Did the CIA assassinate JFK?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes, I'm the one making up vast conspiracy claims in a thread titled "Did the CIA assassinate JFK"?  LOL.  You are really unhinged.  And you are here night and day for years, but don't know the evidence against Oswald?  I guess it hasn't been laid out in excruciating detail in numerous official investigations, books etc.  You need me to go through all again so you can exercise your compulsion disorder with the same song and dance rebuttals.    No thanks.

If only there was, let me suggest off the wall, a movie that showed these crazy conspiracy theories we believe are being disseminated.

I dunno, maybe something titled, "John F. Kennedy"? Or something along those lines. Maybe just use his initials?

But darn it, no, we don't have anything to point to that indicates that such ideas are out there.

[Richard Smith]

If only there was, let me suggest off the wall, a movie that showed these crazy conspiracy theories we believe are being disseminated.

I dunno, maybe something titled, "John F. Kennedy"? Or something along those lines. Maybe just use his initials?

But darn it, no, we don't have anything to point to that indicates that such ideas are out there.

Yes, where do we keep coming up with the idea that anyone is suggesting a conspiracy (John's alleged strawman)?  I mean just look at that sinister picture Jack posted of all those white guys in ties like (cue sinister music) Gerald Ford with the notation:  "The big question is why LNers defend the conspirators in favor of the improbable idea that Oswald was a lone nut assassin in a perfect storm?"  He could be suggesting a gathering for lunch or something unrelated to the JFK assassination but he just decide to share on the JFK ASSASSINATION forum.

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, I'm the one making up vast conspiracy claims in a thread titled "Did the CIA assassinate JFK"?  LOL.  You are really unhinged.  And you are here night and day for years, but don't know the evidence against Oswald?  I guess it hasn't been laid out in excruciating detail in numerous official investigations, books etc.  You need me to go through all again so you can exercise your compulsion disorder with the same song and dance rebuttals.    No thanks.

Who do you think you're fooling?  You won't go through the evidence because it doesn't actually support the conclusions that you have come to.  Discussing the details of the evidence is like kryptonite to LNers.

[John Iacoletti]

Your strawmen are legendary, Richard.  Just to give you the most recent example, somebody asked how a ring in a cup is evidence of murder (short answer: it's not), and you go off on a rant about kooks thinking that conspirators planted a ring to incriminate Oswald.

Which is how you respond to every question about the reliability or relevance of things that are claimed to be evidence against Oswald.

[Bill Brown]

Discussing the details of the evidence is like kryptonite to LNers.

Yet, you've admitted to having no evidence which proves that someone other than Lee Oswald killed Kennedy or Tippit.  If one were to put a gun to your head, you'd admit fully that you believe Oswald murdered two people that day.  You're just an argumentative fool.

[Walt Cakebread]

Yet, you've admitted to having no evidence which proves that someone other than Lee Oswald killed Kennedy or Tippit.  If one were to put a gun to your head, you'd admit fully that you believe Oswald murdered two people that day.  You're just an argumentative fool.

In reality there has been a lot of evidence presented that indicates that Lee Oswald never killed anybody on 11/22/63.....You, Billy Bob simply lack the balls or the brains to open your eyes to the evidence.

If one were to put a gun to your head, you'd admit fully that you believe Oswald murdered two people that day.

For once you are probably right Billy Bob......Very few people would refuse to say whatever a gun wielding nut would demand they should say.    This is the reason that torture is unreliable......

[Richard Smith]

Your strawmen are legendary, Richard.  Just to give you the most recent example, somebody asked how a ring in a cup is evidence of murder (short answer: it's not), and you go off on a rant about kooks thinking that conspirators planted a ring to incriminate Oswald.

Which is how you respond to every question about the reliability or relevance of things that are claimed to be evidence against Oswald.

Oswald's ring is probative of Oswald's guilt when viewed in context with the totality of evidence and circumstances.  That has been explained multiple times now.  The problem is not with the explanation (accepted by historians) but your dishonest approach to this case.  Attempting to set the ring apart from the totality of evidence against Oswald, as though it is a completely independent event of his other actions, is just an Internet kooks attempt to play defense attorney.  That is beyond my power to correct.

[John Iacoletti]

Yet, you've admitted to having no evidence which proves that someone other than Lee Oswald killed Kennedy or Tippit.

Or any good reason to believe that Oswald killed Kennedy or Tippit either.

  If one were to put a gun to your head, you'd admit fully that you believe Oswald murdered two people that day.

You're not any better at mindreading me than you are at mindreading Oswald.  But I'm not surprised that this is your MO, because your whole case relies on assumptions and speculation.