A straight line

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in the lack of response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day. Feel free to post to provide those answers.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
 

It's a combination of the evidence pointing to Oswald as well as the lack of a credible and viable alternative that says to me that Oswald alone killed JFK.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

Add all of this up and the conspiracy believers have rumors and allegations and "suspicious" behavior but no alternative explanation that is the least bit persuasive.

[Martin Weidmann]

The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Weighing one side against the other has led me to that probability.

The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

Exactly. And so it remains a theory.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.

yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative,

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk, yet a conspiracy/cover up is the automatic go to default if and when it can not be proven conclusively that Oswald was in fact the lone gunman.

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Weighing one side against the other has led me to that probability.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop twisting what I said
I said probably, not merely 'possibly'
'Possibly' is generic, sitting on the fence
'Probably' implies taking a stance

Nobody is twisting what you said.

What makes you think my remark was about your lame "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." "stance" ?

[Martin Weidmann]

It's a combination of the evidence pointing to Oswald as well as the lack of a credible and viable alternative that says to me that Oswald alone killed JFK.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

Add all of this up and the conspiracy believers have rumors and allegations and "suspicious" behavior but no alternative explanation that is the least bit persuasive.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material and most were politically motivated.

HSCA chairman Henry Gonzalez  and Chief Counsel Richard Sprague both resigned because of disagreements over the investigative techniques used. And Sprague's Robert K. Tanenbaum also left shortly thereafter.

All private and news investigations were always restricted by the information that was already available at the time of those investigations. It's a bit like playing basketball with one hand tied behind your back. 

[Bill Chapman]

Nobody is twisting what you said.

What makes you think my remark was about your lame "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." "stance" ?

Your statement:
"This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious."

You are twisting what I actually said in an abundantly transparent manner by exchanging 'probably' (my word) for 'possibly' (your word). The two have completely different connotations. Agreed?

[Bill Chapman]

And so it remains a theory.
>A theory that is plausible and coherent, as opposed to diddly squat from CT tall foreheads.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
> Nope. OJ for instance

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
> The CYA is a given

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
> Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk
>Your first step would be to present one

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
> LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters? And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
> Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter. Remind them that they are also invited to name their shooter and present a coherent counter-narrative

[Martin Weidmann]

Your statement:
"This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious."

You are twisting what I actually said in an abundantly transparent manner by exchanging 'probably' (my word) for 'possibly' (your word). The two have completely different connotations. Agreed?

Again, what makes you think I was referring to your "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." remark?

And so it remains a theory.
>A theory that is plausible and coherent, as opposed to diddly squat from CT tall foreheads.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
> Nope. OJ for instance

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
> The CYA is a given

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
> Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk
>Your first step would be to present one

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
> LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters? And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
> Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter. Remind them that they are also invited to name their shooter and present a coherent counter-narrative

A theory that is plausible and coherent

Which is only your opinion. Some beg to differ...

Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Point out where I claimed that?

LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters?

So, I write "weak case" and you read "fake evidence"? Talk about twisting words....

And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

No need to say it. That's already obvious.

Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter.

Who would "your shooter" be? I wasn't aware I had (or needed) one.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material and most were politically motivated.

HSCA chairman Henry Gonzalez  and Chief Counsel Richard Sprague both resigned because of disagreements over the investigative techniques used. And Sprague's Robert K. Tanenbaum also left shortly thereafter.

All private and news investigations were always restricted by the information that was already available at the time of those investigations. It's a bit like playing basketball with one hand tied behind your back.

The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated? Restricted by the information available?

They didn't conduct their own interviews? Talk to witnesses themselves? They were "politically motivated"? Really?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.