Who is sitting up in Zapruder @Z456?

[John Iacoletti]

In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Says the guy who knows nothing, has proven nothing, and just believes.

Sounds just like a certain (unmentionable hereabouts, as per forum rules) irreligious, dogmatic belief system.

Yet another thing you pontificate about that you have no understanding of.

[John Iacoletti]

The Oswald defenders make the same arguments that the Trump supporters do about the alleged stolen election. You present evidence and they deny it.

You have it exactly backwards.  The Trump cult claims that their "stolen election" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.

Likewise, the WC cult claims that their "Oswald did it" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.

You cannot reason with conspiracy fanatics. Whatever evidence you produce will simply be said to be evidence of the conspiracy.

You cannot reason with WC fanatics.  Whenever you show them the problems with their "evidence" and the fallacies in their arguments, they ignore it and just continue to parrot the same old unsupported claims.

The assassination has been investigated, off and on, for more than half a century. The government had investigations, news organizations conducted investigations, reporters interviewed the witnesses at the scene, historians like Caro have done extensive work on the key figures, other reporters like Hersh and Weiner did investigations. This is the most studied event in American history.

Yep, there is no shortage of investigations.  And assumptions.  And conjectures.  And opinions.

And the totality of it all of it leads to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK.

No, it leads people who already believe the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK to reassert their belief over and over again.

Like Trump and his supporters, they just deny that investigations show that the election wasn't stolen.

Another thing that WC fanatics never understand is that the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that their claim is true, not on anyone else to demonstrate that it didn't happen that way.  Election "fraud" claimants cannot demonstrate that any election-changing fraud occurred.  "Oswald did it" claimants cannot demonstrate that Oswald did it.

It is literally impossible to reason with such a mindset.

It's impossible to reason when you are not actually employing reason.

[John Iacoletti]

Nobody needed help or even a motive to do what Oswald probably did
Just do did it for the hell of it, and buggered off

Just sayin' 

That's all you ever do -- just say things.

[John Iacoletti]

Most likely. He retrieved his rifle the day before the assassination,

There's nothing that makes this "most likely" -- it's pure conjecture.

He left the building shortly after the shooting. There is no evidence at all that he showed any interest in what happened. Is JFK dead? Did they catch the shooters? There is no evidence he had any concern about this.

This is where his defenders say, "Lots of people didn't care about the shooting." Right, Oswald was just like "lots of other people." Nothing distinguished him from them.

We're going around in circles. The evidence is known. One can accept it or reject it.

Referring to "there is no evidence at all that he showed any interest in what happened" as "evidence" is where your "reason" goes astray. That's not evidence of anything.  You don't even know for a fact that Oswald knew about the shooting when he left work.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

And here, like the Trump defenders, one wishes away the evidence. Close your eyes, cover your ears and deny.

Oswald talked to no one around the building, no co-workers, about what happened. All said they never saw him after lunch. Not a one said he stopped to talk to them. There is no evidence he talked to anyone on the bus about the shooting. There is no evidence he talked to Whatley, the bus cab driver, about what happened just outside the building where he worked. There is no evidence he talked to Roberts when he went to his rooming house.

Again and again and again he had opportunities to talk about the shooting, to inquire about the shooting, to learn about the shooting, to ask questions about the shooting. And each time - as the evidence shows - he did nothing. Not a word from him about what happened.

The evidence clearly and demonstrably shows he never inquired at all about what happened. Not once.

But like the Trump supporters who deny he's a liar a fraud, you'll deny all of this. Trump cultists are like Oswald cultists. Their guy can't do anything wrong at all. Cults of personalities are wrong and dangerous. But a cult of defenders for Trump? And one for the pathetic Oswald? Really, this is what you spend your life doing online?

Trump supporters demanded an investigation; they got one, multiple ones. Oswald supporters wanted an investigation; they got one, multiple ones. In both cases the supporters reject the findings. Everyone lied or is a liar. They're all corrupt. They all are in on it.

They simply cannot accept facts. End of story.

[Bill Chapman]

Says the guy who knows nothing, has proven nothing, and just believes.

Yet another thing you pontificate about that you have no understanding of.

AW, poor misunderstood Johnny; and on two fronts no less.

What you think you know and understand is soaked in biased opinion
Where did I say I could prove anything here
I believe I saw you kneeling at the killer's grave
That's all anybody needs to know about Oswald-lovers

[Bill Chapman]

That's all you ever do -- just say things.

You lot have been saying things for 58 years
Anybody but Oswald, eh Tex

[Bill Chapman]

You have it exactly backwards.  The Trump cult claims that their "stolen election" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.

Likewise, the WC cult claims that their "Oswald did it" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.

You cannot reason with WC fanatics.  Whenever you show them the problems with their "evidence" and the fallacies in their arguments, they ignore it and just continue to parrot the same old unsupported claims.

Yep, there is no shortage of investigations.  And assumptions.  And conjectures.  And opinions.

No, it leads people who already believe the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK to reassert their belief over and over again.

Another thing that WC fanatics never understand is that the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that their claim is true, not on anyone else to demonstrate that it didn't happen that way.  Election "fraud" claimants cannot demonstrate that any election-changing fraud occurred.  "Oswald did it" claimants cannot demonstrate that Oswald did it.

It's impossible to reason when you are not actually employing reason.

'Likewise, the WC cult claims that their "Oswald did it" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.'

Markham already did that