Why didn't the Conspirators plant Eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza?

[Bill Chapman]

In other words, nobody said they saw Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window, therefore Oswald must have done it.

LOL

'in other words'

There you go again

[Howard Gee]

LOL

'in other words'

There you go again

I'm really beginning to question his sanity.

[John Iacoletti]

Are you sure, you keep alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs and seriously your list never ends, so why the need to go way over the top and place your eggs in every basket because it just reeks of desperation.

I think you mean your strawman list never ends.  Unless, you can actually cite me "alluding to each piece of evidence as being forged, planted, invented or intentionally incorrectly analysed, eyewitnesses as being incompetent, FBI being crooked, Dallas Police as being liars, Doctors lying, fake photographs".

Not holding my breath.

I'm sure there really was a wedding ring in a cup.  I'm just wondering how that is evidence of murder.

[John Iacoletti]

Brennan's same day affidavit description of a slender white man of about average height who appeared about 30 years old doesn't rule out Oswald

and thousands of other people.

and out of the people we know who were in the building at the time, the sample size wasn't exactly huge

How do "we" know who was in the building at the time?

and let's not forget that Brennan did identify one or more of the black men in the windows directly below as they walked out of the building.

That's what Brennan claimed.  It's debatable though.  Did Sorrels ever corroborate it?  I believe Norman was the only one who mentioned something like this and it's not clear from Norman's account if he recognized them as individuals or because it was 3 black men coming out of the TSBD together.

And it's not really kosher to use a person's own claim to make an argument for that same person's veracity.  It's circular.

But regardless, it's not even a good comparison, because Norman/Jarman/Williams were hanging out of the windows and not crouched down behind boxes aiming a rifle for the head shot.

[John Iacoletti]

Here's another one.  Since the conspirators were able to fake the BY photos and alter the Zapruder film, why not just fake some photographic evidence of Saint Patsy in the 6th floor window ?

Somebody did.

[Dillon Rankine]

I'm sure there really was a wedding ring in a cup.  I'm just wondering how that is evidence of murder.

Nobody thinks that putting his ring in the cup is 100% evidence of killing somebody.

The point made is simply that it?s adnormal behaviour for somebody who?s just going to work and has no history of having done so previously. It?s all about context. It wouldn?t stand up in a courtroom, but the courtroom rarely stands up to reality.

[Dillon Rankine]

Somebody did.

And you have evidence of that being fake?

[John Iacoletti]

The answer is obvious.  If you imply the evidence is suspect or fake over and over, but refuse to acknowledge that you are alleging a conspiracy (which by implication must be the case to explain the fakery),

Why would it necessarily take more than one person to fabricate evidence?

For example, he implied that you had posted fake info regarding who had posted on a recent thread even though he himself had participated on that thread and knew he was lying.

I think you are really so delusional that you can't tell the difference between your assumptions about what people do/think/say and what they actually do/think/say.  You're not a mindreader, so stop pretending that you are.