I'm just presenting the facts, wouldn't a more appropriate usage of overthinking be creating excuses for this evidence, like for instance Oswald being manipulated by unknown entities?
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance, isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? Because without a shred of evidence to the contrary there's no reason to consider a fantasy scenario? Facts convince Juries and me and presumably you!
Do you honestly believe that the same Oswald who after being denied entry into Russia, (hacked into his own wrist creating a 2 inch wound requiring stitches, while also causing a loss of a lot of blood and the end result giving him exactly what he wanted, and thus proving that Russia wasn't going to push him around and out of the country), could be manipulated so easily?
The Oswald we know from the many testimonies show that he wasn't a man to be pushed around or manipulated. While in New Orleans he in fact tried to manipulate the anti-Castro's proving that Oswald was quite shrewd.
Manipulated by who and why because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the facts
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.
The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.
??
All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.
What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?
Because it is a mountain of evidence.
The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence, CT's are constantly presenting their own ideas on why this or that piece of evidence is fraudulent but where is their proof?
JohnM
I'm just presenting the facts,No, you are presenting what you believe to be "facts. There is a difference.
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advanceI agree that's unlikely. But a fireman isn't trained for a particular fire either and a soldier isn't trained for a particular war. With all the anti-Cuba stuff going on, the alias could easily have been created for that and then, with all the "evidence" in place, was used for something else.
isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? It's possible, but for what purpose? It couldn't have been the Kennedy murder because he was using the Hidell alias months before he could have known that Kennedy would come to Dallas... You see, that's why this stuff doesn't make sense at all. You present the Hidell alias as evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, but at the same time you agree that it's unlikely the alias was created so far in advance. You can't have it both ways!
Do you honestly believe that the same Oswald who after being denied entry into Russia, (hacked into his own wrist creating a 2 inch wound requiring stitches, while also causing a loss of a lot of blood and the end result giving him exactly what he wanted, and thus proving that Russia wasn't going to push him around and out of the country), could be manipulated so easily?I never knew the man, which means I would have to come to a conclusion about his personality based solely on what I have been told about him and that's at best contradictory.
The Oswald we know from the many testimonies show that he wasn't a man to be pushed around or manipulated. While in New Orleans he in fact tried to manipulate the anti-Castro's proving that Oswald was quite shrewd.That's your opinion, based on what you have been told. Buell Wesley Frazier did know Oswald personally and he described him as good with kids and a man who he did not believe was capable of killing anybody.
Manipulated by who and why I already told you, we many never know.
because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the factsHow does one obtain evidence of manipulation? And what you rely on is what you believe to be "facts" when for the most part they are opinions.
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.It's not the most important evidence, it's the
only evidence and most of it are just conclusions and assumptions. You keep repeating over and over again (as if that will make it true) that Oswald purchased a rifle [from Kleins'] when in fact there is no conclusive evidence that he did. The claim that he was photographed with "the same file" is just something you believe for which there is no evidence. And there most certainly isn't conclusive proof that a rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The claim that Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle found at the TSBD is disproved by the FBI who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even evidence of a print having been lifted on the rifle. And you have already been told over and over again that the so-called "matching shirt fibers" claim is highly speculative and no expert has ever found a match, for one simple reason; all experts agree that you can not make a positive match with fibers.
What are facts is that Jessie Curry admitted that they were never able to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time the shots were fired and that no evidence can place him there.
The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.No it isn't. You are giving your opinion and that's never evidence. Besides it wasn't a response to my comment that all the claims made about the Hidell alias do not lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. Earlier on we've already established that Oswald was using the Hildell alias long before it was known that Kennedy would visit Dallas. In other words; as the Hidell alias clearly wasn't created for the purpose of killing Kennedy, the existence of that alias can never be the basis for the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy.
??All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.That was exactly the point I was making. Let's put Oswald in the most negative light (by using all this Hidell stuff) and people might more easily believe that he killed Kennedy.
It's the classic prosecutorial game played in a circumstantial case.
What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?Well, I said "perhaps", but you are right of course. It would be silly to assume that whatever was going on with the Hidell alias in March 1963 could have had anything to do with the killing of Kennedy in November 1963.
And yet, the WC tried their as hard as they could to connect the Hidell alias with Kennedy's murder. Go figure.
Because it is a mountain of evidence.Only in your opinion. Too bad most people don't see it that way, because if they did they would have believed the official narrative.
The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.Really? Have they? But just to be clear when you say "from the rifle" do you mean the rifle ordered at Kleins' or the rifle Oswald was photographed with, or the rifle found at the TSBD?
I know you normally throw them all three together into it being one rifle, but there is no real evidence for that and your assumptions aren't evidence either.
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence, If that were true, this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having a debate that's now lasted over 60 years.
CT's are constantly presenting their own ideas on why this or that piece of evidence is fraudulent but where is their proof?I'm not a CT, so I wouldn't know. Ask them.