Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?

[John Mytton]

As I have been saying for some time, only Oswald would order his rifle through an alias because setting up Oswald through his real name is far far easier and much more logical, because why on Earth invent an extra step which leads away from your Patsy?

Way back in March63 when Oswald ordered and was photographed with his rifle, Oswald was planning on using the rifle to assassinate General Walker a month later.
In the weeks between his purchase and the attempt, Oswald took surveillance photos of the side of the Walker residence where the attempt took place, a photo of a fence where Oswald was going to steady his rifle, had a map where X marks the spot, and besides the attempt itself Oswald told Marina specific details like the night of church gatherings. Oswald thought of himself as some sort of clandestine spy on a mission, yet still Oswald was clearly thinking this through up to the point where he pulled the trigger, and he even wrote a note for Marina where he guides her through the immediate aftermath and he says "If I am alive and captured..." indicating that he expected a shoot out with the Cops, similarly in the Texas Theatre Oswald put this "suicide by cop" into action when he pulled the trigger of his revolver.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to show you dear reader that the amount of effort and planning to link the alias Hidell with the person Oswald was an effort of enormous magnitude and required forgery, planting evidence in obscure places and a stack of lies. This sequence of inconceivable events I doubt would even be contemplated by a fiction author like Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum, because of the absurd unbelievability, yet almost 60 years later the mind of an ever increasingly desperate conspiracy theorist who believes anything and I mean anything is possible, just take it all in their stride. -sigh-
 

It was either Oswald or;

The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!

Looking at this mountain of evidence that links Hidell with Oswald and I ask even the most sceptical to consider that each step needs to be either planned, forged, planted and then lied about, and then take the time to contemplate if this mass co-ordination of deception is even possible in our Real World?

I rest my case!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

A classic example of overthinking.

Most of what's in the list didn't have to happen that way at all. It has been clear from the start, at least to me, that if there has been a conspiracy before the event, Oswald would have had to be part of it somehow, as it's simply impossible to set up a complete outsider.

I'm not saying it happened (I simply do not know) but it can not be ruled out that Oswald was manipulated into doing things like using the Hidell alias in some ways that may well have looked harmless to him at the time, such as putting the name on the New Orleans P.O. box, using it for his Fair play for Cuba activities, using it for job applications and/or making the fake ID. It is possible that Oswald simply wouldn't have understood what the consequences could be when this evidence is placed in another context.

The main question is was he being manipulated or not? The answer of course is that we will never know, either way. That's the problem with a highly circumstantial case where the only physical evidence is a rifle and some shells found at the TSBD. Everything gets subjected to spin.

The bottom line is a simple one; all these claims made about the Hidell alias do not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It's mere window dressing to put Oswald in the most negative light so that it might be easier to conclude that he did in fact kill Kennedy. Perhaps that was the main purpose from the beginning.

That's why you call it "a mountain of evidence" when in fact it's just a bunch of assumptions and silly questions which could only have been answered by Oswald.

[John Mytton]

A classic example of overthinking.

Most of what's in the list didn't have to happen that way at all. It has been clear from the start, at least to me, that if there has been a conspiracy before the event, Oswald would have had to be part of it somehow, as it's simply impossible to set up a complete outsider.

I'm not saying it happened (I simply do not know) but it is very well possible that Oswald was manipulated into doing things like using the Hidell alias in some ways that may well have looked harmless to him at the time, such as putting the name on the New Orleans P.O. box, using it for his Fair play for Cuba activities, using it for job applications and/or making the fake ID. It is possible that Oswald simply wouldn't have understood what the consequences could be when this evidence is placed in another context.

The main question is was he being manipulated or not? The answer of course is that we will never know, either way. That's the problem with a highly circumstantial case where the only physical evidence is a rifle and some shells found at the TSBD. Everything gets subjected to spin.

The bottom line is a simple one; all these claims made about the Hidell alias do not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It's mere window dressing to put Oswald in the most negative light so that it might be easier to conclude that he did in fact kill Kennedy. Perhaps that was the main purpose from the beginning.

That's why you call it "a mountain of evidence" when in fact it's just a bunch of assumptions and silly questions which could only have been answered by Oswald.

A classic example of overthinking.

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?

It has been clear from the start, at least to me, that if there has been a conspiracy before the event, Oswald would have had to be part of it somehow, as it's simply impossible to set up a complete outsider.

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!

I'm not saying it happened (I simply do not know) but it is very well possible that Oswald was manipulated into doing things like using the Hidell alias in some ways that may well have looked harmless to him at the time, such as putting the name on the New Orleans P.O. box, using it for his Fair play for Cuba activities, using it for job applications and/or making the fake ID.

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?

It is possible that Oswald simply wouldn't have understood what the consequences could be when this evidence is placed in another context.

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.

The main question is was he being manipulated or not? The answer of course is that we will never know, either way.

Manipulated by who and why because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the facts

That's the problem with a highly circumstantial case where the only physical evidence is a rifle and some shells found at the TSBD.

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 bottom line is a simple one; all these claims made about the Hidell alias do not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy.

The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.

