A straight line

[Bill Chapman]

Nobody is twisting what you said.

What makes you think my remark was about your lame "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." "stance" ?

Your statement:
"This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious."

You are twisting what I actually said in an abundantly transparent manner by exchanging 'probably' (my word) for 'possibly' (your word). The two have completely different connotations. Agreed?

[Bill Chapman]

And so it remains a theory.
>A theory that is plausible and coherent, as opposed to diddly squat from CT tall foreheads.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
> Nope. OJ for instance

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
> The CYA is a given

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
> Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk
>Your first step would be to present one

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
> LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters? And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
> Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter. Remind them that they are also invited to name their shooter and present a coherent counter-narrative

[Martin Weidmann]

Your statement:
"This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious."

You are twisting what I actually said in an abundantly transparent manner by exchanging 'probably' (my word) for 'possibly' (your word). The two have completely different connotations. Agreed?

Again, what makes you think I was referring to your "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." remark?

And so it remains a theory.
>A theory that is plausible and coherent, as opposed to diddly squat from CT tall foreheads.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
> Nope. OJ for instance

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
> The CYA is a given

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
> Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk
>Your first step would be to present one

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
> LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters? And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
> Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter. Remind them that they are also invited to name their shooter and present a coherent counter-narrative

A theory that is plausible and coherent

Which is only your opinion. Some beg to differ...

Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Point out where I claimed that?

LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters?

So, I write "weak case" and you read "fake evidence"? Talk about twisting words....

And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

No need to say it. That's already obvious.

Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter.

Who would "your shooter" be? I wasn't aware I had (or needed) one.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material and most were politically motivated.

HSCA chairman Henry Gonzalez  and Chief Counsel Richard Sprague both resigned because of disagreements over the investigative techniques used. And Sprague's Robert K. Tanenbaum also left shortly thereafter.

All private and news investigations were always restricted by the information that was already available at the time of those investigations. It's a bit like playing basketball with one hand tied behind your back.

The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated? Restricted by the information available?

They didn't conduct their own interviews? Talk to witnesses themselves? They were "politically motivated"? Really?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.

[Martin Weidmann]

The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated? Restricted by the information available?

They didn't conduct their own interviews? Talk to witnesses themselves? They were "politically motivated"? Really?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.

The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated?

Do you have a problem reading or just understanding what is written?

Restricted by the information available?

Did those news outlets have full access to the files and physical evidence stored at the National Archives?

They didn't conduct their own interviews?

Who said that?

Talk to witnesses themselves?

They probably did... but which ones? Probably only those mentioned in the WC report, right?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

Since when does quantity of witnesses being interviewed equal quality of witnesses?

Btw what was the objective of PBS Frontline for their "investigation"? Did they investigate the case or did they just want to find out "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald"?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.

Perhaps you should try to understand the information provided to you before making a judgment, but then on the other hand you're not a LN for nothing, right?

[Tim Nickerson]

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material

What other material should they have used?

[Martin Weidmann]

What other material should they have used?

What about the material they could have gathered during a real investigation of their own, rather than just rely (time after time) on the material that went through Hoover's filter?

[Tim Nickerson]

What about the material they could have gathered during a real investigation of their own, rather than just rely (time after time) on the material that went through Hoover's filter?

What material would that be exactly and just how would they go about gathering it? Should the material gathered by the Dallas Police and examined by the FBI be ignored?