The preponderance of the evidence

[Paul May]

I joined many years ago to learn more about the assassination. And I have and hope to learn more. I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.

Charles, quite candidly, there is nothing more to learn. NARA has released 99% of the files and if you believe you can learn learn one damn thing from a CT, you?re dreaming.  What you will learn is the Truthers will only continue discussing the same BS day after day. Year after year. Very few have even read the WR.  They?re here seeking confirmation bias and little else. Good luck.

[Jack Trojan]

HSCA reached the same conclusion as the WR. Oswald was the shooter. They did speak of a ?probable? conspiracy which they, not unlike the conspiracy movement of the past 56 years could not prove. Nor will you ever.  So, where does this leave you?

No, the HSCA couldn't rule out Oswald as the shooter. However, they did think it was unlikely he was a lone nut, which is what you guys insist on without a scintilla of evidence to support the LN hypothesis. How can you be so sure that he wasn't a patsy that took a few token shots? FACT is, there is no evidence that he even took a shot, let alone that he was a LN assassin.

[Paul May]

NO patsy proof exists.  Yet you people still suck it up.

And that's where you go wrong at least as far as I am concerned (I don't really know who "you people" are). I don't care about Oswald either way. The man has been dead for 5 decades and I have always left open the possibility that he was indeed the lone gunman. The problem is that the "evidence" presented by the WC is too weak and way too speculative to prove that. Show me evidence, without speculation and assumptions, that Oswald did it and he acted alone and I will gladly accept that, but don't ask to to so on pure faith just because some Commission said so and another one basically agreed with it. There is too much politics involved in the findings of those entities.

Every piece of evidence points to Oswald pulling the trigger.

That's a bold statement. Where can I find that evidence?

The case against Oswald is an overwhelmingly circumstantial case, which the majority of murder cases are. The sheer preponderance of evidence cinches the shooter case. You?ll find ALL the evidence in the WR and/or HSCA final report.  Have you read either?

[Martin Weidmann]

I joined many years ago to learn more about the assassination. And I have and hope to learn more. I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.

I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.

There are new members all the time. I have learned from remarks made by LNs during discussions covering old ground, which is why I prefer to keep the debate going. You, on the other hand, seem to stay here merely to put forward your opinion without being willing to defend or explain it. Kinda defeats the purpose for being here, unless of course you are really a mere propagandist.

[Paul May]

No, the HSCA couldn't rule out Oswald as the shooter. However, they did think it was unlikely he was a lone nut, which is what you guys insist on without a scintilla of evidence to support the LN hypothesis. How can you be so sure that he wasn't a patsy that took a few token shots? FACT is, there is no evidence that he even took a shot, let alone that he was a LN assassin.

The HSCA stated a probable conspiracy which they could not prove.  Their statement. They agreed Oswald was the shooter. A few token shots??? If you have hard, credible evidence of another shooter, I?m all ears.  Post it.

[Martin Weidmann]

The case against Oswald is an overwhelmingly circumstantial case, which the majority of murder cases are. The sheer preponderance of evidence cinches the shooter case. You?ll find ALL the evidence in the WR and/or HSCA final report.  Have you read either?

Have you read either?

Yes. Reading the WC report got me interested in this case, because it didn't make sense......

Circumstantial cases are the weakest kind. They rely on assumptions which may or may not be correct. You claim there is a preponderance of evidence which confirms Oswald was the killer of JFK, when in truth there really is only a rifle which can only be tied tentatively to Oswald by a photo-copy of a handwritten order form and money order (taken from a now lost microfilm) and a handwritten serial number on a Klein's document. Everything else is basically assumption. I find that rather unconvincing.

[Martin Weidmann]

The HSCA stated a probable conspiracy which they could not prove.  Their statement. They agreed Oswald was the shooter. A few token shots??? If you have hard, credible evidence of another shooter, I?m all ears.  Post it.

How would hard, credible evidence of another shooter, if it even existed, prove that Oswald wasn't a shooter also?

Since when is "Oswald did it alone" the default?