So dishonest. Dan asked if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting would that be conclusive. And your response: "No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence." So 100 witnesses confirming that it was Oswald doesn't do it for you.
btw: eyewitness testimony is considered "direct" evidence. You are constantly belittling the case against Oswald as "circumstantial" but here in your long, rambling post you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Thereby leaving no evidence - direct or circumstantial - that could ever satisfy you of Oswald's guilt. The old impossible standard of proof trick as Maxwell Smart would say.
And again he ignores everything I have written and just makes up his own story. What a joke!
you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliableBecause it is, fool.... Which is why it needs corrobaration.
Have a talk with the people of the Innocence Project;
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.And, before you say something else that's stupid, try to use your brian for once (if you have one) to figure out and understand why
all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1But I bet you are not interested in any of that, are you now, Parrot?