Texas honors Officer J.D. Tippit and names his killer - Lee Harvey Oswald

[Ross Lidell]

Agreed... Oswald was never convicted and there is sufficient reasonable doubt to use the term 'allegedly'

They did so on the plaque fixed to the TSBD...

I'm satisfied with the text as it is.

Says the contrarian

Do we read in the historical record that Brutus "allegedly" stabbed Julius Caesar during the assassination?

Yes. We don't know what really happened. All we know is what the official story is, but that's written by the victor.

Along the same lines; do we read in the historical record that King Richard IV killed the boys in the tower?

Says the contrarian

From the Internet: A typical contrarian trope takes the form, "everything you know about topic X is wrong".

Sound familiar? You dispute every piece of evidence in the Assassination of JFK routinely but never provide one piece of evidence to the contrary.

Just because you put forward a "limp" response, naming me as what I accurately describe you: Does not make me a contrarian.

I refer to the known body of evidence that points fairly and squarely to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President John F. Kennedy and murderer of Officer J.D. Tippit. All you can do is deny, deny, deny without exception: the classic contrarian.

[Ross Lidell]

'I'm satisfied with the text as it is'
> It's folly to leave out 'allegedly'; Oswald had no trial.

Brutus had no trial.

[Ross Lidell]

It's obvious that this Tippit Plaque was erected by the DPD ......    They are still scraping and pawing while trying to cover up the stinking mess that was created 56 years ago.

It's obvious that this Tippit Plaque was erected by the DPD.

That's NOT obvious. The plaque is the property of the state of Texas.

PROVE that the plaque was erected by the Dallas Police Department.

*** This is easy as shooting fish in a barrel***

[Martin Weidmann]

Says the contrarian

From the Internet: A typical contrarian trope takes the form, "everything you know about topic X is wrong".

Sound familiar?

Yes... whatever anybody says that does not agree with your opinion is deemed to be wrong by you. That's the definition of a contrarian.

You dispute every piece of evidence in the Assassination of JFK routinely but never provide one piece of evidence to the contrary.

No, I don't dispute every piece of evidence. Stop misrepresenting!

Just because you put forward a "limp" response, naming me as what I accurately describe you: Does not make me a contrarian.

But it does... If you call me a contrarian for not agreeing with your opinion, I likewise can call you a contrarian for exactly the same reason.

I refer to the known body of evidence that points fairly and squarely to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President John F. Kennedy and murderer of Officer J.D. Tippit.

I know what you refer to, but it it points fairly and squarely to Oswald as the killer is only your opinion.
In fact many of the WC's conclusions are not supported by the evidence they have presented in the 26 volumes.
Add to that the enormous amount of assumptions they needed to superficially connect the dots and what you end up with is a theory that doesn't stand closer scrutiny.

All you can do is deny, deny, deny without exception: the classic contrarian.

I deny that... 

[Martin Weidmann]

Brutus had no trial.

Hilarious.... Brutus was a conspirator. Conspirators who win don't put eachother on trial.....

[Ross Lidell]

Hilarious.... Brutus was a conspirator. Conspirators who win don't put eachother on trial.....

Et tu Brute!

[Bill Chapman]

Brutus had no trial.

Trials aren't about the truth.
Trials are about who wins the argument.

[Martin Weidmann]

Et tu Brute!

That's what happens when you consider yourself to be more intelligent than everybody else.