Time for Truth

[Richard Smith]

from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president

Where did I claim that exactly?

Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government!  Surreal.

Hilarious. The guy who claims that the FBI (under Hoover, the biggest crook of them all) couldn't possibly have any involvement in the cover up of the JFK assassination is now claiming that the FBI is crooked as can be. Surreal!

You have never claimed that the FBI and/or US government was involved in the plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald?  You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?  You do not believe they manipulated or even fabricated evidence in this case?  Here you to refer to Hoover as a criminal - LOL.

I never said that Hoover "couldn't be involved" in the cover up.  I have said there is no credible evidence of such.  The FBI has and continues to do many questionable acts.  That is not, however, evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination as you stupidly imply.

[Martin Weidmann]

You have never claimed that the FBI and/or US government was involved in the plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald?  You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?  You do not believe they manipulated or even fabricated evidence in this case?  Here you to refer to Hoover as a criminal - LOL.

I never said that Hoover "couldn't be involved" in the cover up.  I have said there is no credible evidence of such.  The FBI has and continues to do many questionable acts.  That is not, however, evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination as you stupidly imply.

I asked you to show me where I claimed that "the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president".

Obviously you can't, so you can rant on all you want. It's meaningless.

You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?

What underlying evidence? I'd really like to see it. It's been 60 years and all I have ever seen is self-serving speculation, unsupported assumption and bogus claims.

You do not believe they manipulated or even fabricated evidence in this case?

Nuance just isn't your forte. Depending on their personal circumstances individual people in a command structure can be manipulated to do something without understanding it's implication. But that's probably way over your head.

Here you to refer to Hoover as a criminal

He wasn't? Really?

I never said that Hoover "couldn't be involved" in the cover up.  I have said there is no credible evidence of such.

There isn't a shred of evidence to show that the Biden family didn't do anything wrong. Does that make any difference to you?

The FBI has and continues to do many questionable acts.

Says the keyboard analyst.... 

That is not, however, evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination as you stupidly imply.

When did I imply that?

[John Mytton]

Hilarious from the guy who claims over and over and over again that the FBI and highest levels of the US government were involved in the murder of the president, covered up the identity of the real assassin, and possibly framed an innocent man for the crime and then murdered him.  Now he is calling me out for being skeptical of the government!  Surreal.

Weidmann's the laughing stock of this Forum, it's just clanger after clanger, yet he actually believes that he's making a worthwhile contribution. He's pathetically™ hilarious™!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Weidmann's the laughing stock of this Forum, it's just clanger after clanger, yet he actually believes that he's making a worthwhile contribution. He's pathetically™ hilarious™!

JohnM

This is an example of a "worthwhile contribution"?

[John Iacoletti]

What a ridiculously biased statement, Even blind Freddy could see that Oswald was guilty and all the evidence supported Oswald's guilt.

it was Oswald's rifle that murdered Kennedy.
it was Oswald's prints on the rifle
it was Oswald's shirt threads that matched the threads on the rifle
it was Oswald's fresh prints in the snipers nest
it was Oswald who fled the scene of the crime
it was Oswald that killed Tippit
it was Oswald's shells at the Tippit crime scene
it was Oswald that left his wedding ring behind that morning.
it was Oswald who left most of his life savings with Marina
it was Oswald who attempted to kill more Police in the Theatre
it was Oswald who lied about owning the rifle
it was Oswald who bought the revolver
it was Oswald who lied about where he placed the rifle in Frazier's car
it was Oswald who made his first mid week visit to retrieve his rifle
it was Oswald lied who about curtain rods
it was Oswald who got out of his cab way past his rooming house
it was Oswald who at the time was identified in the sniper's nest
it was Oswald who lied about where and who he had lunch with
it was Oswald who admitted that he retrieved his revolver from his room because “You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it.”
it was Oswald who ducked into a dark theatre
it was Oswald who made a clenched fist salute.
it was Oswald who denied the backyard photos
And on and on it goes, the mountain of evidence is conclusive!

See Martin the only person who's desperately digging for evidence for anything is you in support of Oswald's innocence and so far you've got nothing.

Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence. Nor do they need to be rebutted.

[John Iacoletti]

You have never claimed that the FBI and/or US government was involved in the plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald?  You accept their underlying evidence and conclusion that Oswald was the assassin? 

Yet another false dichotomy from Strawman “Smith”.

[John Iacoletti]

Weidmann's the laughing stock of this Forum, it's just clanger after clanger, yet he actually believes that he's making a worthwhile contribution. He's pathetically™ hilarious™!

No, that would be the cowardly trolls hiding behind fake names.

[Martin Weidmann]

Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence. Nor do they need to be rebutted.

Indeed. But don't tell John Mytton. You'll only confuse him when you use words like "sustantiate". He simply doesn't know what that means.