Really Martin? You seem like a smart guy. I think you know the answer for that. But, I will try and be as clear as I can. The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there. I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you? Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president. The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?
The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there.Fair enough, but shouldn't you be asking people who actually put forward such a theory, rather than just randomly ask anybody who doesn't share your opinion?
I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you? Yes, that was clear since the moment you joined this forum. Let me be equally clear; I have serious doubts about the veracity of the WC's conclusions, but I do not know (and probably never will) where it gets me. My concern is that the case was possibly wrapped around an already dead Oswald regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. How can Hoover write, within hours of the murder, that the sole assassin was in custody even before the first shred of evidence was collected? Can you explain that to me?
Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president. But that's not how the game is played. You are shifting the burden of proof on others rather than standing up for and defending what you believe. What is the problem with dealing with people who, for whatever reason, dispute the evidence? That's what LNs do here!
The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald? Why ask a question you know full well can't be answered by anybody on this board? Where does it get you? Do you think that not being able to name a conspirator somehow confirms by default that Oswald was the lone gunman after all? Is that it?
