Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[MacTheKnife]

Oswald said Frazier was mistaken and he may well have been...I have not heard the claim he said it was 27 in. long....still too short to be a rifle and Frazier said the package was not large enough to conceal a rifle and that he did not believe Oswald was the assassin.

Thus another failed piece of weak evidence. Thus no proof Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Frazier had to endure a hostile interrogation and hours of confinement--the Feds ruined his reputation for no good reason...thus for years afterward he found it difficult to find employment.

You have hit rock bottom and now instead of attempting to discuss this tragedy rationally you are making yourself look childishly ridiculous.

Remember and do not ever forget that most Americans reject the WC report ....they failed in their mission. Case closed.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Oswald said Frazier was mistaken and he may well have been...I have not heard the claim he said it was 27 in. long....still too short to be a rifle and Frazier said the package was not large enough to conceal a rifle and that he did not believe Oswald was the assassin.

Thus another failed piece of weak evidence. Thus no proof Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Frazier had to endure a hostile interrogation and hours of confinement--the Feds ruined his reputation for no good reason...thus for years afterward he found it difficult to find employment.

You have hit rock bottom and now instead of attempting to discuss this tragedy rationally you are making yourself look childishly ridiculous.

Remember and do not ever forget that most Americans reject the WC report ....they failed in their mission. Case closed.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

Pathetic....you have a closed mind and have been easily duped by the Warren Commission B.S.

Once again....there is no real proof that he bought the rifle...only circumstantial evidence.

The rifle was purchaed via mail order. It was sent to a p.o. box supposedly owned by Oswald.

Whoever purchased the rifle used the name Hillel.....anyone could have set up a p.o. box in Oswalds name....thus there is no concrete proof as in eyewitness testimony that someone saw Oswald purchase the rifle.

The possibility that whoever framed Oswald thus cannot be excluded as the purchasers of the rifle. Thus the allegation that Oswald bought the rifle could have been easily shot down in a courtroom by any competent defense attorney.

Try and think a little bit instead of just reposting over and over the warren commission bull shit.

As in...what would you have done if you wanted to set up Oswald as a patsy?....and assume you had all the resources of the c.i.a. and the mafia at your disposal?

Lots of people pose for photograps with with weapons that are not theirs....not unusual at all.

Yes, the rifle was found in the place where Oswald worked....he did not work there alone...at least 60 other people worked there and there is a huge possibility that someone who did not work there could have slipped into the building. Furthermore..........Oswald would have had to be suicidal or insance to kill someone from a bldg. he worked in. Look at the plan he had for taking a pot shot at General Walker(if he really did...that has not been proven either)and still yet you want to claim he planned to assassinate the President and had no plan to escape??? Unbelievable.

The bullets have been linked to the rifle but that does not mean Oswald pulled the trigger my dear.

If the wrapper for the rifle was found and there is conjecture about that....it proves nothing anyhow. So the gun was wrapped up WHOOPEEE but who wrapped it little one? Oh you say Oswald of course...but you have no proof of that.

Regarding the parrafin b.s.-----time and again you have been shown that parrafin tests are totally unreliable...yet you keep citing that as evidence....which proves you are not honest.

Oswald said he left because there was so much confusion going on he was sure the bldg. would be shut down and it was....thus he left.

The so called evasive action you claim oswald took on his way home...was not intended to be evasive at all....he got on a public bus which became stalled in traffic so he got out and grabbed a taxi....once again you are not telling the truth.

Who really shot officer J.D. Tippet....you must have seen the evidence posted before on here that shows Oswald did not.


Thus......you are left with nothing but your copy of a fallacious warren commission report which the majority of the American People still reject.

 

[hadit]

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

 

[candycorn]

Oswald said Frazier was mistaken and he may well have been...I have not heard the claim he said it was 27 in. long....still too short to be a rifle and Frazier said the package was not large enough to conceal a rifle and that he did not believe Oswald was the assassin.

