Things Ct's can do to prove a conspiracy.

[Walt Cakebread]

Oswald got lucky... probably

 

"Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope."

Dear Chappy Dumbster....  Nobody with an iota of knowledge about firing a rifle would propose a theory as stupid as Billy Boob Brown proposes.

First off the idea is utterly insane because after just one shot there is no way a gunman could know in three seconds that the scope was out of alignment....  It takes a second man (a spotter) who is watching to see where the bullet strikes to enable a rifleman to know how he must adjust his aim before firing his second shot......

After a single shot a sniper would have no idea if the scope was misaligned or if a bit of rust or dirt in the barrel, or a malfunctioning cartridge, caused the bullet to miss the target ....  After a single shot there would be no reason to switch from the scope to the iron sights.....   ( The brief time period of six seconds would have prohibited switch from scope to iron) 

[Brian Walker]

How about the "Oswald Did It" crowd actually prove that Oswald did it?  Then we can worry about evidence for a conspiracy...

They already have.  I know John to you the only proof would be if they had a video of Oswald doing it.

The point here is there is a way to prove nobody could make those shots. That would prove a conspiracy and back up the CT's who make that claim.

[Matt Grantham]

They already have.  I know John to you the only proof would be if they had a video of Oswald doing it.

The point here is there is a way to prove nobody could make those shots. That would prove a conspiracy and back up the CT's who make that claim.

 The onus is on the prosecution of the supposed guilty  That is a standard our country is based upon

[Brian Walker]

The onus is on the prosecution of the supposed guilty  That is a standard our country is based upon

This is not a court case.   Showing that someone can do it does not prove Oswald did it. Showing nobody can do it proves Oswald did not.

Why the push back?

[Jack Trojan]

Since you LNers claim that Oswald did it alone, prove it or at least present circumstantial evidence that he did. Instead you obfuscate that the CT argument is null and void because CT=kook. Gettin' old!

[John Iacoletti]

I've formed an educated opinion over the years.  My opinion certainly doesn't require your approval.  Are you really that arrogant?

Nope, you answered my question.  Thanks.

[John Iacoletti]

They already have.

Who's "they"?

  I know John to you the only proof would be if they had a video of Oswald doing it.

That's a copout to make up for your lack of compelling evidence.  You're basically saying that people should accept your opinion for no good reason by inventing a strawman of what it would take to convince the people who disagree with you.  When every bit of what little evidence you have is full of reasonable doubt.

The point here is there is a way to prove nobody could make those shots. That would prove a conspiracy and back up the CT's who make that claim.

It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative.  You can't even seem to prove a positive!

[Matt Grantham]

This is not a court case.   Showing that someone can do it does not prove Oswald did it. Showing nobody can do it proves Oswald did not.

Why the push back?

 And what would be the reason that the general standard  should change? I find it odd that there would not be agreement, or even enthusiasm, for exploring ideas that are significant in providing evidence Trying to pin the onus on one side seems more of a polemic than a joint effort towards evidence

 Further it seems like a dangerous precedent, especially in the assassination of a President, that we would lower the standard simply because a suspect is killed One cannot easily deny that an assassination where the prime suspect is killed should be a potential cause to create suspicion instead of time to relax  To lower the the threshold of certainly in such cases should indeed encourage those governments, or elites of  a given society, to utilize such a strategy since, as you suggest, the standard of evidence should be lowered, or as you imply reversed for proving any given suspect guilty

 Maybe you might want to consider this argument in terms of a third world country Would you really want to suggest it is the interest of such societies to allow assassination subjects to be killed, and then to lower the standard of evidence tha tthe given suspected killer was actually guilty? Would you say the case is different since other governments can be known to be more prone to corruption than our own?