JFK Assassination Forum

It seems to me you're saying, "In spite of all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report (which would have taken oodles and gobs of bad guys to fabricate), I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."

And you got all this BS from the simple fact that all I am asking for is to be presented with conclusive evidence of his guilt?

Oh boy.... no wonder you are a LN

Just a quick question. When you say;

all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report

Are you talking about the evidence that doesn't support the conclusions and claims in the report?

Or am I missing something?


I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that

Again, where did I say that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it? That would imply a preconceived conclusion based on feeling instead of applying the concept of being "innocent until proven guilty"

until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."

Stop being dramatical! Can you place Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired or not?

Where did I say that it must have been a conspiracy? Do you have a problem understanding what is written?

Why don't you just stop making stuff up and provide the conclusive evidence to show that Oswald was guilty?

It seems to me you're saying, "In spite of all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report (which would have taken oodles and gobs of bad guys to fabricate), I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."

Don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist.

All I ever asked for and all I ever wanted to see is the conclusive evidence showing Oswald's guilt.

It is obvious that if Oswald was set up or innocent, that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a logical conclusion, but not one I am interested in.
If there ever was a conspiracy, there is no way in hell anybody can prove that conclusively after so many years.

So, let's just stick to providing the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt, shall we? You provide it and if it is indeed conclusive, that's all I ever wanted to know. Do we have a deal?

In other words, you've fabricated a very comfy position for your "it must have been a conspiracy" self.

Well done!

Layman's view from me:

The US and Israel should mine the ports and harbors of Kharg Island, and use drones to surveil and protect. 

Everyone says oil-tanker captains will never run a mine blockade, or even the mere threat of mines.

90% of Iranian oil leaves through Kharg Island.

Seems like a low-risk, high-leverage op to mine Kharg Island.

Keep up pressure on missile-launchers, drones, and all new production, wipe out any factory even related to missile-drone production.

I sure hope Trump doesn't do a TACO. He let Hamas off the hook. Trump has been better on the IRGC than any previous president, but...he also likes to do a deal.

  I believe at this point Trump is squeezing the countries that did not help the USA when called on. They badly need the oil tankers flowing through. We will pay more for gas here in the USA, but will not suffer any serious shortages due to Trump's "Drill Baby Drill" philosophy +Venezuela. Trump has ALL the leverage now on both "friends" and foe.  Trump now has the USA in the catbird seat. This includes Trump setting NATO straight.

This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt. They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away. One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole. When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.

You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice.  I'm not even asking you to prove how it happened. Just tell us another way it could have happened. There simply is no plausible alternative. if there was, some conspiracy hobbyist would have found one after 62 years. But of course, there is no plausible alternative to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.

I've served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In each case, the judge instructed the jury to make logical inferences from the evidence presented.
This is how that process would apply to the JFKA.

Given that:
3 shells were found at the location where a shooter was seen and
a fragmented bullet was found in the limo and an intact bullet was found at the hospital where the shooting victims were taken and
all the shells and bullets were positively matched to a rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on it and
there were fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day and
and a bag was found near the shooter's location with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
Marina said Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
there is a paper trail establishing that Oswald bought the rifle by mail from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. and
there were pictures taken of Oswald with the rifle and
Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes stacked at the shooters window oriented as they would be if he was facing down Elm Street
the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that Oswald brought the rifle to work and assassinated JFK with it. And we haven't even talked about the evidence that he killed Tippit.

No one piece of evidence by itself proves Oswald's guilt but collectively, the body of evidence leaves no doubt. The case against Oswald is greater than the some of its parts. It is absurd to think you could have all that evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent. That is how logical inferences are arrived at. An alternative explanation might be plausible for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to stretch for alternatives for each and every piece of evidence, reasonable doubt vanishes.

Since you brought up Frazier's description of the bag, Frazier never measured the bag. Tbe bag was measured by investigators and found to be long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano. Frazier could only estimate the size of the bag by glancing at it over his shoulder. At the time he saw the bag, he would have no reason to think the size of the bag would become important. The estimate he gave was based on memory. He was not asked to estimate the size of bag when he was observing it. But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.

If juries routinely applied the same thought process to the evidence in other criminal cases that conspiracy hobbyists apply to the evidence against Oswald in the JFKA, few if any people would ever be convicted. If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is famliar with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.

This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt.

First of all; I'm not a "conspiracy hobbyist" (whatever that means) as I couldn't care less if Oswald did it or not. My position is a simple one; show me the evidence that proves that Oswald did it. Don't tell me fanciful stories based on conjecture and questionable evidence, but show that so-called "damning evidence". I don't dismiss the evidence that's there. Never have and never will. It is what it is, but don't try to convince me that Oswald's print being on a bag is conclusive evidence of his guilt. Even less so, when the bag itself can't be authenticated!

The bag was made out of TSBD material. There is nobody who saw Oswald make that bag or even be close to the packaging area on Thursday afternoon. Frazier did not see Oswald carry a paper bag with him to Irving, or he would have said so. What Frazier did say and still says to this day is that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle. Now, if you want to complain about dismissing evidence, why don't you start by not dismissing what Frazier said by simply saying that he was mistaken! He showed two FBI agents to where on the backseat of his car the bag reached and they measured it. Off hand I can't remember the size (I'm getting too old for this crap!) but I do recall it matched the size the bag would have had to have been for Oswald to carry it in the way he saw him carry it.