Thus another failed piece of weak evidence. Thus no proof Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Frazier had to endure a hostile interrogation and hours of confinement--the Feds ruined his reputation for no good reason...thus for years afterward he found it difficult to find employment.

You have hit rock bottom and now instead of attempting to discuss this tragedy rationally you are making yourself look childishly ridiculous.

Remember and do not ever forget that most Americans reject the WC report ....they failed in their mission. Case closed.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

You cannot prove Oswald bought the rifle....how many times do you have to be told that the rifle was purchased via mail order. No one can identify Oswald as the purchaser.

The alternatives to your contentions are as follows:

Someone posed as Oswald to rent a PO Box.
Someone using an alias that Oswald was known to use bought a rifle.
Someone manufactured a picture of Oswald holding the rifle.
Someone stole the rifle out of Oswald’s garage.
Someone planted Oswald's rifle in the TSBD
Someone got Mr. Frazier to lie about the package Oswald brought work that day.
Someone got Mr. Frazier to invent a story about Oswald bringing curtain rods.
Someone had to manufacture evidence of Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle.

Those are the minimum requirements for the alternative you propose. We’re leaving out Oswald being placed at the TSBD that day and forcing Oswald to take the evasive moves after he shot Kennedy.

And someone had to get out of the TSBD without being seen.

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was the gunman.

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

Utter gibberish.

There is no logical reason for you to believe half of the stuff you’ve posted in this thread alone. There are no logical conclusions on your part.

 

[candycorn]

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

The absolute silence from the supposed members of the conspiracy is also important. After this much time, SOMEONE would have let something slip if they were involved, perhaps to clear their conscience on their death bed, but there's nothing.

Someone else who has not kept up....as in E. Howard Hunt CIA operative did confess on his death bed....as well as Santo Trafficante mob boss from Tampa, Fl.

As well as James Files though not on his death bed ...whilst in prison confessed in an interview and a video was made of it and it is extremely detailed.

Wow, 3 confessions to the same crime. LOL So how many shooters do you have in Dealy Plaza now?

 

[candycorn]

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

Utter nonsense....all you display is ignorance....many books have been written that were well researched that points to who could have been responsible.

Which is why I ask you to put into your own words—in reasonable detail--what you think happened.
Which is the same reason why you will not. If you do, you can’t defer to a book, a website, or some link on the Internet. In other words, your explanation will be so crazy, it can’t be defended. Which explains why you won’t give it.

 

[candycorn]

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Ignorance. Which you display over and over. Like the BS about the rifle not fitting in the packaging.

 

[candycorn]

Oswald said Frazier was mistaken and he may well have been...I have not heard the claim he said it was 27 in. long....still too short to be a rifle and Frazier said the package was not large enough to conceal a rifle and that he did not believe Oswald was the assassin.

Thus another failed piece of weak evidence. Thus no proof Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Frazier had to endure a hostile interrogation and hours of confinement--the Feds ruined his reputation for no good reason...thus for years afterward he found it difficult to find employment.

You have hit rock bottom and now instead of attempting to discuss this tragedy rationally you are making yourself look childishly ridiculous.

Remember and do not ever forget that most Americans reject the WC report ....they failed in their mission. Case closed.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

Pathetic....you have a closed mind and have been easily duped by the Warren Commission B.S.

Once again....there is no real proof that he bought the rifle...only circumstantial evidence.

The rifle was purchaed via mail order. It was sent to a p.o. box supposedly owned by Oswald.

Whoever purchased the rifle used the name Hillel.....anyone could have set up a p.o. box in Oswalds name....thus there is no concrete proof as in eyewitness testimony that someone saw Oswald purchase the rifle.

The possibility that whoever framed Oswald thus cannot be excluded as the purchasers of the rifle. Thus the allegation that Oswald bought the rifle could have been easily shot down in a courtroom by any competent defense attorney.

