I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers. As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI. Your claims that you have no stake in Oswalds guilt or innocence would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
I cannot think of - or even imagine - another historic event of any note where participants in discussing or debating what happened engage in the type of reasoning that some of the Oswald defenders do.
Frankly, I have more respect for the Walter Cakebread types who largely agree that there is evidence of Oswald's complicity in this matter but insist that the evidence has been faked or planted or altered or staged. Or that Oswald's strange behavior - which he admits to - was part of him being directed or controlled by others. Okay, he admits "it's" there but denies "it's" authenticity.
But to argue that the evidence exists in a sort of twilight zone - it exists but it doesn't, it's not real but it's not faked, it's there but not there - is remarkable. It's been more than half a century; we will not learn anything new. We have to sift through what we have, put together what we think happened, consider alternatives and make a judgment. Demanding more evidence, more this and that is a dodge.