Oswald Probably Did It

[Martin Weidmann]

Really Martin? You seem like a smart guy. I think you know the answer for that. But, I will try and be as clear as I can. The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there. I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you? Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president. The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?

The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there.

Fair enough, but shouldn't you be asking people who actually put forward such a theory, rather than just randomly ask anybody who doesn't share your opinion?

I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you?

Yes, that was clear since the moment you joined this forum. Let me be equally clear; I have serious doubts about the veracity of the WC's conclusions, but I do not know (and probably never will) where it gets me. My concern is that the case was possibly wrapped around an already dead Oswald regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. How can Hoover write, within hours of the murder, that the sole assassin was in custody even before the first shred of evidence was collected? Can you explain that to me?

Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president.

But that's not how the game is played. You are shifting the burden of proof on others rather than standing up for and defending what you believe. What is the problem with dealing with people who, for whatever reason, dispute the evidence? That's what LNs do here!

The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?

Why ask a question you know full well can't be answered by anybody on this board? Where does it get you? Do you think that not being able to name a conspirator somehow confirms by default that Oswald was the lone gunman after all? Is that it?

[Wesley Johnson]

Wesley, I agree with Martin. It's not up to him and other Oswald defenders to present evidence that points to any one but Oswald. His job is to deal with the evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.

"His job is to deal with the evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt."

I didn't know this was a job Tim. Do they get paid? Where do I sign up? It's just a fun hobby for me Tim. I have been studying the assassination for decades now. I use to believe in a conspiracy until I realized one day that the "conspiracy authors" never presented or cited any real evidence to exonerate Oswald. Most of these guys will not even say which theory they back. It's just in fun Tim that I do this. I believe Oswald acted alone and until someone presents any new evidence to the contrary I always will. 

[Wesley Johnson]

🖒I am not an "Oswald" defender though. I go where the evidence leads. If it lead to LHO then I would admit that, but it doesn't.

LHO could still have been involved, but the WC didn't see fit to investigate how.

"If it lead to LHO then I would admit that, but it doesn't."

Well Rob, that is exactly why I ask. In your opinion who does it lead to then? 

[Wesley Johnson]

The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there.

Fair enough, but shouldn't you be asking people who actually put forward such a theory, rather than just randomly ask anybody who doesn't share your opinion?

I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you?

Yes, that was clear since the moment you joined this forum. Let me be equally clear; I have serious doubts about the veracity of the WC's conclusions, but I do not know (and probably never will) where it gets me. My concern is that the case was possibly wrapped around an already dead Oswald regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. How can Hoover write, within hours of the murder, that the sole assassin was in custody even before the first shred of evidence was collected? Can you explain that to me?

Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president.

But that's not how the game is played. You are shifting the burden of proof on others rather than standing up for and defending what you believe. What is the problem with dealing with people who, for whatever reason, dispute the evidence? That's what LNs do here!

The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?

Why ask a question you know full well can't be answered by anybody on this board? Where does it get you? Do you think that not being able to name a conspirator somehow confirms by default that Oswald was the lone gunman after all? Is that it?

I'm not shifting anything Martin. I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald. Okay, now we can move on. One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders" as Tim called them, is this Martin. Let's take the good old "mauser" story. We all should be familiar with that one. So, a rifle was found on the 6th floor by Officers Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone. They did not touch the rifle but stated in looked like a "mauser". Upon closer inspection it was revealed that the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm. Are you familiar with rifles Martin? There were a lot of "mauser" type rifles made in Europe by a few different countries. It was a good design. One of the main reasons is the box magazines they used. The rifles looked similar. I got my youngest son a Mosin-Nagant that looks similar. When CTers and whomever else disputes this and goes back to "Weitzman and Boone" said it was a "mauser". Then you get all these CTers claiming a conspiracy, and a cover-up because a "mauser" was found and they changed it with the M-C 6.5 mm. By implication Martin, if that were true, that means that Captain Will Fritz and Lt. Day were part of a conspiracy, which is ridiculous. And to build on that why were Weitzman and Boone left alive? They saw a "mauser!" You see where I'm going Martin? It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on. It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.   

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not shifting anything Martin. I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald. Okay, now we can move on. One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders" as Tim called them, is this Martin. Let's take the good old "mauser" story. We all should be familiar with that one. So, a rifle was found on the 6th floor by Officers Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone. They did not touch the rifle but stated in looked like a "mauser". Upon closer inspection it was revealed that the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm. Are you familiar with rifles Martin? There were a lot of "mauser" type rifles made in Europe by a few different countries. It was a good design. One of the main reasons is the box magazines they used. The rifles looked similar. I got my youngest son a Mosin-Nagant that looks similar. When CTers and whomever else disputes this and goes back to "Weitzman and Boone" said it was a "mauser". Then you get all these CTers claiming a conspiracy, and a cover-up because a "mauser" was found and they changed it with the M-C 6.5 mm. By implication Martin, if that were true, that means that Captain Will Fritz and Lt. Day were part of a conspiracy, which is ridiculous. And to build on that why were Weitzman and Boone left alive? They saw a "mauser!" You see where I'm going Martin? It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on. It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.

I'm not shifting anything Martin.

Of course you are

I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald.

Did I?

One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders"

Does questioning the evidence equal being an "Oswald defender" to you?

Are you familiar with rifles Martin?

Not really. I don't like them and don't want to be near them.

You see where I'm going Martin?

No, not really....

It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on.

Why would you involve the entire FBI when there are all sorts of ways that documentation could have ended up where it was found?

It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.

That's a classic LN argument that I simply do not believe is true. Have you ever heard of Operation Mincemeat? Granted, it's not completely the same thing but it is a classic example of how a hand full of people were able to fool the entire German leadership in WW2 with 100% fake evidence. There a documentary on you tube about it. Do you think there are no similar creative minds anywhere in the country? 

[Alice Thorton]

I have found numerous books and websites not necessarily confirming that it wasn't Oswald, but very good theories that he was just planted as the decoy in the whole scheme. I believe that a man named Malcolm Wallace was the one that shot and killed Kennedy. He clearly is not a shy guy when it comes to killing people and take a look at this article and let me know what you think. I can show you my other evidence as well that I have found.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm

[Bill Chapman]

No. That's only true in your fantasy world.

WHOOSH

Again you pretend to miss the point

[Alice Thorton]

WHOOSH

Again you pretend to miss the point

Seriously that's all you have to say. Please tell me and provide evidence what makes you 100% believe that it was certainly Oswald who did it. Here is another article talking about LBJ.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/jfk-conspiracy-theorist-points-finger-at-lbj/3660765/