Try and think a little bit instead of just reposting over and over the warren commission bull shit. As in...what would you have done if you wanted to set up Oswald as a patsy?....and assume you had all the resources of the c.i.a. and the mafia at your disposal?

All of the physical evidence in Dallas on that day? It all points to Oswald pulling the trigger. Your bizarre and frankly stupid theories are comical at best.

I think there is quite fertile ground that Oswald didn’t just wake up one day and decide to kill the President. I think he was counting on promised help that was never going to materialize and thought he would be Snowdened out of the nation.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

Well, just to add to it….

When there is no consequence to believing something, people will be more apt to take a position that can’t be staked out. Thus the belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Jade Helm. Thus the support for repealing Obamacare or the Article V convention. When the rubber hits the road…you find people being much more careful about taking a stand one way or the other.

Academic arguments that have no fallout are just that; academia.

Universal healthcare gets a lot of support.
Medicare for all (meaning your “Cadillac” Blue Cross primo insurance goes away) gets much less support.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

All you have is your opinion....and we all know.....opinions are like assholes....everyone has one. hehheh

 

[hadit]

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

You cannot prove Oswald bought the rifle....how many times do you have to be told that the rifle was purchased via mail order. No one can identify Oswald as the purchaser.

The alternatives to your contentions are as follows:

Someone posed as Oswald to rent a PO Box.
Someone using an alias that Oswald was known to use bought a rifle.
Someone manufactured a picture of Oswald holding the rifle.
Someone stole the rifle out of Oswald’s garage.
Someone planted Oswald's rifle in the TSBD
Someone got Mr. Frazier to lie about the package Oswald brought work that day.
Someone got Mr. Frazier to invent a story about Oswald bringing curtain rods.
Someone had to manufacture evidence of Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle.

Those are the minimum requirements for the alternative you propose. We’re leaving out Oswald being placed at the TSBD that day and forcing Oswald to take the evasive moves after he shot Kennedy.

And someone had to get out of the TSBD without being seen.

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was the gunman.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

Utter gibberish.

There is no logical reason for you to believe half of the stuff you’ve posted in this thread alone. There are no logical conclusions on your part.

Occam's razor. In order to avoid the simplest explanation, you have to construct ever larger, ever more complex conspiracies, and somewhere along the way, you have to assume large facts not in evidence, like, "Can you imagine how easy it would be for the CIA and the Mossad to frame a patsy with all their resources?", which substitutes for evidence that they did. Pick a few details that may have plausible alternate explanations, ignore the rest of the evidence, and imagine large numbers of shadow people pulling strings in the background, and soundly ridicule anyone who dares say otherwise.

And if you think Ruby was sent to kill Oswald, that's a pretty clumsy way to do it. A single shot to the abdomen by a hand gun is not an assured kill shot. A high powered rifle bullet from a building across the street or an arranged "suicide" in prison is much more assured.

 

[hadit]

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

The absolute silence from the supposed members of the conspiracy is also important. After this much time, SOMEONE would have let something slip if they were involved, perhaps to clear their conscience on their death bed, but there's nothing.

Someone else who has not kept up....as in E. Howard Hunt CIA operative did confess on his death bed....as well as Santo Trafficante mob boss from Tampa, Fl.

As well as James Files though not on his death bed ...whilst in prison confessed in an interview and a video was made of it and it is extremely detailed.

Wow, 3 confessions to the same crime. LOL So how many shooters do you have in Dealy Plaza now?

And if the majority of Americans believe in the conspiracy, you'd think they would all leap on these as proof and they'd be front page stories for a long time. They weren't.

 

[hadit]

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

All you have is your opinion....and we all know.....opinions are like assholes....everyone has one. hehheh

You're making my point by substituting ridicule for reason. The physical evidence is clear. The president was struck by two bullets, both fired from the same location, at which was found the gun that fired them, that gun was fired by Oswald, who was at the scene. That's enough to convict virtually anyone of murder. Beyond that, you get into conjecture. Did someone persuade Oswald to shoot and offer him protection if he did, once the route was established to go past his place of employment? Possibly. Did Oswald shoot Kennedy? Yes.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

Well, just to add to it….

