They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[Richard Smith]

Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum

No, that's you...

and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime.

So, what? What does that tell you about his state of mind?

You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind? 

Because in any other way, you have to rely and base your opinions on the speculative opinions of others.

There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald.

Indeed and they often conflict with eachother on just about everything in this case, making them worthless to form an "informed" opinion, unless of course you already have a bias.

Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge.

First hand knowledge about what? Oswald's state of mind? Really.....

We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind.

That's always the problem with you. You always say you have enough information/evidence to support your own conclusion and every time you fail to deliver that information/evidence.

All you've got is a biased opinion, based on your opinion that Oswald did in fact kill Kennedy.... Just admit it. You are not fooling anybody.

Let me ask you a simple question, you probably won't answer, but here goes; do you think it is possible that your opinion about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect?

Insane. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Insane.

No answer to my question.... now, why am I not surprised?

Thank you for proving my point.

[Richard Smith]

No answer to my question.... now, why am I not surprised?

Thank you for proving my point.

You are asking me if it is "possible" that my conjecture about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect? LOL.  Almost anything is possible.  For example, it is possible that you really live in "Europe."  It is possible that you haven't posted here under numerous aliases including several first and one time only posters to support you when you are making a fool of yourself.  It is also remotely possible that you are not a loon but someone who is just spoofing the contrarian line to pass the time.  Many things are possible.  Instead of asking such an idiotic question why not respond to the points made if you disagree?  Or ignore them if you think that they are not relevant.  Why go on and on down the rabbit hole? 

[Martin Weidmann]

You are asking me if it is "possible" that my conjecture about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect? LOL.  Almost anything is possible.  For example, it is possible that you really live in "Europe."  It is possible that you haven't posted here under numerous aliases including several first and one time only posters to support you when you are making a fool of yourself.  It is also remotely possible that you are not a loon but someone who is just spoofing the contrarian line to pass the time.  Many things are possible.  Instead of asking such an idiotic question why not respond to the points made if you disagree?  Or ignore them if you think that they are not relevant.  Why go on and on down the rabbit hole?

So many words and beyond the meaningless "almost anything is possible" remark, it's just another personal attack and idiotic insinuations to divert the attention away from my question.

If you were halfway honest you would answer that it is of course possible that your opinions about Oswald's state of mind are incorrect, but you don't do that simply because you actually believe that they are not correct.

Many things are possible.

Indeed. It is even possible that once in a while you are actually right and honest about something, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

[John Iacoletti]

But is it possible that your name is actually "Richard Smith", and that you really believe with a straight face that the best evidence for Oswald going down the stairs from the sixth floor to the second floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by 12 people along the way is that it happened?

[Richard Smith]

So many words and beyond the meaningless "almost anything is possible" remark, it's just another personal attack and idiotic insinuations to divert the attention away from my question.

If you were halfway honest you would answer that it is of course possible that your opinions about Oswald's state of mind are incorrect, but you don't do that simply because you actually believe that they are not correct.

Many things are possible.

Indeed. It is even possible that once in a while you are actually right and honest about something, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty?  Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is evidence that it is incorrect as you stupidly imply.   Again, there is a lot known about Oswald.  Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him.  Literally millions of pages on the topic.  We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history.  Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.   Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy. 

[Michael Capasse]

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty?  Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is incorrect as you stupidly imply.   Again, there is a lot know about Oswald.  Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him.  Literally millions of pages on the topic.  We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history.  Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.   Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.

Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.