A straight line

[Ray Mitcham]

You mean the HSCA investigation who said

 "The HSCA found that although the Commission and the different agencies and departments examining Kennedy's assassination performed in good faith and were thorough in their investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, they performed with "varying degrees of competency" and the search for possible conspiracy was inadequate.:2 The HSCA determined, based on available evidence, that the probable conspiracy did not involve the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The committee also stated that the conspiracy did not involve any organized crime group, anti-Castro group, nor the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service."

Seems your HSCA don't support your view that there was no conspiracy.

Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you? Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

FTR, they never said that there was a conspiracy. They said there was probably a conspiracy.

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

[Tim Nickerson]

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

Right. That's what I said.

Do you agree with the findings of the HSCA?  Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

[Ray Mitcham]

Do you agree with the findings of the HSCA?  Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

I asked you first.

[Tim Nickerson]

I asked you first.

I already answered.

[Andrew Mason]

Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you? Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

FTR, they never said that there was a conspiracy. They said there was probably a conspiracy.

What is wrong with agreeing with some of their conclusions and disagreeing with others?  I disagree with their conclusion that there was a second gunman because that conclusion is based on very unreliable acoustic analysis that has since been completely discredited, let alone that it fits with no other evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Probably the same thing that is circular about the fact that Seaport Traders sent the revolver to Oswald's PO box under Hidell's name and the fact that the revolver was in Oswald's possession in the Texas Theatre.

"fact".  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

You CTs are so predictable, in court I'd present the established predictable behaviour of Oswald's New Orleans Post Office application with AJ Hidell written in Oswald's handwriting and you'd present...... nothing.

"predictable behaviour".  LOL.  That's about as convincing as "prohibitive probability".  I'd present an FBI report saying that Oswald did not indicate that Hidell would receive mail through the box, and you'd present "predictable behaviour".

[John Iacoletti]

Life can turn on a dime...

Says the guy with zero evidence that said rifle was ever assembled with a dime.