When there is no consequence to believing something, people will be more apt to take a position that can’t be staked out. Thus the belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Jade Helm. Thus the support for repealing Obamacare or the Article V convention. When the rubber hits the road…you find people being much more careful about taking a stand one way or the other.

Academic arguments that have no fallout are just that; academia.

Universal healthcare gets a lot of support.
Medicare for all (meaning your “Cadillac” Blue Cross primo insurance goes away) gets much less support.

There is absolutely no evidence Oswald was deranged....that is just another W.C. myth which they propagated far and wide. No evidence he was insane in any way shape or form. No evidence he was suicidal.

In order for him to be guilty he would have had to be insane or suicidal.

On the other hand there is evidence that he was a very intelligent and careful planner if you believe he also shot at General Walker. Though, most likely you are as ignorant of that as you are of the whole matter.

You have no evidence, you have no proof....and nothing else to add to this discussion.

You are a waste of board space with your oh he probably did this or he probably did that...utter horse shit.

Your above post is one of the most ridiculous I have seen on this topic.

 

[hadit]

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

Well, just to add to it….

When there is no consequence to believing something, people will be more apt to take a position that can’t be staked out. Thus the belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Jade Helm. Thus the support for repealing Obamacare or the Article V convention. When the rubber hits the road…you find people being much more careful about taking a stand one way or the other.

Academic arguments that have no fallout are just that; academia.

Universal healthcare gets a lot of support.
Medicare for all (meaning your “Cadillac” Blue Cross primo insurance goes away) gets much less support.

There is absolutely no evidence Oswald was deranged....that is just another W.C. myth which they propagated far and wide. No evidence he was insane in any way shape or form. No evidence he was suicidal.

On the other hand there is evidence that he was a very intelligent and careful planner if you believe he also shot at General Walker. Though, most likely you are as ignorant of that as you are of the whole matter.

You have no evidence, you have no proof....and nothing else to add to this discussion.

You are a waste of board space with your oh he probably did this or he probably did that...utter horse shit.

Your above post is one of the most ridiculous I have seen on this topic.

Deranged does not preclude intelligent. Many serial killers are extremely smart, but we would all agree you have to be deranged to calmly kill people who pose no danger to you.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, there you go posting evidence. You're about to be villified as a government dupe! They can't STAND evidence.

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

You cannot prove Oswald bought the rifle....how many times do you have to be told that the rifle was purchased via mail order. No one can identify Oswald as the purchaser.

The alternatives to your contentions are as follows:

Someone posed as Oswald to rent a PO Box.
Someone using an alias that Oswald was known to use bought a rifle.
Someone manufactured a picture of Oswald holding the rifle.
Someone stole the rifle out of Oswald’s garage.
Someone planted Oswald's rifle in the TSBD
Someone got Mr. Frazier to lie about the package Oswald brought work that day.
Someone got Mr. Frazier to invent a story about Oswald bringing curtain rods.
Someone had to manufacture evidence of Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle.

Those are the minimum requirements for the alternative you propose. We’re leaving out Oswald being placed at the TSBD that day and forcing Oswald to take the evasive moves after he shot Kennedy.

And someone had to get out of the TSBD without being seen.

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was the gunman.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

Utter gibberish.

There is no logical reason for you to believe half of the stuff you’ve posted in this thread alone. There are no logical conclusions on your part.

Occam's razor. In order to avoid the simplest explanation, you have to construct ever larger, ever more complex conspiracies, and somewhere along the way, you have to assume large facts not in evidence, like, "Can you imagine how easy it would be for the CIA and the Mossad to frame a patsy with all their resources?", which substitutes for evidence that they did. Pick a few details that may have plausible alternate explanations, ignore the rest of the evidence, and imagine large numbers of shadow people pulling strings in the background, and soundly ridicule anyone who dares say otherwise.