They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away

Nobody needs to make the case for Oswald's innocence. Guys like you need to prove his guilt and you can't. That's why you complain about nonsense like this. If the case against Oswald was strong and conclusive enough than it wouldn't matter if some people think Oswald is innocent! So, tell me, what evidence exactly can't be explained?

One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole.

What body of evidence would that be? All you have by way of physical evidence regarding the entire trip to Irving is a paper bag and even that's questionable. Everything else is assumption and idiotic BS like a police officer still seeing the shape of a rifle in a blanket after the weapon was removed. Don't make me laugh!

When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.

And there it is! Translation; I first believe Oswald is guilty, never mind how weak and questionable the evidence is, and than I conclude that he must have brought a rifle to work (for which you also haven't got a shred of evidence) and used it to kill JFK. Never mind that nobody has ever been able to place Oswald at the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. It is all hot air and you have fallen for it!

You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice.

And what if I only want to see the conclusive evidence of his guilt, without making a case for conspiracy. What then?

There simply is no plausible alternative.

Isn't there? Pray tell, how did you ever reach that conclusion? Did you see and examine all the evidence that was gathered and looked at all the stuff the investigators ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed? I seriously doubt it. Just like you now believe everything the nut currently in the White House tells you, you've just taken the WC's word for it. It's the appeal to authority fallacy, pure and simple!

I've served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In each case, the judge instructed the jury to make logical inferences from the evidence presented.
This is how that process would apply to the JFKA.

Given that:
3 shells were found at the location where a shooter was seen and
a fragmented bullet was found in the limo and an intact bullet was found at the hospital where the shooting victims were taken and
all the shells and bullets were positively matched to a rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on it and
there were fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day and
and a bag was found near the shooter's location with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
Marina said Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
there is a paper trail establishing that Oswald bought the rifle by mail from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. and
there were pictures taken of Oswald with the rifle and
Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes stacked at the shooters window oriented as they would be if he was facing down Elm Street
the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that Oswald brought the rifle to work and assassinated JFK with it. And we haven't even talked about the evidence that he killed Tippit.

I'm not going to bother to go into every detail of this, because there would be no point. What you have given me is the prosecution's side of the argument and it contains many false, unproven and questionable claims. For instance; there is no evidence whatsoever which shirt Oswald was wearing at the TSBD on Friday morning. Yet here you are claiming it as fact!

So, if you had to make logical inferences from the evidence presented, wouldn't you not also have to take into account the arguments of the defence? But let's say, for argument's sake, that the rifle found at the TSBD is indeed the same one shown in the BY photos and the LN claim that Oswald owned that rifle since the purchase from Klein's is true. Doesn't that mean that any fibers found on the rifle allegedly matching Oswald's shirt could have gotten on that rifle at any time? Of course it does! So, what makes you so sure that the transfer of fibers took place at the TSBD on Friday morning?

Since you brought up Frazier's description of the bag, Frazier never measured the bag. Tbe bag was measured by investigators and found to be long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano. Frazier could only estimate the size of the bag by glancing at it over his shoulder. At the time he saw the bag, he would have no reason to think the size of the bag would become important. The estimate he gave was based on memory. He was not asked to estimate the size of bag when he was observing it. But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.

And there is the classic LN "he never measured the bag" BS. Frazier, said that Oswald was wearing the package in the cup of his hand and below the shoulder. That gives you the dimensions of the package, regardless if the actual bag was bigger or not. You do know and understand that a paper bag can be folded, right? But far more important, on the evening after the assassination, Frazier was being question by DPD officers and given a polygraph (which he passed). He was shown the actual paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest (no in situ photo, remember!) and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. No matter what they threatened with, he stuck to his story even when he was still considered to be a suspect himself. It drove Captain Fritz to the point where he wanted to hit Frazier and Lt Day started to speculate (and there is documentation for this) that Oswald might have hidden this bag (the one allegedly from the 6th floor) in an old supermarkt bag. Just how desperate could they get. Ultimately, they just buried this story but the paperwork that still remains confirms it actually happened. And that should tell you all you need to know about how desperate they were to keep that paper bag in play!

But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.

Whatever works for you, I guess. You do understand that by coming up with this speculation you have just shown that even you don't know any detail involving the paper bag for sure. All you are desperately coming up with is two arguments to support your preconceived assumption that Oswald was guilty. And they are in fact crappy arguments. First of all, there is no evidence at all that there ever was a thorough search of the entire TSBD. In fact, if such a search did happen, why didn't they instantly find the clipboard and Oswald's jacket in the Domino room? Secondly, Oswald arrived at the TSBD at 8 AM carrying a paper bag. Kennedy was shot around 12.30 PM, which leaves an entire morning to dispose of a paper bag, which would have been easy, as the bag you claim Oswald used was in fact made from TSBD materials. So, all Oswald would have needed to do to make the bag disappear is to tear it up and dump it in a rubbish bin at the packaging department. Nobody would have been the wiser, but guys like you believe it was perfectly normal for him to fold up the bag (without leaving fresh prints) and leaving it behind at the scene of the crime.

Are you capable of rational thought? And if so, just how much thought have you actually put into looking at this kind of stuff?

If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is familiar [sic] with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.

Of course there is reasonable doubt. Not only about some of the evidence that we know of but also because of what should have been there but isn't. All this pathetic whining about far more reasonable people than you not instantly accepting your silly claim about there being no doubt is alike to a toddler whining about people not liking his favorite toy.

The bottom line is a simple one. If there really was no reasonable doubt a forum like this would not exist and people would not be discussing this case more than 60 years after the fact!