The number one CT nightmare question ...

[Bill Chapman]

John, Osdlwad could have been under orders to meet a contact in the cinema. You may recall that he was seen moving around the theatre costing various people. Why would he do this?
A very naive point of view, IMO.

Yes, an alternative theory could be that he was acting under instructions and became the fall guy, thus he could easily have been totally innocent.

Problem: A need to get off the street pronto
Solution: Pick up one of TT customers and get the hell out of Dodge
Or at least temporary off the street

You're not much of a problem solver

[Ray Mitcham]

Problem: A need to get off the street pronto
Solution: Pick up one of TT customers and get the hell out of Dodge
Or at least temporary off the street

You're not much of a problem solver

Says a Warren Commission believer.

[Martin Weidmann]

We have finally come to the end of the discussion!  No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened).  It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy.

We have finally come to the end of the discussion!

What discussion? There never was a discussion. All you have been doing is sounding like a broken record repeating the same rubbish all the time.

No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened).

BS. This is just your classic "I can't convince you with my special kind of logic, but that is your fault" crap

It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy. 

What evidence of Oswald's guilt have I ever ignored? Could it be you equate questioning evidence with ignoring it? And since when is having doubts about something contrarian?

You still don't get that I am trying to discuss all possibilities without having a predetermined opinion, like you have.

[Bill Chapman]

CT's in general believe that Oswald was totally innocent and was set up as a patsy by a large scale conspiracy. The planning included taking him off the watchlist for subversive elements and planting all kind of evidence against him.

If you believe this you also have to believe that this costly big scale conspiracy would willingly take the risk that Oswald could be literally anywhere in company with anybody in such a way that he could not be set up.

He could have been on the grassy knoll steps in company with Lovelady  or simply not having turned up to work that day. Even if he would have been urged to go to work that day and and been told to carry out certain activities somewhere in the building, would not guarantee him doing it in the exact moment of time considering also that the limo may be late.

Therefore, if  you do not believe that a conspiracy would take such risks, you will have to present an alternative theory.

(Some of you may reconsider believing that Oswald was actually at the steps of the TSBD)

'Nightmare', huh.. are you sure the conspirator species even sleeps?

More like daydreams...

[Bill Chapman]

You are simply not getting this, are you?

Oswald's actual movements wouldn't have mattered one bit if the force behind the conspiracy (if there was one) was able to control the evidence and the narrative.

Once Oswald was killed, who was going to deny anything they claimed about him?

You are simply not getting this, are you?
>>> Lord Haughty the Condescender still running his mouth, I see...

[Richard Smith]

We have finally come to the end of the discussion!

What discussion? There never was a discussion. All you have been doing is sounding like a broken record repeating the same rubbish all the time.

No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened).

BS. This is just your classic "I can't convince you with my special kind of logic, but that is your fault" crap

It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy. 

What evidence of Oswald's guilt have I ever ignored? Could it be you equate questioning evidence with ignoring it? And since when is having doubts about something contrarian?

You still don't get that I am trying to discuss all possibilities without having a predetermined opinion, like you have.

You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street.  Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty.  It becomes an impossible standard of proof.  For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination.  That doesn't matter to you because he could have been standing outside in the presence of others and your all powerful conspirators coerced them into lying.  It is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense that allows you entertain false doubt of Oswald's guilt regardless of the evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street.  Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty.  It becomes an impossible standard of proof.  For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination.  That doesn't matter to you because he could have been standing outside in the presence of others and your all powerful conspirators coerced them into lying.  It is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense that allows you entertain false doubt of Oswald's guilt regardless of the evidence.

Stop making up stuff and misrepresenting my words.

[John Iacoletti]

What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination?

Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?