Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Vincent Baxter]

OK, so let me rephrase: Have you so far posted anything that would require anyone to spend their time proving you wrong?

I don't know, thats up for interpretation isn't it? Depends whether that specific aspect of the case that I mentioned interests you or not.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.

Now, to me, that seems a fairly rational question and I don't see anything wrong with the actual question. If that topic was of no relevance or interest to you then you're all welcome to scroll past or just ignore the post.

Granted, it might have been something that has been asked a lot of times before, so I can understand if people didn't want to waste their time replying. But clearly people (especially you) have plenty of time to reply with numerous posts about the way I phrased a question or saying that I claimed something happened which I didn't have evidence for, but that didn't address the actual issue.

Obviously there was that one chap who did reply with a sensible answer, so lets exclude him.

[John Mytton]

Thank you! I wasn't even trying to produce a fact, I merely posted an opinion and asked people's thoughts about it. Clearly my opinion did not fall into their way of thinking and since then I've spent the last 3 days listening to them rabbit on in long messages about how I put words into people's mouths, used bad English, said hypocritical things and pretty much everything else other than address anything remotely connected to my question about the case.
The funny thing is they don't see this and just continue to give it all the holier than thou attitude.

Good luck

and pretty much everything else other than address anything remotely connected to my question about the case.

That's it, you nailed it!

JohnM

[Vincent Baxter]

Well, let's just say, it's because I dislike wankers with a bad additute

I can't agree more!

Nobody is talking as much spombleprofglidnoctobuns as you....

I dunno, you're making a pretty good effort yourself

[Vincent Baxter]

How nice to see that you and that geezer are becoming best buddies so fast....

Like Siamese twins, mate

[John Mytton]

So what is Exhibit 4 doing there?

Again with the stupid vague riddles, I clearly have no idea what you're desperately trying to prove and have asked you on multiple occasions to clarify your argument but instead you keep replying with insults and more questions?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know, thats up for interpretation isn't it? Depends whether that specific aspect of the case that I mentioned interests you or not.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.

Now, to me, that seems a fairly rational question and I don't see anything wrong with the actual question. If that topic was of no relevance or interest to you then you're all welcome to scroll past or just ignore the post.

Granted, it might have been something that has been asked a lot of times before, so I can understand if people didn't want to waste their time replying. But clearly people (especially you) have plenty of time to reply with numerous posts about the way I phrased a question or saying that I claimed something happened which I didn't have evidence for, but that didn't address the actual issue.

Obviously there was that one chap who did reply with a sensible answer, so lets exclude him.

Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.

Against my better judgment, let's see if you are capable of discussing the case.....

How do you know that nobody ever came clean or left a confession?

Does the mere fact that you and I don't know about it automatically mean that something didn't happen?

If there was indeed a cover up, don't you think suppression of evidence and misinformation would be part of it?

[Martin Weidmann]

Again with the stupid vague riddles, I clearly have no idea what you're desperately trying to prove and have asked you on multiple occasions to clarify your argument but instead you keep replying with insults and more questions?

JohnM

Johnny's latest strategy to dealing with questions he can't answer: Ignoring them or claiming he doesn't understand the question....

[Bill Chapman]

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"?

You posted that Hunt's family exploited him. My point was that not all of Hunt's family exploited him; just the two brothers. His widow and the rest of the family did not. Why did you leave that part of my post out?

I'm an LN... Oswald all the way.