Feel Free to Name Your Shooter

[Paul May]

I wouldn?t bother Tony, that?s the point. There is simply nothing left to discuss re: JFK.  It would be both revolutionary and refreshing to discuss anything new. Has any event EVER in history been as thoroughly researched? I don?t believe so.  So, what are we left with? History says Oswald?s the guy. I can live with that.  Why can?t you?

[John Iacoletti]

It?s been shown and discussed endless times on endless blog forums. Why not simply answer this threads question.  You cannot name a shooter because there is NO evidence pointing to a shooter other than LHO. For one to dispute that 55 years after the crime is insanity. I have said numerous times, one cannot rule with 100% certainty there was not a conspiracy. 99% is good nough for me.

No, it's just been claimed endless times on endless "blog forums" that Oswald did it.  By people who fastidiously avoid the actual evidence just like you do.  You can't get past 50% that Oswald did it, so you have to resort to shifting the burden while claiming a "certainty" that just isn't supported by the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

I wouldn?t bother Tony, that?s the point. There is simply nothing left to discuss re: JFK.  It would be both revolutionary and refreshing to discuss anything new. Has any event EVER in history been as thoroughly researched? I don?t believe so.  So, what are we left with? History says Oswald?s the guy. I can live with that.  Why can?t you?

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out then.

[Steve Taylor]

I've always been partial to the guy withdrawing the rifle on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex underneath Dave Morales' butt.

[Paul May]

You cannot possibly be this stupid in real life.  That role is reserved for Caprio.  So, post, as YOU said, the ACTUAL evidence for conspiracy which you claim I ignore.  This will be fun.

[Bill Chapman]

No, it's just been claimed endless times on endless "blog forums" that Oswald did it.  By people who fastidiously avoid the actual evidence just like you do.  You can't get past 50% that Oswald did it, so you have to resort to shifting the burden while claiming a "certainty" that just isn't supported by the evidence.

Show us your 'actual' evidence

[Bill Chapman]

Naming a shooter is totally different from PROVING that person fired at JFK. Numerous people have been named as a shooter, but like LHO there is no supporting evidence to show that they did.

Off the top of my head these people have been named over the years.

- Malcolm Wallace
- James Files
- Jack Lawrence
- Roscoe White
- JDT
- Harry Weatherford
- Lucien Sarti
- Michael Mertz
- Johnny Roselli
- various Cubans
- Charles Harrelson
- Frenchy

There are more too. Feel free to add their names. The point is - many other shooters have been named, but as usual the LNers just ignore this.

Eliminate the ones without a noticeable bald spot

 

[Jon Banks]

In terms of probable suspects, we know for a fact that LHO had the means and opportunity to shoot JFK.

However, no one can prove he brought a rifle to work or fired the rifle on 11/22/63

He also doesn't have a known motive...