56 years later and still no proof of a conspiracy.

[John Mytton]

Here we are 56 years later and we still have no idea who was behind the conspiracy, so far it could be The Dallas Police or Hoover or The CIA or some sort of rogue element or the military or basically anybody but Oswald, but why is no one bright enough to figure this out, surely with the thousands of enthusiasts someone has to stumble into some solid evidence, where is it?
Why has nobody even come close to exposing any conspiracy, is it because it was Oswald and all the evidence just fits?
Anyway, if someone knows something and can back this up with proof then let's hear it, or otherwise your time is running out and I'm afraid without some decent evidence history will forever find Oswald guilty of killing two men. That's just how it works.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Never mind a conspiracy. 56 years later, and there’s still no proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. Just assumptions and rhetoric.

[Bill Chapman]

CTers say 'hearsay'
LNers say 'see/say'

The CT crowd has cornered the market on paranoia

[John Mytton]

Never mind a conspiracy. 56 years later, and there’s still no proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. Just assumptions and rhetoric.

You said it yourself, all the evidence leads to Oswald and if it wasn't Oswald then all the incriminating evidence must have come about somehow?
You dispute the evidence, call cops liars, say eyewitnesses were mistaken etc, so this all by itself should lead you to some sort of conclusion, why waste your time with someone who you know "still has no proof of guilt".
Surely playing Oswald's defence attorney year after year must get a little tiresome whereas being a LNer, knowing the truth and observing you Kooks trying all your crazy/silly/ridiculous/pathetic arguments is an interesting study of Paranoia.

JohnM

[Bill Brown]

All of the physical evidence that exists points to Oswald and no one else.  No physical evidence exists which points to anyone other than Oswald.

[Mark A. Oblazney]

All of the physical evidence that exists points to Oswald and no one else.  No physical evidence exists which points to anyone other than Oswald.

But...... but........ haven't you been listening to Judyth Baker and her Conventioneers?  Surely all of them can't be wrong.....  I wonder if she went to Groden's wedding?   LOL !!!!

[John Iacoletti]

You said it yourself, all the evidence leads to Oswald and if it wasn't Oswald then all the incriminating evidence must have come about somehow?
You dispute the evidence, call cops liars, say eyewitnesses were mistaken etc, so this all by itself should lead you to some sort of conclusion, why waste your time with someone who you know "still has no proof of guilt".

In reality it is you who calls assumptions and rhetoric “evidence”, cherry-picks witnesses, and assumes that if a cop says something, it therefore must be true.

If you think your case is closed, why do you waste your time trying to make it over and over?

[John Iacoletti]

All of the physical evidence that exists points to Oswald and no one else.  No physical evidence exists which points to anyone other than Oswald.

What little physical evidence there is, is all questionable or tainted in some way. Which is why the “Oswald did it” evangelists either refuse to enumerate it at all or they misrepresent it.