Occam’s razor isn’t always right.

Well, as I said, I think that Oswald was promised support in return for killing Kennedy. This is strictly my opinion but it is based on the known facts; not “could haves” like the other guys rely on.

We know Oswald showed up that day without his pistol. We know he wasted precious time after he killed Kennedy to go home and get it. I theorize any reasonable person would have collected it prior to needing it.
Again, I theorize, that if something isn’t important at noon on Monday but is important at noon on Tuesday, that means one thing…the circumstances have changed during that 24 hour period. Events changed.

You couple that with the following knowns:

Oswald was one of the few (if not the only) person(s) to defect to Russia, then defect back to the US during the cold war. Was able to leave Russia with his wife. Was quite active in politics while he was back here. And that he just happens to show up at the TSBD on that day seems like too remarkable a coincidence to me in my theory on what happened to lead up to JFK’s assassination. This is pure speculation based only on known facts.

Oswald, in the month before killing Kennedy, visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City. The CIA handlers who were watching the embassies saw this. This was not reported to the WC. And then in the next 30 days or so, he ends up killing Kennedy. Seems to me like that was indicative of those nations being involved. My point isn’t to indict the CIA but the fact that they have him visiting the embassies down there is informative to my theory that there may have been other nations involved. This also comes from Emmy Award Winning Frontline on PBS; not the kook-of-the-month website.

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

 

[candycorn]

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

All you have is your opinion....and we all know.....opinions are like assholes....everyone has one. hehheh

You're making my point by substituting ridicule for reason.

They always do.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

Tell us why the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission Report.

Because, from the beginning, there has been a steady drum beat of disbelief and refusal to believe the simplest explanation. Trust in the government has been waning ever since the 60's, so it's not surprising that there are those who refuse to accept anything that comes out of government. Heck, there are those who use the exact same tactics of picking small, debunked details and ignoring very large ones to construct a vast conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon.

The majority of Americans don't want to believe a president in modern times could be so easily assassinated, so they want to believe conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. The simplest explanation, though, fits all the parameters of the event. A deranged person saw an opportunity to kill the president and acted on it. He probably couldn't believe he actually pulled it off.

All you have is your opinion....and we all know.....opinions are like assholes....everyone has one. hehheh

You're making my point by substituting ridicule for reason. The physical evidence is clear. The president was struck by two bullets, both fired from the same location, at which was found the gun that fired them, that gun was fired by Oswald, who was at the scene. That's enough to convict virtually anyone of murder. Beyond that, you get into conjecture. Did someone persuade Oswald to shoot and offer him protection if he did, once the route was established to go past his place of employment? Possibly. Did Oswald shoot Kennedy? Yes.

The evidence is not clear at all...books have been written disputing it...but you know nothing about that...you want to believe the Warren Commission report and so you do....which you have a right to do....but you have nothing to indicate Oswald was guilty. All you have is your opinion and it is not enough.

Above all you know nothing of the legal process. If Oswald had gone to trial and the prosecution had nothing more than what the W.C presented he would have been found not guilty.

Not even to mention what Oswald could have presented as his defense....how explosive that could have been....it could have resulted in the shredding of the C.I.A. which Kennedy wanted to do and may well have done if he had not been removed from the scene....thus Oswald had to be silenced.

Just common sense boyo.

Also...since the state failed to protect Oswald's life....the least they could have done would have been to include someone on the commission that could represent Oswald....but they refused to do that...even though Oswald's mother requested it.

All the Warren Commission amounted to was a shoddy and unfair trial ...not even to mention their own conspiracy which has been talked about.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I have no problem with evidence....I do have a problem with dupes who coinfuse evidence with proof.

There is evidence that oswald was guilty....there is evidence he was what he claimed to be and in my opinion most likely was ......a patsy.

