Did Ruby really kill Oswald?

[Bill Chapman]

For once I agree.....

First the LNs make up, by assumption, pieces of "evidence" that did not exist before and then they create a monster.

What pieces of evidence did not exist before..

No, the evidence is gathered and completes the prosecution's preparations for court. Thus we have the melted man 'gathering himself'... just as Oswald gathered evidence on himself by dint of his actions that day.

[Dan O'meara]

What pieces of evidence did not exist before..

No, the evidence is gathered and completes the prosecution's preparations for court. Thus we have the melted man 'gathering himself'... just as Oswald gathered evidence on himself by dint of his actions that day.

"The evidence is gathered"?
I refer to a post I made elsewhere:

The remains of a lunch were found at the Sniper's Nest, a half eaten piece of chicken found on top of the boxes forming the nest. Part of this lunch was a bottle of soda, presumably covered in fingerprints, absolutely key evidence from the scene of the crime. For quite a while everyone assumed the assassin had eaten his lunch there whilst waiting for the President to pass.
So what happened to this absolutely key piece of evidence?
When it was discovered Oswald's fingerprints weren't on it it was destroyed.
So much for following the evidence.
How can you trust evidence when selected parts of it have been destroyed?

How much other evidence was destroyed?

[Dan O'meara]

...and a silence filled the room...

Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
It's a previous post highlighting something quite obvious. If Oswald was the lone assassin there would be no need for the amount of blatant lying that is to be found in the testimonies and statements of various TSBD employees:

"If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore."

How can you explain this discrepancy?

[Richard Smith]

It's hilarious to see the contrarians here day and night grasping at any straw that might lend itself to Oswald's innocence while always denying they are CTers.  Who is responsible for all this skullduggery which would, by implication, be necessitated should any of their contrarian theories prove valid is left to our imagination.  Just lots of bad luck for Old Lee Harvey?  Very lazy and tiresome.  My guess is that they feel some type of insecurity and are seeking attention from their intellectual superiors by denying the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.  Ironically, not unlike LHO himself. Malcontents seeking attention.  Birds of a feather.

[Dan O'meara]

It's hilarious to see the contrarians here day and night grasping at any straw that might lend itself to Oswald's innocence while always denying they are CTers.  Who is responsible for all this skullduggery which would, by implication, be necessitated should any of their contrarian theories prove valid is left to our imagination.  Just lots of bad luck for Old Lee Harvey?  Very lazy and tiresome.  My guess is that they feel some type of insecurity and are seeking attention from their intellectual superiors by denying the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.  Ironically, not unlike LHO himself. Malcontents seeking attention.  Birds of a feather.

Is this a response to my posts?

[Bill Chapman]

...and a silence filled the room...

Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
It's a previous post highlighting something quite obvious. If Oswald was the lone assassin there would be no need for the amount of blatant lying that is to be found in the testimonies and statements of various TSBD employees:

"If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore."

How can you explain this discrepancy?

...and a silence filled the room...

Here's a third chance to respond to this point Bill, concerning the denial LN's have to deal with (is there another phrase to use other than LN's?)
It's a previous post highlighting something quite obvious. If Oswald was the lone assassin there would be no need for the amount of blatant lying that is to be found in the testimonies and statements of various TSBD employees:

"If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore."

How can you explain this discrepancy?

'and a silence filled the room'
>>> LOL
'Here's a third chance to respond to this point'
>>> LOL

And Oswald went at least 1 for 2* that day, a fine batting average in any man's league. And you lot have had 58 years, yet still haven't come up with a pinch-hitter for your hero.

*Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy

[John Iacoletti]

I see that things like denial and isolation of evidence are things that are still as strong as ever amongst the conspiracy theorists at this forum.

(What a surprise.)

I see that arguing with rhetoric rather than evidence are things that are still strong with Bugliosi’s minions.

(What a surprise.)

[John Iacoletti]

The Z-film demonstrates it's not speculative at all.
To not recognise what's happening in it is a phenomenon I've described elsewhere as "unseeing"

How egocentric is it to just declare that your subjective interpretation of “reactions” in a film is the only correct one?