You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian. You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned. You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. How and why these things happen are left unexplained. You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something). It is laughable.
You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian.The classic come back of a LN who has no substantive facts to argue.
You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned. Just how much of a fool can you be? I was having a hypothetical conversation. I am not suggesting that his escape was not well planned. Instead I question if he was actually trying to escape.
You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. I imply no such thing. I am merely stating facts that are in the record. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something). It is laughable. Are you new at this game? I hardly ever see such level of ignorance.
You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooterWitness identifications are the least reliable type of evidence there is. Just ask any detective or prosecutor.
but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt You may consider it to be minor, but every observation by a witness is important. Even more so when there is no corroboration for what the witness said and circumstantial evidence to show that what the witness claims simply could not have happened. You may want to cherry pick what you like and disregard the rest, but I don't.
Btw your hypocrisy is pathetically amazing. When Buell Frazier said he wasn't paying much attention you claim that his description of the bag he saw Oswald was carrying was wrong, but when Earlene Roberts said she wasn't paying much attention you claim her observation was spot on, never mind the fact that she was blind in one eye.
Now, I could expose your ignorance and dishonesty, re Earlene Roberts' testimony, by simply asking you a few questions, but I already know that you won't answer them anyway, so I won't bother as it would be a waste of time.