Ignoring Evidence in Favor of Oswald

[Jerry Freeman]

So your way of dealing with a reasoned sourced response in which a LNer paid you some attention and addressed some specifics (sorry, only had time for the paraffin-test section) is to paste some laundry lists that you hope will serve as deflection?
Maybe you think your laundry lists are "clever" and "oh so witty", and you just wanted to share this as much as possible with a world eager for your effusive repartee. But somehow it strikes me as being the equivalent of sitting on a park bench ranting to passing squirrels.

In other words, when you respond to a post from someone you disagree with anyway ...you are going out of your way to 'be nice' but regard this someone as best spending their time by going out and feeding the pigeons or something?
The poster was just pointing out the obvious and to sum it up...no one [in all the annals of crime] has ever left so many dozens of clues [that even a blind man could follow]... that say "I did it, come get me" than Lee Harvey Oswald. The more experts and science they threw at their case...the less I believed it.
 

[Jerry Organ]

In other words, when you respond to a post from someone you disagree with anyway ...you are going out of your way to 'be nice' but regard this someone as best spending their time by going out and feeding the pigeons or something?
The poster was just pointing out the obvious and to sum it up...no one [in all the annals of crime] has ever left so many dozens of clues [that even a blind man could follow]... that say "I did it, come get me" than Lee Harvey Oswald.

I focused and addressed what was in his post regarding the paraffin tests. Been nice if he debated along that line but he choose to wallpaper over the discussion. Caprio and now Anthony Frank do this all the time.

Copying and pasting a laundry list of unsubstantiated conspiracy claims is easy. Nailing down the specifics is what takes effort and concentration. Diversion and deflection are a waste of time, and more a propaganda exercise.

The more experts and science they threw at their case...the less I believed it.

Of course. You "know" more than the experts and science. You're like Trump and his assumption of superior wisdom.

[Jerry Freeman]

Of course. You "know" more than the experts and science. You're like Trump and his assumption of superior wisdom.

That's just it...no one knows more than experts and scientists, that why they really work in a pinch huh?
Now.. "I am like Trump" you say. Is that a jab at my feelings or something? A) I am not a Republican...B) I am not a Trump supporter.
 I wonder why--- You are so obsessed with Donald Trump. You are Canadian? Why then, give a crying crap about Trump. Trudeau is just as bad if not worse.
 Your science and experts aside... the majority of it's own members lacked  faith in their own report----

Four of the seven members of the commission, Boggs, Cooper, McCloy, and Russell, had serious doubts regarding the conclusions of the commission that the President and Governor Connally were both wounded by the "magic bullet" and regarding the view that Oswald had acted alone.[30][31] In the years following the release of its report and 26 investigatory evidence volumes in 1964, the Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for some of its methods, important omissions, and conclusions.[32]

In 1992, following popular political pressure in the wake of the film JFK, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created by the JFK Records Act to collect and preserve the documents relating to the assassination. In a footnote in its final report, the ARRB wrote: "Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert F. Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings."[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission#Skepticism

[Jerry Organ]

That's just it...no one knows more than experts and scientists, that why they really work in a pinch huh?
Now.. "I am like Trump" you say. Is that a jab at my feelings or something? A) I am not a Republican...B) I am not a Trump supporter.

Sure. You just post things like this because you're an "independent":

    "Ashli Babbitt was not leading anything.
     Before you come back with the usual...the DOJ has already
     closed the thing and continues to refuse to name the shooter
     that murdered her."

And this today:

    "I will wager that some 99.8% of the shootings and deaths both
     this 4th weekend and last occurred in Democrat controlled 
     American cities/counties. Where is the all outrage there?
     Doesn't matter huh? Some people would lynch their own mother if they
     knew she voted for Trump."

And where did you get this gem?

    "3 Trump supporters that were shot dead on their golf course in Georgia."

Like your silly motto "I'm not a CT". A "skeptic". LOL!

I wonder why--- You are so obsessed with Donald Trump. You are Canadian? Why then, give a crying crap about Trump.

Why does America give a hoot about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, "caravans" from Central America? Trump is the leading edge of fascism. Biden didn't really stop him; he's still a threat. I can't speak for them all, but Canadians don't want fascism on the continent.

Trudeau is just as bad if not worse.

That right there shows you're a Trump supporter.

[Jerry Freeman]

I wonder why--- You are so obsessed with Donald Trump. You are Canadian? Why then, give a crying crap about Trump.

Why does America give a hoot about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, "caravans" from Central America? Trump is the leading edge of fascism. Biden didn't really stop him; he's still a threat. I can't speak for them all, but Canadians don't want fascism on the continent.

What a strawman answer that was
Shows us your backbone.

[Richard Smith]

In other words, when you respond to a post from someone you disagree with anyway ...you are going out of your way to 'be nice' but regard this someone as best spending their time by going out and feeding the pigeons or something?
The poster was just pointing out the obvious and to sum it up...no one [in all the annals of crime] has ever left so many dozens of clues [that even a blind man could follow]... that say "I did it, come get me" than Lee Harvey Oswald. The more experts and science they threw at their case...the less I believed it.

Of the many weak arguments as to doubt of Oswald's guilt, none is perhaps more bizarre than the claim that he left so much evidence that we can only conclude that he is innocent.  Oswald was smart enough to know that if he assassinated the President of the United States in broad daylight in the presence of a crowd and many law enforcement members, that he was not going to escape arrest or death.  That was part of the equation that he accepted in deciding to go forward with the act.  Do you think he realistically thought he was going to shoot JFK on Friday, and then somehow avoid being discovered and go about his business?  A former defector to the USSR who worked in the building from which the shots were fired who had no alibi?  It's ludicrous.  Oswald made a conscious decision to commit the assassination with the realization that he would not escape from that act.   The evidence he left behind didn't matter to him in that context.  It's effectively a suicidal act. 

[Bill Brown]

And the movie attendant who sees him calls the cops. The same cops that just happen to be in the middle of searching for an assassin who just murdered the president of the united states. But when the cops hear about a movie sneaker they decide to stop searching for the assassin and go handle the movie sneaker instead. Why? Because a movie sneaker is far more important and dangerous than a presidential assassin and a cop killer. And so naturally the police race to the movie theater as fast they can.

The above comments only prove that you are clueless about the actions of the law enforcement personnel in Oak Cliff during their search for the cop-killer between 1:17 pm and 1:50 pm.

[Jerry Organ]

Oswald was smart enough to know that if he assassinated the President of the United States in broad daylight in the presence of a crowd and many law enforcement members, that he was not going to escape arrest or death.

Having made it all the way back to the rooming house without a glitch, if Oswald was that smart he would have sat down with Earlene Roberts, and a glass of sweet milk, and watched the show on TV.

Running around Oak Cliff with a gun is pure lunacy, even by LN standards.

Returning to your home and nonchalantly pretending you didn't commit a crime has become SOP for MAGA-heads.