You are not defending anyone? LOL. I've heard it all now. Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt. Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt, then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity. What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination. Just a grand mystery. Nothing to see there. You are not even suggesting a conspiracy. Just a great unknown in which everyone is supsect, and no one is a suspect.
You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client. Your protestations to avoid admitting that you are a CTer are simply an acknowledgement of the absurdity of your claims. A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything. They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means. Sound familiar? And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect. What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine? Even Bigfoot believers hold out hope of one day finding one, but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.
So many words and nothing interesting.
Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt. Because that's how it works, you fool! Unlike you, I'm not just going to assume Oswald is guilty. When you claim the evidence is conclusive there shouldn't be any problem with somebody like me taking issue with that evidence.
Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt,I'm not applying an "impossible standard of proof". Just one that you and your precious evidence seems to be unable to meet. You are behaving like a litte child who can't throw a ball through a hoop and then complains that the hoop is too small. It's hilarious.
then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.What exactly am I suggesting?
What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination. More to your imagination and closed mind. First of all, and you will never accept it, there is very little physical evidence and most of it was handled poorly. Secondly, "the circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt" is nothing more than his presence at the TSBD and his alleged presence at 10th/Patton about 45 minutes later. That's it!
Having said that, if the official narrative tells us the correct story, one of the things that has always puzzled me is Oswald leaving the TSBD to go to his rooming house without showing any interest in the events at Dealey Plaza.
You are not even suggesting a conspiracy. Don't have to. If Oswald was indeed set up and he didn't kill Kennedy, it automatically follows that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a given. Some people come up with theories about who was involved etc, but that's not something I'm interested in. In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it. I'm only looking into the case against Oswald by answering a simple question; does the evidence show he did it or not?
You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.Hilarious. The "mail order law school" was particularly funny. But let me ask you this; do you have experience in dealing with pro bono defense attorneys from a mail order law school defending a guilty client?
A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything. They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means. Sound familiar? Yes, that sounds familiar. So what? Your evidence can withstand scrutiny, can't it? Oh wait.... you don't present evidence.
And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect. What's with all the "you suggest" BS.
What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?Where exactly did I say that I believe the case is unsolvable?
but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion. I don't lecture anything. I'll leave that to you. But I'm glad you finally start to understand just how flawed the evidence is.
One question; when will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?
Here's something novel, for once; why don't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired? Let's start with that, shall we?
