Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[John Iacoletti]

Thank you for confirming by lack of response that you do indeed not have any credible evidence to support your claims about Oswald;

- bringing the rifle to the TSBD and hiding it there
- being on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired
- actually shooting at Kennedy
- going down the stairs to the 2nd floor unnoticed, within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.

That's settled then.... 

C’mon, “Richard”. Stop dancing and deflecting and just answer the question. Or admit that you cannot.

[Martin Weidmann]

Which you then misrepresented as “Oswald could not have come down the stairs”.

But the words you’re desperately trying to put in Martin’s mouth is “I believe Oswald is innocent”, and that’s to deflect from your own inability to prove that he’s guilty. It’s transparent as hell.

But the words you’re desperately trying to put in Martin’s mouth is “I believe Oswald is innocent”,

Which is actually highly ironic coming from a die hard LN, but that aside. Richard's primitive black and white "logic" doesn't allow him to understand that even if the rifle found on the 6th floor is the same one that Oswald ordered from Klein's, that still doesn't even begin to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor himself when the shots were fired. Along those same lines, Richard also doesn't understand that even if Oswald was not on the 6th floor, did not shoot a Kennedy and did not go down the stairs unnoticed, that doesn't necessarily mean that his is innocent.

It seems these kind of things are just too complicated for Richard to grasp. Kinda sad, really....

[Martin Weidmann]

Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.

Seems to have worked on the Three Amigos. They avoid the title of CT like the plague. Wonder why? Aren't they up on Govt. indoctrination? Or maybe they're not as astute as Walt Cakebread.

LNers don't "promote" anything. We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence. We live in the real world. For example, we don't use a fuzzy version of the Powell photo when there's better defined versions of the same photo.

Actually it's CTs like Martin

Please explain how somebody who has no conspiracy theory and who couldn't care less if there actually was a conspiracy or if Oswald did it alone, can be deemed to be a conspiracy theorist?

LNers don't "promote" anything.

Except for a pathetic official narrative that can not survive the slightest scrutiny......

We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence.

This is absolutely true. You (not sure who "we" are) apply no standard at all and take everything at face value.

[John Iacoletti]

Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.

A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.

LNers don't "promote" anything.

Bull. You promote the official fantasy narrative like it’s gospel.

[Bill Chapman]

Actually it's CTs like Martin, Iacoletti and Freeman who shun the title of CT.

Seems to have worked on the Three Amigos. They avoid the title of CT like the plague. Wonder why? Aren't they up on Govt. indoctrination? Or maybe they're not as astute as Walt Cakebread.

LNers don't "promote" anything. We just don't apply an impossible standard or proof to the evidence. We live in the real world. For example, we don't use a fuzzy version of the Powell photo when there's better defined versions of the same photo.

LNers don't "promote" anything.
_Then you must have missed my latest PSA announcements
  Plain & simple: Oswald got what he deserved 

[Martin Weidmann]

Allow, then, that most "LNers" would accept a conspiracy if reliable evidence was forthcoming. You long ago took Oswald as lone-assassin off the table.


LNers don't "promote" anything.

Except for a pathetic official narrative


Spoken like a true CT.

Your "scrutiny" isn't "slight". As lawyers Mason and Bugliosi point out, it's an impossible standard that CTs impose. As well the totality of the evidence is downplayed by CTs.

That would be you (promoting conspiracy) with Adams and Garner.

Allow, then, that most "LNers" would accept a conspiracy if reliable evidence was forthcoming.

After a great number of years, I still have to meet the first LN who is prepared to even consider the possibility of a conspiracy.

You long ago took Oswald as lone-assassin off the table.

Only in your dreams (or should I say; nightmares?). I have always left open the possibility of Oswald being a lone gunman but the lack of reliable conclusive evidence does not make it easy to continue to do so.

LNers don't "promote" anything.

Except for a pathetic official narrative

Spoken like a true CT.

You don't have to be a CT to conclude that the WC narrative is superficial and full of assumptions not supported by the evidence.

Your "scrutiny" isn't "slight". As lawyers Mason and Bugliosi point out, it's an impossible standard that CTs impose. As well the totality of the evidence is downplayed by CTs.

A pathetic and misguided appeal to authority. Any lawyer who knows anything about this case understands it's apparent weaknesses. One way to deflect away from that is complain that their unconvincing evidence can not persuade people because they have an impossible standard of proof. It is in fact no more than an outright admission of the lack of credible, conclusive evidence.

Richard Smith claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 when the shots were fired and that he somehow must have managed to go down the stairs unnoticed with roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.

The so-called "impossible standard of proof" you and your ilk are complaining about is the completely reasonable request for evidence that actually shows Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and an explanation of how he could have gone down the stairs without being noticed.

This is how pathetic this "impossible standard of proof" BS truly is.

That would be you (promoting conspiracy) with Adams and Garner.

Looking honestly at the evidence about Adams and Garner has nothing to do with a conspiracy. The Adams/Garner scenario is far more plausible and conclusive than that "Oswald coming down the stairs unseen by anybody" fairytale for which there is not a shred of evidence at all.

But if you want to discuss the Adams/Garner scenario in detail, please go ahead and provide me with an alternative scenario that fits all the known facts, or would that be another request for an "impossible standard of proof"?

The LN complaint in a nutshell;

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” ― Carl Sandburg

[Walt Cakebread]

A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.

Bull. You promote the official fantasy narrative like it’s gospel.
A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.

A “CT” is somebody who has a conspiracy theory, not somebody who looks at the evidence and finds it weak, circumstantial, and tainted.


Well by that definition I'm not a CT......    Because I do have a theory that LBJ and Hoover were the prime culprits....and I sure as hell don't find the "evidence" that been dumped on us  at all convincing.....   

I believe that the "evidence" of the spent shells and the hidden Carcano were nothing but stage props..... I'm 100% certain that the spent shells were not fired that day.

[Martin Weidmann]

Sure, Walt. You might as well not be a CT either. You at least accept some LN evidence, like the Backyard Photos.

Oops... Jerry, your ignorance is on full display. I have never questioned or denied the authenticity of the BY photos.

So, in your mind, now I'm not a CT after all?

But wait, I do take issue with the meaning the LNs attach to those photos and question the evidentiary value of the photos.

Does that make me a CT again?.......