At least I'm not afraid to admit what I believe. I believe Oswald acted alone.
Again, believing something without evidence is not a virtue.
See how easy that is John.
Yes I do. But I don't care how easy it is to believe something. I care if it's actually
true.
You hide behind your lame excuse of "questioning" all the evidence and by implication you are showing you believe there was a conspiracy.
Only in the land of false dichotomies. What is it about "I don't believe that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald did it" equates to "I believe there was a conspiracy" in your mind?
You and people like you don't admit to believing there was a conspiracy because you know after 54 years there is not one scrap of physical or ballistic evidence that supports any of the numerous conspiracy theories.
. . . "and therefore Oswald did it"? Is that how your mind works?
By you questioning every little piece of evidence that was gathered and examined, from Oswald's clothes, to all of the ballistic evidence, to questioning every eyewitness's testimony,
Oswald's clothes prove that he killed JFK? Do tell! "All the ballistic evidence" proves that Oswald killed JFK? Do tell!
What little evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way. I understand why you refuse to discuss it in any detail, because that becomes obvious rather quickly.
if you are right, it would have to have been a conspiracy of massive proportions.
What, do you guys all read from the same strawman script?
I do this for just the entertainment of debating it. What are you hoping to get out of it John? Just curious.
Clearly. You certainly don't do this because you want to talk about the evidence. I'm hoping that someday somebody will come up with a better argument than "the Warren Commission concluded it, I believe it, and that settles it".
