Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[John Iacoletti]

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

The backyard photos tell you exactly nothing about who killed Kennedy.

[Martin Weidmann]

Now, why do I get the feeling that Jerry is merely trying to create a diversion to obscure the fact that Richard Smith is running as fast as he can from this discussion?

[Walt Cakebread]

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

I honestly can't understand how a thinking person can deny that at least two of the B.Y. photos are authentic.... Marina said that she took two BY photos....BUT.....There are now FOUR B.Y. photos. 

And that fact ( that there are four photos tells me that someone was trying to make sure that they had the "incriminating" photos to frame Lee Oswald.  I put incriminating in parenthesis because I don't believe the BY photos are incriminating ....They certainly don't show  anything that is absolutely incriminating.... I believe they (133A &B ) are a very amateurish attempt to deceive the viewer into believing that the man in the photo was a rough and ready guerilla fighter..... But the photo is about as convincing as a carnival photo that shows the Pope  as a jailbird in B&W stripes and a ball and chain. 

[Richard Smith]

Clearly you believe that a CT is something to be shunned.   And that's exactly what the government has promoted.  The government wants anybody who rejects the official US government position, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin, to be scorned and mocked.

But at this late date, and with all of the information that has surfaced , that position is no longer tenable ....  And only a damned fool would continue to try to promote it.

Wrong.  I accept, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln because that is what the evidence proves.  There is no such evidence in the JFK case.  What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He won't accept the ONLY implication of his own conclusion.  So take it up with Martin who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He is the one "shunning" you.

[Richard Smith]

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.

If Oswald did not commit this crime and was framed by the placement of evidence on the 6th floor, then by implication there must have been a conspiracy.  If someone comes here endlessly suggesting that Oswald couldn't have done it by, for example, concluding that he didn't come down the stairs, then the only implication that can be drawn is that this person is a CTer.  They don't have to espouse a specific nutty theory like they think "LBJ" or the "CIA" was behind the assassination.  They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc.  The evidence linking Oswald to the crime did not just magically appear.   Suggesting that Oswald didn't or couldn't do it is not the end of the discussion as contrarians desire.  That conclusion contains obvious implications for the involvement of others to commit the assassination and then frame Oswald.  No matter how much folks like Martin run from the implications of their own baseless conclusions.

[Michael Walton]

If Oswald did not commit this crime and was framed by the placement of evidence on the 6th floor, then by implication there must have been a conspiracy.  If someone comes here endlessly suggesting that Oswald couldn't have done it by, for example, concluding that he didn't come down the stairs, then the only implication that can be drawn is that this person is a CTer.  They don't have to espouse a specific nutty theory like they think "LBJ" or the "CIA" was behind the assassination.  They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc.  The evidence linking Oswald to the crime did not just magically appear.   Suggesting that Oswald didn't or couldn't do it is not the end of the discussion as contrarians desire.  That conclusion contains obvious implications for the involvement of others to commit the assassination and then frame Oswald.  No matter how much folks like Martin run from the implications of their own baseless conclusions.

Congratulations, Richard. It looks like you're dipping your toe in the right waters and you're coming around. Now all you have to do is take the plunge.

Go to the photo of the reenactment done in Dealey by the FBI. I've posted it numerous times on here. You like to prowl on this site, so look for it and take a look at it. It's not just "buffs" like us [as you'd probably call us], but the FBI was in quite a quandary too. They looked at the autopsy photos [something none of us got to do until years later], put stickers on the JFK stand-in and scratched their heads.

"Wait a minute," they said. "How can the back entrance wound [shown as a sticker on the stand in] come out *above* that wound and go on?" It's physically impossible but clear as day in that photo. I'm sure they also read that the back wound had no exit wound when probed.

That's pretty much the essence of this case. It really doesn't matter if Walt thinks Oswald was cavorting with a Russian gangster in Cuba; it doesn't matter if someone thinks LBJ, Nixon, Ruby or all three were in on it. What matters is the "evidence" cooked up by the government would have easily been disputed and dismissed if Oswald had lived and had a competent lawyer during a trial.

And yes, it does matter if three shells [one bent] were found in the fake sniper's nest, yet an elaborate hiding of the gun supposedly took place, and he was unable to get down there in time like the government wants us to believe. It flies against all reason and comment sense.

[John Iacoletti]

What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He won't accept the ONLY implication of his own conclusion. 

More strawman BS. How does that imply a conspiracy?

And why are you so invested in trying to make Martin a conspiracy theorist anyway?

[Martin Weidmann]

Wrong.  I accept, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln because that is what the evidence proves.  There is no such evidence in the JFK case.  What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He won't accept the ONLY implication of his own conclusion.  So take it up with Martin who refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He is the one "shunning" you.

Look at that; the forum's clown is back and once again, obsessed with me as he clearly is, he drags me, yet again, into a conversation without any purpose.

What he still doesn't do is provide actual evidence that shows - as he claims - that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and/or that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed within roughly 75 seconds after the last shot.

What I find amusing is that someone like Martin pontificates endlessly a theory like Oswald didn't come down the stairs but then refuses to acknowledge that he is a CTer.

What I find highly amusing is that someone like Richard pontificates endlessly that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he did manage to come down the stairs unnoticed but refuses, for more than a month now, (or rather is totally incapable) to provide even a shred of evidence for either of those claims, thus only proving that the entire LN argument is based on nothing but assumptions and hot air.