Ruth Paine - Absolutely part of a conspiracy

[Richard Smith]

You give some pretty pathetic examples to make your point, but exaggeration is to be expected from you so there's really no suprise there. Anybody who thinks that Oswald's guilt is just as much a fact as the sun coming up in the east or the earth being round needs his head examined.

What possible vested interest could I have in Oswald's guilt?

You tell me. You were the one who brought it up.

What you are suggesting is that there are apparently no facts only opinions.

It's your opinion that determines, for you, what is a fact and what isn't! For instance, it is merely your opinion that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD concealed in a paper bag that was found in the sniper's nest but you call it a fact. But it is only a fact to you! Others might think differently and do.

You apparently believe that can only be my "opinion" since there are people who disagree

No, I don't believe that at all. You're trying to twist my words.

It's laughable but goes a long way toward explaining why you can't accept the obvious conclusion from the evidence in this case.

There you go again? What obvious conclusion would that be? The answer is of course the one which you have reached based on things that you, in your opinion, have determined to be "facts". If somebody else does not share your opinion about what is a fact and what isn't the ultimate conclusion becomes less obvious.

I repeat; your basic position is that you are convinced by the evidence and anybody who does not share your view is not to be taken seriously. You've got a unjustifiable high opinion of yourself, haven't you?

Do you believe there are such things as facts even when others voice disagreement?  For example, I assume you agree that it is a fact that the world is round and not flat even though there are groups of people who make arguments to the contrary.  These people are dismissed as kranks because the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the world is round.  Just because someone disagree doesn't turn a fact into an opinion as you have erroneously suggested.  The conclusion of one person that the world is round is not equaled out by the conclusion of another that it is flat.  It's the evidence that establish facts. The evidence against Oswald is conclusive.  That is not merely my "opinion" because you and some other kranks disagree.  It is a fact. I don't reach that conclusion because I have some axe to grind with Oswald, conspiracy theories, or anyone who disagrees with that conclusion.  It is the evidence that dictates that result.

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you believe there are such things as facts even when others voice disagreement?  For example, I assume you agree that it is a fact that the world is round and not flat even though there are groups of people who make arguments to the contrary.  These people are dismissed as kranks because the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the world is round.  Just because someone disagree doesn't turn a fact into an opinion as you have erroneously suggested.  The conclusion of one person that the world is round is not equaled out by the conclusion of another that it is flat.  It's the evidence that establish facts. The evidence against Oswald is conclusive.  That is not merely my "opinion" because you and some other kranks disagree.  It is a fact. I don't reach that conclusion because I have some axe to grind with Oswald, conspiracy theories, or anyone who disagrees with that conclusion.  It is the evidence that dictates that result.

Do you believe there are such things as facts even when others voice disagreement?

Sure there are... you've just given two examples with the sun coming up in the east and the earth being round. One is selfevident as anybody can see it rise everyday and the other is scientifically proven. Oswald's guilt is neither!

Just because someone disagree doesn't turn a fact into an opinion as you have erroneously suggested.

You have it backwards, just because someone is of the opinion that something is a fact doesn't make it so!

The conclusion of one person that the world is round is not equaled out by the conclusion of another that it is flat.  It's the evidence that establish facts. 

Agreed.

The evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

You will probably not understand or accept this, but this is where you go of the rails. Just because it is conclusive in your opinion doesn't automatically make it a fact. It doesn't even make it conclusive.

That is not merely my "opinion" because you and some other kranks disagree.

No, it's your opinion because?.. wait for it, it is your opinion!

It is a fact. I don't reach that conclusion because I have some axe to grind with Oswald, conspiracy theories, or anyone who disagrees with that conclusion.  It is the evidence that dictates that result.

Wrong again. You seem to be under the misguided belief that whatever is your opinion is automatically a fact. It isn't, no matter how many times you repeat it. 

[Oscar Navarro]

<block>55 years have passed and you guys have nothing. Do you think when the 100th anniversary comes around there will be something that might cast serious suspicion in the mind of a serious, smart unbiased investigator from the new generation coming through?</block>

You are wrong here.  There is film and photographic evidence of a conspiracy that is undeniable and you know it but do not want to accept it.  A conspiracy means that the U.S. Government was involved directly, indirectly, or as a coverup.

Not that I support that there was a conspiracy but why should it be the US government? Why not Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R, anti-Castro Cubans, the Italian Mafia, Crosby, Stills and Nash?

[Eddie Haymaker]

Actually that is wrong
When we talk of a conspiracy to murder
It involves 2 or more people pre-planning  a murder
that is a conspiracy to murder
that is all

yes you can reference a "wider" conspiracy
but usually when people reference a conspiracy they mean more than LHO
Thats why when the HSCA rules a probable conspiracy
it is quite open ended, it means more than 1 (but could be 1,000)

Only the US Government could have done what was done
come on Oscar you know that

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Not that I support that there was a conspiracy but why should it be the US government? Why not Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R, anti-Castro Cubans, the Italian Mafia, Crosby, Stills, and Nash?

Rap music to Crosby, Stills, and Nash? 
I think it's fair to say you're easily distracted. When you're spoon-fed a story by the government, why ask questions, right?
So tell me, what was it for you? "A lone gunman"? "He spent time in Russia"? Or "If Dan Rather believes it, then I can be a lapdog too"?

[Walt Cakebread]

Not that I support that there was a conspiracy but why should it be the US government? Why not Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R, anti-Castro Cubans, the Italian Mafia, Crosby, Stills and Nash?

Mr Narvarro, Just answer this question:.... Could any of the "suspects" you have named controlled the autopsy of President Kennedy?

There's no doubt that the autopsy was a sham....   Who had the power to control that autopsy?   

[Michael Walton]

https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/

I found this on another forum. This, to me, is as close to a Rosetta Stone that's out there to show that LHO was being set up.

[Oscar Navarro]

Actually that is wrong
When we talk of a conspiracy to murder
It involves 2 or more people pre-planning  a murder
that is a conspiracy to murder
that is all

yes you can reference a "wider" conspiracy
but usually when people reference a conspiracy they mean more than LHO
Thats why when the HSCA rules a probable conspiracy
it is quite open ended, it means more than 1 (but could be 1,000)

Only the US Government could have done what was done
come on Oscar you know that

I know what a conspiracy is and you emphatically state that the evidence points to the US government. I counter that there's as much evidence for US involvement as there is for the countries and entities mentioned, including Crosby, Stills and Nash. In other words, there's none. All there is is speculation about motives, half truths, weird guilt by association (as that provided by Tom Scully for example), fabrications, opinions from luminaries that are vague or misguided, partial readings of official government documents that omit context, not believing the testimony of individuals who are at the center of the alleged controversy (Nicholas Katzenbaugh for example), the reliance on interviews from individuals who are purported to have inside knowledge (Brothers in Arms for example).. I'm sure you get my drift.