The preponderance of the evidence

[Charles Collins]

So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why.  That's what I figured.  You're just convinced.

I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly  considering it from both sides brought me to this point.

I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.

[Jack Trojan]

Especially if these characters breed
Looks like Oswald got his wish to be a somebody and be remembered for 10,000 years

Except for a few LNer mouthbreathers, LHO will be remembered by everyone as a patsy. But I doubt that was his wish.

[Jack Trojan]

I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly  considering it from both sides brought me to this point.

I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.

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

[Martin Weidmann]

I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly  considering it from both sides brought me to this point.

I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.

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?

[Alan Ford]

I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly  considering it from both sides brought me to this point.

Smug much?

[Charles Collins]

Poke holes in what evidence? You seem to think that unless we can prove Oswald's innocence, the default position is that he was a lone nut. Sorry but critical thinking has no default position and the onus is on you to prove he was a lone nut and not a patsy. Instead you LNers resort to pseudo-skepticism, because your so called evidence does not rise to the level of proof and your arguments are not logically sound. More holes than swiss cheese.

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.

[Paul May]

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

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?

[Jack Trojan]

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.

Approaching the controversy with a truly open mind does not mean following your gut.  Every single piece of evidence supports that Oswald was a patsy. Only the WC concluded he was a lone nut. I wonder why?