Did Ruby really kill Oswald?

[John Iacoletti]

That particular 2015 SBT discussion should be propped up as an example whenever a CTer continues to ignore (or deny) something that is obvious.

Everyone thinks his own subjective opinion is “obvious”.

[John Iacoletti]

...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?)

There’s no point in trying to engage with Chapman on the evidence. He doesn’t know it or understand it. He’s here to post lame parodies and movie clips.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Says the malcontent seeking attention. 

[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.

This is a lot like arguing that if you throw a few broken car parts up in the air, you will somehow end up with a working automobile.

[Bill Chapman]

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

(What a surprise.)

Says the guy who sticks up for Charlie Manson.
Who's next? Richard Kuklinski?

[Dan O'meara]

'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

This response is something I would expect from the tinfoil brigade.
I've made two serious points about the destruction of evidence and the complex of lies and deceit that permeates the testimonies of many of the TSBD employees.
You like to bang on about how all the evidence points to Oswald (who was a snivelling creep and most definitely involved) but when I point out key evidence has been destroyed you go into denial. Just like a good CTer.
You also can't deal with the point about the TSBD employees so you go into denial about that too.
It must be weird to be in the position you so often ascribe to others (and rightly so)
Be careful, I don't think you'd look good in metallic headgear.

[Martin Weidmann]

The SBT is not "highly speculative" at all, IMO. Quite the opposite, in fact.

David, you wouldn't be presenting it, as a battle you think you can win, if you didn't believe that. However, that doesn't make you automatically correct. My entire point is that IMO the SBT is far from conclusive, no matter how many video representations are made for it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Is this a response to my posts?

No, it's just "Richard" venting one of his obsessions. It's of very little value.