guilt under the contrarian's standard.
What a silly rant to make no point whatsoever. But by this "logic" I can not be considered a contrarian as I have no doubt about Booth's guilt.
It's all the more humorous that he takes himself so seriously. Claiming to be in "Europe" and challenging Bill Brown to a debate before chickening out.
Misrepresentations one can expect from a spoiled entitled brat who doesn't get his way and is desperately trying to pivot away from his own failures. Is this really what you are reduced to?
But the biggest irony is that this is coming from the same guy who earlier complained about this;
Another classic example of an entitled one; doing himself what he falsely claims others are doing to him.
and btw, why are you so obsessed with where in the world I am?
So much silly commentary. How about trying to focus? Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not? Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald. There are no photos, documents, serial numbers or prints that link Booth to the alleged murder weapon as there are in Oswald's case. There is no evidence that links the gun to the bullet fired into Lincoln's head. No witness saw Booth carry the pistol into Ford's. Two different people claimed to discover the pistol dropped by Booth (here's a chance to invoke your defense attorney "chain of custody" argument). Booth was an actor who worked at Ford's so his presence there is expected. No one saw him shoot Lincoln as you interpret that term in Oswald's case. Some eyewitnesses cast doubt that it was Booth. Booth might just have decided to get some air after the play by taking a nice horseback ride into the countryside after the assassination. The fact that he didn't pause to figure out what was going on but instead ran across the stage and out the back door are not evidence of flight. Just like Oswald boogying to the movies. And Booth was killed before he was given a trial. So is Booth responsible for the Lincoln assassination or not under your contrarian defense attorney standard?
-
Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?
Entirely irrelevant to the JFK case.
Confused LN nutbag syndrom confirmed.
Wow!
Indeed. "Richard" is desperate to get as far away as he can from presenting evidence of Oswald's guilt and/or defending that evidence.
So much silly commentary. How about trying to focus? Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not? Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald. There are no photos, documents, serial numbers or prints that link Booth to the alleged murder weapon as there are in Oswald's case. There is no evidence that links the gun to the bullet fired into Lincoln's head. No witness saw Booth carry the pistol into Ford's. Two different people claimed to discover the pistol dropped by Booth (here's a chance to invoke your defense attorney "chain of custody" argument). Booth was an actor who worked at Ford's so his presence there is expected. No one saw him shoot Lincoln as you interpret that term in Oswald's case. Some eyewitnesses cast doubt that it was Booth. Booth might just have decided to get some air after the play by taking a nice horseback ride into the countryside after the assassination. The fact that he didn't pause to figure out what was going on but instead ran across the stage and out the back door are not evidence of flight. Just like Oswald boogying to the movies. And Booth was killed before he was given a trial. So is Booth responsible for the Lincoln assassination or not under your contrarian defense attorney standard?
Do you accept that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln or not?
I already told you. Yes I do accept that. You are the one not focussing.
Prove to us that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln
Why? This is the JFK assassination forum.... Are you confused?
using the same standard of proof that you apply to Oswald.
your contrarian defense attorney standard
And what exactly is that standard supposed to be? Otto has also asked you twice already, so be precise....
-
If you believe you challenge the conspiracists claims with anywhere near the effort you engage in when challenging the claim that Oswald shot JFK then I agree: someone is making things up.
So, now you are already changing from implying that I never challenge CTs to that I don't challenge them enough. Shifting the goalposts, as you are doing, confirms that you are the one making stuff up.
It seems that you haven't figured out yet that I am no crusader. If a silly claim pops up in a conversation I'm already having, then I might respond to it, but other than than I couldn't care less if some wacko claims that JFK was killed by aliens. I'm not going to waste my time responding to something like that. Instead I just ignore it. If you feel the need to respond to those wacky theories, be my guest, but don't expect others to do the same.
What I don't understand is why you and Richard Smith are constantly complaining about the evidence being scrutinized. If the evidence is only half as conclusive and persuasive as you two claim it is, then it shouldn't be a problem if somebody takes a closer look, right? Yet, here you are again, complaining about exactly that. What's up with that? Feeling insecure, perhaps?
