Am I the only CT here who can meet the LN's more than half way? If not ...

[Bill Chapman]

Well, Steve ... Speaking of tragedies.   One would think when he was being filmed at the DPD
the knucklehead would have stated that he and the rest of the employees - after giving
their contact info to Truly with a cop present -  were all told to vacate the building.
I mean, he did have enough in him to say he was a Patsy ... why not that?  All of us were told to leave
so I thought I catch a movie. 

Unless, of course, it was a Greek tragedy where some of the blame for the tragedy
did rest on the main character.

Tell us that Oswald, by exclaiming 'I'm just a PATSY!' wasn't simply a summing up of what he said about about being brought in because he had lived in the Soviet Union.

[Dan DAlimonte]

Tell us that Oswald, by exclaiming 'I'm just a PATSY!' wasn't simply a summing up of what he said about about being brought in because he had lived in the Soviet Union.

Hey, Bill.  I know you tend to paint all CT's with the same brush but I think
Oswald was as guilty as sin.  He was no damn patsy in my book.  Okay? 
To me, he was part of a team and it had to appear he acted alone.

[Richard Smith]

You can't negotiate the truth in a factual matter to meet someone halfway.  The totality of facts and evidence in this case demonstrate beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin.  There is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.  We can never know every detail with absolute 100% certainty.  That impossible standard is advocated by many CTers and confused for doubt.  The basic distinction in this case is the evidence.  If you accept it as genuine, then there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  If you believe it is mostly the product of fakery and lies, then you entertain a conspiracy.  There is no getting around or having a constructive conversation once you reach that impasse.

[Bill Chapman]

Hey, Bill.  I know you tend to paint all CT's with the same brush but I think
Oswald was as guilty as sin.  He was no damn patsy in my book.  Okay? 
To me, he was part of a team and it had to appear he acted alone.

I'm wondering why would all this skullduggery would be necessary.

Nah, a quick decision by Oswald at the last minute. An unannounced arrival needed at the Paine's; walking briskly ahead of Buell required to mask the true size of the rifle bag; no big deal for a trained Marine to hit Kennedy, who was essentially a sitting duck. A little luck needed probably, but no other help necessarily needed. You can deny the possibilty as you wish. But I would even go one step beyond that to conclude that Oswald probably did it.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

You can't negotiate the truth in a factual matter to meet someone halfway.  The totality of facts and evidence in this case demonstrate beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin.  There is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.  We can never know every detail with absolute 100% certainty.  That impossible standard is advocated by many CTers and confused for doubt.  The basic distinction in this case is the evidence.  If you accept it as genuine, then there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  If you believe it is mostly the product of fakery and lies, then you entertain a conspiracy.  There is no getting around or having a constructive conversation once you reach that impasse.

You can't negotiate the truth in a factual matter to meet someone halfway.

Agreed... but what is the truth?

The totality of facts and evidence in this case demonstrate beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin.

That's just your opinion and not necessarily the truth.

There is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved. 

But that doesn't prove nobody else was involved. It could just as well be proof of evidence manipulation

We can never know every detail with absolute 100% certainty.

Nobody is asking for that.

That impossible standard is advocated by many CTers and confused for doubt. 

Wrong. That's just what you tell yourself everytime you are unable to provide proof for one of your claims.

The basic distinction in this case is the evidence.  If you accept it as genuine, then there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  If you believe it is mostly the product of fakery and lies, then you entertain a conspiracy.  There is no getting around or having a constructive conversation once you reach that impasse.

So, your purpose for being here is not to have a constructive conversation?

[Walt Cakebread]

And when he came face to face with Hosty he complained about the former
accosting his wife and says nothing on how his department set him up for killing Kennedy?

We don't know what tripped Lee's trigger.....  It does appear that Lee was very angry at Hosty....  Was it because he had warned the FBI that there was a plot afoot to assassinate JFK and had been reassured that everything was cool....

It's possible that Lee used the explanation that Hosty had been harassing Marina as a cover for the fact that he was an FBI informant.

There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was an intelligence agent....and a chameleon....and He would not have revealed his undercover status in front of Fritz..... 

[Dan DAlimonte]

You can't negotiate the truth in a factual matter to meet someone halfway.  The totality of facts and evidence in this case demonstrate beyond any doubt that Oswald was the assassin.  There is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.  We can never know every detail with absolute 100% certainty.  That impossible standard is advocated by many CTers and confused for doubt.  The basic distinction in this case is the evidence.  If you accept it as genuine, then there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  If you believe it is mostly the product of fakery and lies, then you entertain a conspiracy.  There is no getting around or having a constructive conversation once you reach that impasse.

 The basic distinction in this case is the evidence.  If you accept it as genuine, then there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  If you believe it is mostly the product of fakery and lies, then you entertain a conspiracy.  There is no getting around or having a constructive conversation once you reach that impasse.

Hey, Richard and Bill for that matter. If you look at the title of my thread it was directed to my fellow  CT's
who are convinced that there was some degree of fakery and lies as it concerns the evidence and thus a conspiracy and cover up but I never expected to try to have a constructive conversation  with an LN on the subject who is convinced there was no such thing.  To me the notion of Oswald being a patsy is too fantastic to even consider so where do I go?  I try to find a middle ground with the two most prevailing theories around here.  He was set up as a patsy or he acted alone.  If I can't present something plausible
then LN land ... here I come.

[Walt Cakebread]

The basic distinction in this case is the evidence.  If you accept it as genuine, then there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt.  If you believe it is mostly the product of fakery and lies, then you entertain a conspiracy.  There is no getting around or having a constructive conversation once you reach that impasse.

Hey, Richard and Bill for that matter. If you look at the title of my thread it was directed to my fellow  CT's
who are convinced that there was some degree of fakery and lies as it concerns the evidence and thus a conspiracy and cover up but I never expected to try to have a constructive conversation  with an LN on the subject who is convinced there was no such thing.  To me the notion of Oswald being a patsy is too fantastic to even consider so where do I go?  I try to find a middle ground with the two most prevailing theories around here.  He was set up as a patsy or he acted alone.  If I can't present something plausible
then LN land ... here I come.

I'd suggest that you lack what it takes to face the truth.....   You recognize that we have not been told the truth and the government covered up the truth....but you can't come to grips with that .