Oswald's Motive

[John Iacoletti]

“Oswald’s erratic behavior after he left the Book Depository proves his guilt”

“Oswald’s calmness while in police custody proves his guilt”

Seems like the LN crowd tries to have it both ways…

 

Anything Oswald did would be considered “evidence” of his guilt.

[Charles Collins]

Oswald was”too calm”, therefore he shot the president. This is how ridiculous LN “evidence” is.

No one has made that claim.

When making a conclusion, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered. Robert Oswald listed twelve items that convinced him that his brother was guilty. This wasn’t even one of them, just something that stood out to him and some others. This is significant in my opinion. You are quite free to have your own opinion.


You continue to take individual items and pretend that they are supposed to mean something unintended. If you ever see the error of your ways, someone might take you a little more seriously. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.

[Bill Chapman]

“Oswald’s erratic behavior after he left the Book Depository proves his guilt”

“Oswald’s calmness while in police custody proves his guilt”

Seems like the LN crowd tries to have it both ways…

There's two ways? 

[Charles Collins]

It’s pretty hard to make a case for a single shooter without the single-bullet fantasy. That’s the whole reason it was invented.

Howard Willens, “History Will Prove Us Right”, page 462:

After reviewing the medical and other testimony pertaining to the single-bullet theory, the Select Committee confirmed that both men were hit by a single bullet. As Liebeler said in 1996: “In spite of all the criticism the single-bullet theory is stronger today than it was at birth. On the basis of analytical techniques not available in 1964 and using approaches quite different from those used by the Warren Commission, the House Committee has unequivocally reaffirmed the single-bullet theory.”79


I kind of like the term “born” …

[Martin Weidmann]

The entire discussion about the opinions of Robert Oswald and some authors is another admission of just how weak the case against Oswald really is.

If the case was strong, as the LN's like to pretend, a discussion of third party opinions would be irrelevant and a complete waste of time.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case. But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.

That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people. No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic. If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.

[Martin Weidmann]

If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case. But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.

That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people. No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic. If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.

If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case.

So, why are the LNs discussing it rather than presenting the actual "major evidence"?

But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.

Yes, I have read it and find it not persuasive.

That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people.

Let me guess; the rational, reasonable people are those who agree with you, right?

No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic.

BS. Nobody is dismissing authentic and conclusive evidence. What is being dismissed is bad faith arguments, speculation, assumptions and claims not supported by actual evidence. It's not the problem of reasonable people that you don't like it.

If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.

You do understand that what you've just said is basically; "who cares about [the lack of] the evidence, we know he did it so let's hang him". Do you really want to go back 200 years in time?

[Charles Collins]

If the only or even major evidence available of Oswald's guilt was the opinions of his family or friends then that would be a weak case. But a whole series of evidence - physical, circumstantial, and eyewitness - has been accumulated and presented and investigated for more than half a century. It's all available for anyone to read about.

That someone on the internet dismisses it all as "possibly" corrupt is his problem and not of concern for rational, reasonable people. No such person dismisses evidence in an event simply because it "possibly" may be inauthentic. If we did that we would never conduct any investigation of any event since the evidence for it may "possibly" be erroneous. It's a silly standard and a silly way of doing things.

That Robert Oswald can disagree with significant aspects of the WC’s work and still conclude that his own brother is guilty speaks volumes about the strengths of their work. Enough said…