It's mere window dressing to put Oswald in the most negative light so that it might be easier to conclude that he did in fact kill Kennedy.

??

All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.

Perhaps that was the main purpose from the beginning.

What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?

That's why you call it "a mountain of evidence"

Because it is a mountain of evidence.

when in fact it's just a bunch of assumptions and silly questions

The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.

which could only have been answered by Oswald.

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

[Martin Weidmann]

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 advance

I 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 facts

How 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.

[John Mytton]

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 advance

I 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 facts

How 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.

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.

I know you're passionate but why do you misrepresent what I say? Read my reply on this subject to Iacoletti, where I present an expert who found not 1 but three different matching fibers from the rifle and Oswald's shirt and I have never said that anyone can make a "positive match", it's the prohibitive probability that it's highly unlikely that someone else would randomly come into contact with Oswald's rifle. And I also quote an official FBI document which equally says that finding finding random matching fibers is remote.
Btw fiber evidence has helped solve many cases.

That's true, no one ever denied that someone else who was wearing clothes including pants, socks, underwear or even a handy rag, made up of Oswald's shirt fibres could have come into contact with C2766, hence the usage of "probability".
But, and this is very important, the probability of a random contact is as Bugliosi tells us, is prohibitive.
At the end of the day, some random piece of material which contains not one but the same three threads with the same twists, same colour, same dye batch, same amount of fading, etc etc touched C2766

The FBI agrees
"Put another way, the chance of finding known fibers from a randomly selected suspect source that match the questioned fibers is remote"
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april1999/houckch1.htm

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.

The Moon landings are supported by indisputable evidence but "passionate" dissenters still argue that the moon landings were faked.
9/11 was carried out by terrorists but "passionate" dissenters still debate that it was an inside job
"David Icke: Conspiracy of the Lizard Illuminati (Part 1/2)" on YouTube has over 8 million views, just read the comments and see "passionate" supporters.

So obviously till the end of time, there will always be "passionate" dissenters/supporters that will perpetuate any number of Kooky ideas and there will always be intelligent logical educated people that will argue in support of the truth.

I'm not a CT, so I wouldn't know. Ask them.

I deliberately worded the question because I know that you say that you aren't a conspiracy theorist but I do thank you for reminding me once again.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I know you're passionate but why do you misrepresent what I say? Read my reply on this subject to Iacoletti, where I present an expert who found not 1 but three different matching fibers from the rifle and Oswald's shirt and I have never said that anyone can make a "positive match", it's the prohibitive probability that it's highly unlikely that someone else would randomly come into contact with Oswald's rifle. And I also quote an official FBI document which equally says that finding finding random matching fibers is remote.
Btw fiber evidence has helped solve many cases.

I did not misrepresent what you said. There is no such thing as a positive match when it comes to fibers. You, nevertheless, tried to explain reasons why you can still call it "matching fibers" after all.
That's disingenuous. "prohibitive probabillity" is an estimation and thus, at best, an opinion. The same goes for the FBI document (btw are there also unofficial FBI documents?). Opinions, no matter how likely correct they might seem to be are not evidence.

There's either a demonstrable positive match or there isn't. Trying to twist and turn it into a positive match based on speculative opinions is misrepresenting the evidence.

The Moon landings are supported by indisputable evidence but "passionate" dissenters still argue that the moon landings were faked.
9/11 was carried out by terrorists but "passionate" dissenters still debate that it was an inside job
"David Icke: Conspiracy of the Lizard Illuminati (Part 1/2)" on YouTube has over 8 million views, just read the comments and see "passionate" supporters.

So obviously till the end of time, there will always be "passionate" dissenters/supporters that will perpetuate any number of Kooky ideas and there will always be intelligent logical educated people that will argue in support of the truth.

Well, I'm sure glad that I don't argue the moon landings were faked or that 9/11 was an inside job and that I don't know David Icke, because I would not like to deal with people who call themselves "intelligent logical educated" but forget that even the biggest fool on this planet still considers himself to be a "intelligent logical educated" person.

I deliberately worded the question because I know that you say that you aren't a conspiracy theorist but I do thank you for reminding me once again.

JohnM

So, what's left of this Hidell alias connection with the Kennedy murder? Suddenly, you're very silent on that. Why is that?

[John Mytton]

So, what's left of this Hidell alias connection with the Kennedy murder? Suddenly, you're very silent on that. Why is that?

Stop with the bullying!

You edited my post when you replied to me, here's my answer in full

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!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop with the bullying!

You edited my post when you replied to me, here's my answer in full

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!

JohnM

Stop with the bullying!

Asking you a question, you don't seem to like, is now bullying? Really? Touchy, touchy.....

You edited my post when you replied to me

I did not edit your post. I merely highlighted in bold the two parts of your reply I was responding to.

The fact remains that when you argue that it's highly unlikely that Oswald was set up for the Kennedy murder so far in advance, you also have to say that it's also unlikely that Oswald (or anybody else) created the Hidell alias so far in advance for the Kennedy murder, eight months later. Ergo, you can not use the Hidell alias as evidence for Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy assassination, when in fact it may not have had anything to do with that. Or is that too logical for you?