Try this one: There's a thread on the latest Oliver Stone movie claiming a conspiracy. Go there and challenge Stone's allegations. Let's see you use the same skepticism about evidence against Oswald against Stone's claims.
I haven't seen Stone's latest movie, nor am I interested in watching it. I wasn't impressed by his original JFK movie either.
I take it this means you don't really want to enter into a discussion about the actual physical evidence in this case? Because that's what I asked you, right? Thank you for proving my point. Thumb1:
I clearly wrote what I meant. Nothing "implied" in it. I said nothing about you "never" challenging the conspiracists. I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know everything about all of your posts over these years?
BTW, which conspiracy claim HAVE you challenged? Name one. Go ahead. Let's hear it.
My claim is right there for everyone to read. I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't. I never wrote "enough" either. I said with the same standard. It's all right there.
End of story.
Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. And I was responding to Richard Smith's post not yours.
If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side largely a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question it. It's a mean internet; you'll just have to ride it out.
As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?
And that is that.
-
One: I clearly wrote what I meant. Nothing "implied" in it. I said nothing about you "never" challenging the conspiracists. I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know?.
My claim is right there for everyone to read. I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't. I never wrote "enough" either. I said with the same standard. It's all right there.
End of story.
Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question your logic.
As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?
And that is that.
I explicitly said you don't use the same standard when looking at the evidence against Oswald as you do when looking at the evidence/claims about a conspiracy. You don't.
Now isn't that amazing. Just after saying that you don't know if I ever challenge CTs, because;
I've not read all of your posts over these 5+ years; how would I know?.
you now claim that, despite that, you do know that I don't use the same standard (whatever that might be).
You are not making sense. You either have read all my post, and you do know, or you haven't and you are just making stuff up.
Second, you can do whatever you want here. Duncan has the final word. I don't think I've responded to your posts more than a handful of times in five years. If you only want to scrutinize to any degree the LN side but give the conspiracists side a pass and claim not to be a conspiracy believer then people will notice the double standard and question your logic.
I don't need your permission to do whatever I want here and I certainly do not need your whining whenever you feel that I am not doing what you want me to do. There is a double standard here and it's obvious to all, but it's yours and not mine.
Your so-called "logic" doesn't make any sense. If I am only interested, as I am, in finding out for myself if the case against Oswald holds up under scrutiny, then I don't have to bother with conspiracy theories nor do I have to be a conspiracy theorist. There is no such requirement, except perhaps in the feeble mind of a die hard LN who considers anybody who does not agree with him a conspiracy theorist.
As to Stone: You've proved my point. Instead of responding to the claims made by him - a noted figure making very serious public conspiracy claims - and "scrutinizing" them you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK.
Hilarious. I am not going to watch whatever Stone has to say, when I have already told you that I am not interested in that and nor was I impressed with his original JFK movie. So, why would I waste my time? To please a pathetic LN who demands that I not only watch it but also respond to Stone's claims? I don't think so...
you want to respond to obscure people like me and Richard who believe that Oswald alone killed JFK.
If Stone was a member of this forum, I might also respond to what he has to say, but he isn't and you and "Richard" are, and you guys are not only making hilarious claims but also fail to back then up with anything of substance, which is why I reply. Get it?
Which is more important to take on? Stone or me?
Neither. Stone isn't here and you bring nothing to this forum, by way of defense of the evidence against Oswald. But, as I said before, Stone is not here and you are.
And that is that.
Say who? :D
-
Indeed. "Richard" is desperate to get as far away as he can from presenting evidence of Oswald's guilt and/or defending that evidence.
Isn't it amazing how much time and energy "Richard" devotes on a JFK assassination forum NOT discussing the JFK assassination?
If you wants to question the case against Booth, then go to a Lincoln assassination forum and knock yourself out -- you may even be right, I don't know. But that has exactly ZERO to do with the validity of your case against Oswald.
-
58 years ago today.
What do we know with absolute certainty?
1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.
+