The preponderance of the evidence

[Martin Weidmann]

What I am saying is that unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion. I hope that makes sense to you.

unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion.

Actually, you have no respect for any opinion that differs from yours as you assume to begin with that people with a different opinion have in fact cheated themselves because they have not approached the case "with a truly open mind".

This, and your blatant unwillingness to even discuss and/or defend the evidence, ensures that you come across as a pretty arrogant person who believes he already has all the right answers and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. It's pathetic!

[Charles Collins]

By the official report, do you mean the WC report? HA! What about the HSCA report?

What about it? You tell me.

[Martin Weidmann]

HSCA reached the same conclusion as the WR. Oswald was the shooter. They did speak of a ?probable? conspiracy which they, not unlike the conspiracy movement of the past 56 years could not prove. Nor will you ever.  So, where does this leave you?

The mere fact that a conspiracy can't be proven, doesn't mean there wasn't one. It even could have been one involving Oswald. What makes it so important to you that Oswald is seen (and portrayed in history) as the lone gunman?

[Charles Collins]

unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion.

Actually, you have no respect for any opinion that differs from yours as you assume to begin with that people with a different opinion have in fact cheated themselves because they have not approached the case "with a truly open mind".

This, and your blatant unwillingness to even discuss and/or defend the evidence, ensures that you come across as a pretty arrongant person who believes he already has all the right answers and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. It's pathetic!

That is NOT what I said.

[Paul May]

The mere fact that a conspiracy can't be proven, doesn't mean there wasn't one. It even could have been one involving Oswald. What makes it so important to you that Oswald is seen (and portrayed in history) as the lone gunman?

I don?t disagree. I?ve said often a conspiracy cannot be ruled out with 100% certainly.  Nor, can the FACT Oswald was the shooter.  There is a very small chance a conspiracy occurred, hence the difficulty in proving one. Same for Oswald.  Every piece of evidence points to Oswald pulling the trigger. NO patsy proof exists.  Yet you people still suck it up.

[Martin Weidmann]

That is NOT what I said.

True, but that's how it comes across

[Charles Collins]

I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence.

With such unwillingness to discuss the evidence, what exactly was the purpose of you joining this forum?

I joined many years ago to learn more about the assassination. And I have and hope to learn more. I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.

[Charles Collins]

True, but that's how it comes across

If that is the case, then it is unintentional.