Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Zeon Mason]

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.

[Martin Weidmann]

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton. It's fine, I enjoy a bit of banter but I was just pointing out it had no relevance to my post.

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton.

I can fully understand that you don't want to be compared to Mytton. What sane person would?

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

Why are you putting words in Peter's mouth?

All he did was ask you when he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy? Why do you answer his question with a question?

[Martin Weidmann]

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?

I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

How do you know that "one of them would have cracked..."?

I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.

Let's see if I understand this correctly.... Instead of examining the actual evidence, you prefer your conclusion to be based on the opinion of the author or those authors who, in your mind, present the most persuasive case?

[Vincent Baxter]

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
>>> By all accounts? Seems you're reading only conspiracy-monger books.

Fair point, sir! Im not going to lie and pretend I'm the equivalent of the Britannia Encyclopaedia on the E.Howard Hunt confession, but I've read stuff both for & against it and, by my own reckoning, haven't found anything worthy to be classed as conclusive evidence.
Considering all the conspiracy theories still being thrown around on this forum, I would think it's pretty safe to say that even the most ardent of conspiracy theory believers didn't find anything valid in the, alleged "genuine", confession either as they're still banging on about their own theories.

Would you mind me asking you a question? If someone asked you now who shot JFK would you say it was 100% "A French man on the grassy knoll"?

[Vincent Baxter]

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton.

I can fully understand that you don't want to be compared to Mytton. What sane person would?

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

Why are you putting words in Peter's mouth?

All he did was ask you when he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy? Why do you answer his question with a question?

And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue. I'm sure he'll appreciate you butting in and making him look like a bellend who can't speak for himself.

Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.

I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was? But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:

"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"

I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine. I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.

[Vincent Baxter]

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

How do you know that "one of them would have cracked..."?

Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't. It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there. Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" 

Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.

[Martin Weidmann]

And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue. I'm sure he'll appreciate you butting in and making him look like a bellend who can't speak for himself.

Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.

I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was? But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:

"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"

I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine. I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.

And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue.

What's with the obnoxious Mytton-esque "Super Weidmann" comments? You seem extremely defensive. Are you always like that when somebody asks you a simply question? Why the animosity?

Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.

Actually, no I couldn't. He responded to your first post in the thread, in which you were only asking rhetorical questions leading up to a "conclusion", by saying that "you talk like Mytton", which was indeed a factual comment. You then responded with a rant about people who "at least agree a cover up occurred", which fully justifies Peter asking you where he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy?

Obviously, you could not show where Peter had said anything of the sort, which of course means that you were wrong to make that comment in your post to him!

I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was?

Another typical Mytton-esque ad hominem reply and filled with "logic" that makes (one's) toes curl. You did not ask him what his view actually was. You asked him what was he was telling you, when in fact he had not told you anything!

But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:

"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"

Nice bit of backpeddling!

I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine.

Already explained. You also did not leap to my defense to ask Mytton why he failed/refused to answer my question. So what?

I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.

I truly hope that you do indeed get over it fast, because if our initial exchange got you so worked up that you felt the need to resort to this "Super Weidmann" crap, we are going to have a lot of fun in the future   

Btw, if you don't really need Super Weidmann to fight your battles, why did you just complain that I did not leap to your defense and fight your battle with Peter Goth for you? You are not making a great deal of sense.....

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't. It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there. Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" 

Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.

Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.

What's wrong with asking somebody how he knows something he presents as a fact?

Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation. 

Yes, clearly you were stating it as fact. But this has now been cleared up nicely. Thank you. See what asking a simple question can achieve?

Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't.

Irrelevant. I did not make any claim and asking for proof "that none of them wouldn't" is asking for proof of a negative.

It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there.

Great, it's always good to have clarity

Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings

Sure, of course you were...

In fact, and this may confuse you, I do think that in the past 50 years people would have talked. In fact, I believe they did or at least tried to.

and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" 

Since when is asking for proof a "tiresome counter-argument"? If somebody makes a claim he/she should be able to provide proof for that claim, right? Or do you perhaps disagree with that?

Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.

Wow.. aggressive. Did I get under you skin or are you by nature just a nasty piece of work who starts behaving badly like another six year old from down under I know?

Btw, what exactly was the discussion and with whom were you having that discussion?