So many words. I know that you don't accept the WC's evidence. That is because you have an impossible standard of proof when it comes to evidence of Oswald's guilt. You didn't ask me to convince you of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor. An impossible task because you are a CTer who has apparently concluded he is innocent. You asked what "my" evidence was. I've noted several times there was an extensive investigation of the case by state and federal authorities and that evidence is widely available. That evidence convinces me and any reasonable person of Oswald's guilt. I have not taken a magnifying glass to the TSBD looking for additional evidence like Sherlock Holmes as you appear to stupidly suggest is necessary. Continual deflections asking for "my" evidence are the kind of thing that a CTer contrarian uses to deflect away from their own conclusions. You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not? If not, then concede that your position is that Oswald is innocent, and you are a CTer. Good grief. Your struggle to avoid accepting your own conclusions is hilarious. Like a child refusing to acknowledge that there is no Santa Claus.
I know that you don't accept the WC's evidence.Utter BS. You don't know anything of the kind. Where the WC provides actual evidence I have no problem accepting it. What I don't accept are the superficial assumptions not supported by evidence and cherry picked misrepresentations of that evidence that you have blindly embraced as any proper zealot would.
That is because you have an impossible standard of proof when it comes to evidence of Oswald's guilt. And there is the classic LN whining again, when they can not produce conclusive and persuasive evidence they get upset because the person they are trying to convince isn't fooled by their smoke and mirrors act. It's like a jehovah witness who complains that those who do not accept his beliefs and teachings is unreasonable. What it really is, is a pathetic admission of the weakness of their own case!
You didn't ask me to convince you of Oswald's presence on the 6th floor. That is exactly what I asked you to do, after you made the foolish claim that the evidence showed Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and then added that he must have gone down the stairs unnoticed as the so-called "best evidence" for that was that he did.
An impossible task because you are a CTer who has apparently concluded he is innocent. More BS. I have made no such conclusion, no matter how many times you repeat that bogus claim. Oswald not being the shooter doesn't automatically make him innocent, but it seems that's way over your head.
You are just trying to weasel your way out of a mess that you yourself have created. It's a standard argument of a loser.
You asked what "my" evidence was. A logical and reasonable question when you claim that the evidence shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor and that he came down the stairs.
I've noted several times there was an extensive investigation of the case by state and federal authorities and that evidence is widely available. That evidence convinces me and any reasonable person of Oswald's guilt. No reasonable person hides behind a pathetic appeal to authority and says "it must be true because they told me so"! And, btw, just because the biggest fool considers himself to be a reasonable person, doesn't mean that he is!
I have not taken a magnifying glass to the TSBD looking for additional evidence like Sherlock Holmes as you appear to stupidly suggest is necessary. Well, it's pretty obvious that you didn't take a closer look at the details, which would have been a lot less stupid than just blindly accepting everything at face value. In criminal cases it's very often - if not always - that the details matter. A superficial case that on the surface seems solid, frequently falls apart when the details are examined more closely.
So, the bottom line is now that you actually admit to having no personal opinion about this case and that all you do is repeat the WC narrative you, for some weird reason, so desperately want to defend but not examine more closely.
Despite your foolish claims to the contrary, you simply have no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor and that he came down the stairs. Instead you just accept the WC assumptions that, as they have "concluded" Oswald killed Kennedy, he must have been on the 6th floor and he must have gone down the stairs. In other words, you've got nothing!
That's all I wanted to know....
You have said that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. Can you explain to us how Oswald could still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" or not?I never claimed that Oswald could still be the assassin if he didn't come down the stairs, so there is no reason for me to explain this.