There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.

The Warren Commission did have the power at the time when most of the players in this tragic episode of American history were still alive ....to conduct a fair and thorough investigation....they failed.

They failed because for whatever reason or reasons they pursued one theory only...that Oswald was just a lone nut case who decided out of the blue just to kill jfk for no good reason.

It was a masterful plot and their master stroke was the selection of the perfect patsy.

Oh lord. Where to begin….

"There is no real proof as of yet and most likely never will be that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty or that he was just a patsy.”

1. A rifle Oswald bought
2. A rifle he posed with
3. Is found in the place where Oswald worked
4. The bullets shot that day that killed the President are tied to the rifle
5. The wrapper he constructed to smuggle it in was even found
6. At least one paraffin wax test for gunpowder residue came back positive
7. He leaves his workplace for no reason
8. Takes evasive action on the way home to get his gun
9. Shoots a police officer

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was guilty based on the first 4 bullet points alone. Capital Murder cases have been tried successfully based on less.

You cannot prove Oswald bought the rifle....how many times do you have to be told that the rifle was purchased via mail order. No one can identify Oswald as the purchaser.

The alternatives to your contentions are as follows:

Someone posed as Oswald to rent a PO Box.
Someone using an alias that Oswald was known to use bought a rifle.
Someone manufactured a picture of Oswald holding the rifle.
Someone stole the rifle out of Oswald’s garage.
Someone planted Oswald's rifle in the TSBD
Someone got Mr. Frazier to lie about the package Oswald brought work that day.
Someone got Mr. Frazier to invent a story about Oswald bringing curtain rods.
Someone had to manufacture evidence of Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle.

Those are the minimum requirements for the alternative you propose. We’re leaving out Oswald being placed at the TSBD that day and forcing Oswald to take the evasive moves after he shot Kennedy.

And someone had to get out of the TSBD without being seen.

Any reasonable person would conclude that Oswald was the gunman.

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

Utter gibberish.

There is no logical reason for you to believe half of the stuff you’ve posted in this thread alone. There are no logical conclusions on your part.

Occam's razor. In order to avoid the simplest explanation, you have to construct ever larger, ever more complex conspiracies, and somewhere along the way, you have to assume large facts not in evidence, like, "Can you imagine how easy it would be for the CIA and the Mossad to frame a patsy with all their resources?", which substitutes for evidence that they did. Pick a few details that may have plausible alternate explanations, ignore the rest of the evidence, and imagine large numbers of shadow people pulling strings in the background, and soundly ridicule anyone who dares say otherwise.

Occam’s razor isn’t always right.

Well, as I said, I think that Oswald was promised support in return for killing Kennedy. This is strictly my opinion but it is based on the known facts; not “could haves” like the other guys rely on.

We know Oswald showed up that day without his pistol. We know he wasted precious time after he killed Kennedy to go home and get it. I theorize any reasonable person would have collected it prior to needing it.
Again, I theorize, that if something isn’t important at noon on Monday but is important at noon on Tuesday, that means one thing…the circumstances have changed during that 24 hour period. Events changed.

You couple that with the following knowns:

Oswald was one of the few (if not the only) person(s) to defect to Russia, then defect back to the US during the cold war. Was able to leave Russia with his wife. Was quite active in politics while he was back here. And that he just happens to show up at the TSBD on that day seems like too remarkable a coincidence to me in my theory on what happened to lead up to JFK’s assassination. This is pure speculation based only on known facts.

Oswald, in the month before killing Kennedy, visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City. The CIA handlers who were watching the embassies saw this. This was not reported to the WC. And then in the next 30 days or so, he ends up killing Kennedy. Seems to me like that was indicative of those nations being involved. My point isn’t to indict the CIA but the fact that they have him visiting the embassies down there is informative to my theory that there may have been other nations involved. This also comes from Emmy Award Winning Frontline on PBS; not the kook-of-the-month website.

