Try giving some thought to the TSBD

[John Iacoletti]

Good ol' John "EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU CITE IS LEGITIMATE -- And I Will Always Yell At The Top Of My Voice That It Isn't -- IT STILL DOESN'T ABSOLUTELY PROVE THAT OSWALD KILLED JFK" Iacoletti.

It doesn't even prove it a little bit.  Maybe a few more capital letters will help.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's "actions" can mean whatever the interpreter wants them to mean.  If you're looking at them through "Oswald-did-it"-colored glasses, then that's what you will see.

[John Iacoletti]

Putting aside the endless contrarian loon arguments, why would any conspiracy plan involve bringing the president to the assassin instead of the assassin to the president?  That is sheer stupidity.  It's idiocy to believe that the plan was to put a patsy in some random building and then manipulate the schedule and motorcade of the president to bring him by that specific building.  Much easier to control the movements of the patsy than the president.

Strawman "Smith", right on cue.  Why would a single designated patsy have to be chosen, and chosen in advance?

This just the same old argument, take 100001:  "This vast Conspiracy I made up in my head would never do something like X.  Therefore there was no conspiracy.  Therefore, Oswald did it."

[John Iacoletti]

Again, this is the problem with the "panic" explanation. It's completely ad hoc. Those who don't want Oswald to be a gunman - which a large body of evidence suggests he was - are stuck with his post-assassination actions and thus must invent the "panic" explanation.

That's quite a blind spot.  Those who do want Oswald to be a gunman have to invent this "fleeing the scene of the crime" narrative, even though there was nothing he demonstrably did that could be legitimately interpreted as "fleeing".

[Tom Graves]

That's quite a blind spot.  Those who do want Oswald to be a gunman have to invent this "fleeing the scene of the crime" narrative, even though there was nothing he demonstrably did that could be legitimately interpreted as "fleeing".

Admit it, Iacoletti -- If you had a better theory for the assassination than "Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by himself," you would have shared it with us by now.

So, you don't.

[John Iacoletti]

The lack of another "theory" doesn't make your "theory" correct.  Or even good.