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

You are being very in-coherent for the most part in the above post....not even to mention you contradict yourself.

Also...I already gave you a very logical reason why Oswald did not take his pistol to work....he had no need for it....as in....he did not plan to shoot JFK. If he had planned to shoot JFK...most likely he would have taken his pistol with him...as in it could have come in handy during his escape from the scene......but when he realized he had been set up....he most likely realized they might come for him next...thus he went directly home to get his pistol for protection.

You say you believe the Warren Commission report and then you turn around and say other nations were involved??? Do you not know the Warren Commission reported that Lee was the only one involved in the assassination....has someone on here persuaded you otherwise?


Here is something that might help you to get a grip.......I challenge you to a mock trial....you are the prosecutor and I am Oswald's defense attorney....I will demonstrate to you how a competent attorney would shred your extremely weak evidence.

 

[hunarcy]

No amount of evidence will ever convince the conspiracy theorists. They will simply ignore contrary evidence or insist it is fake, pick out one or two factoids that seem to support their cause even after they have been debunked, and will grow the conspiracy to ridiculous sizes.

I think they just can't accept that sometimes one person or a handful of people can cause tremendous upset in the right circumstances. They don't want to believe a president can be assassinated or the World Trade Center be brought down that easily, so they invent wild conspiracies and resort to insulting and ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

The reason most become conspiracy theorists is, in my view, is to get attention essentially. Those who go “against the grain” get noticed so that is what they do. I just heard a story on the television about a random shooting over in Texas. It sounds suspicious that a shooting would just be done randomly in a suburban neighborhood. Would any of the resident conspiracy folks give this a second look? No. Because it won’t get them noticed. If the shooter or victim turned out to be famous and the conspiracy kook could get some attention by questioning the victim, the shooter, or the findings of the authorities…they’d be on it.

This is why you have the usual suspects thinking that the Apollo moon landings were faked, 9/11 was a conspiracy on a global scale, the JFK topic at hand….

As I mentioned earlier, I too speculate about the events that lead Oswald to pull the trigger so I don’t mind questioning the findings of the WC. The known physical evidence is available and every shred of it points to Oswald pulling the trigger, he being the only person who fired a rifle at Kennedy that day, and that the fatal wounds and injuries to others were at the hands of LHO and he alone. If you want to say that there was a violation of the law, the autopsy was not done by the book, or that the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to silence any conjecture about a larger conspiracy afoot to kill our President, I will listen to that. There is, in my view, evidence of all three being true. For example, the coroner in Dallas County (I think it was Dallas County) is responsible for the autopsies of murder victims in Dallas County; not the SS.

Inside the Autopsy Room: The Details Doctors Gathered About JFK’s Assassination | History | Smithsonian

But there isn’t any thing that has been brought to light in nearly 60 years that points to anyone other than Oswald being an active shooter in the JFK assassination.

The absolute silence from the supposed members of the conspiracy is also important. After this much time, SOMEONE would have let something slip if they were involved, perhaps to clear their conscience on their death bed, but there's nothing.

Someone else who has not kept up....as in E. Howard Hunt CIA operative did confess on his death bed....as well as Santo Trafficante mob boss from Tampa, Fl.

As well as James Files though not on his death bed ...whilst in prison confessed in an interview and a video was made of it and it is extremely detailed.

Wow, 3 confessions to the same crime. LOL So how many shooters do you have in Dealy Plaza now?

And if the majority of Americans believe in the conspiracy, you'd think they would all leap on these as proof and they'd be front page stories for a long time. They weren't.

You have to remember that most of these people grew up listening to people attack the Warren Commission based on the doubts of people like Jim Garrison who had their own versions of what happened. Couple that with people not really knowing the facts and creating imaginary "magic bullets" to substitute for the actual scientific evidence and our natural distrust of government, and you can see why there are so many who are willing to doubt the official version.