Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Martin Weidmann]

As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?

This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.

For you to come along and complain about posters telling us what Oswald thought while all of this above conspiracy fantasies are promoted is not, for me, a "good faith" complaint.

As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?

Are you claiming I ever did that? Well, then you'd better show me or withdraw the claim.

This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.

Sorry, I'm not one of those making such claims either... but feel free to prove me wrong, if you can!

For you to come along and complain about posters telling us what Oswald thought while all of this above conspiracy fantasies are promoted is not, for me, a "good faith" complaint.

Show me please where I have ever claimed to know what anybody involved in this case thought at some point in time.

Btw you argument is typical childish one; "others are doing it, so why can't I"....

Richard Smith, nor you or I hasn't got a clue what was in Oswald's mind. Nobody has, except for Oswald himself of course, but he won't tell us, will he now. Telling us what Oswald thought, as Richard and some other LNs do frequently, is mere mindless speculation which has no value whatsoever.

[Charles Collins]

I stumbled across this Smithsonian Channel documentary about evidence still being uncovered in The Titanic story. And it occurred to me that we are still occasionally uncovering evidence in the JFK assassination story. And that this thread is a good example.


https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/titanics-fatal-fire/0/3439558


Anyway, the Smithsonian Channel Titanic documentary served as encouragement to me to keep up the effort here. And, if the Titanic story interests any of y’all, some future broadcast dates are in the link...

[Jerry Freeman]

I stumbled across this Smithsonian Channel documentary about evidence still being uncovered in The Titanic story. And it occurred to me that we are still occasionally uncovering evidence in the JFK assassination story.

I believe that has been done here in this forum....Warren Report---false evidence uncovered.

[Walt Cakebread]

While there are some here who promote certain ( bizarre, unproven, ) " conspiracy" theories, there are plenty of people, including me, who are merely skeptical of the official story and point out inconsistencies, omissions and falsehoods therein. I.e. SBT, associations and motives of Jack Ruby, timeline of Oswald's activities presented, pre ,post, and during the assassination etc.

You are painting with a broad brush, and creating a "strawman" as a defense? I guess, of the Warren Commission. Instead, perhaps you could respond to the actual issues. Specifically, in this case, the rather shoddy and incomplete evidence regarding the "gunsack", and its provenance. We have conflicting stories from Studebaker, Day and Roy Truly. We have no photographs of the bag in situ. We have a photograph allegedly taken when the bag was resting on top of the stack of boxes. When was this taken? Why was the bag just lying there? Had it not already been taken into evidence?
These are just honest questions.

Oswald may well have been the actual assassin, and murderer of Tippit; the official story, at this point, does not support it's own conclusion.

 We have conflicting stories from Studebaker, Day and Roy Truly.

Nearly every witness who actually saw  a paper bag that was possibly connected to the events of 11 /22 63,  From Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle to Detective JC Day and Roy Truly and several others have conflicting reports about the paper sack they saw.

How can this be??.....  Answer ... Because the story about Lee carrying a rifle in a paper sack is nothing but bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns!    The witnesses were used by the conspirators.

[Richard Smith]

As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?

This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.

For you to come along and complain about posters telling us what Oswald thought while all of this above conspiracy fantasies are promoted is not, for me, a "good faith" complaint.

The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid.  The reason is obvious.  There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin.  Our dishonest contrarians know this.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate by taking issue with everything.  Basically what a defense attorney does for a client that they know is guilty.  Frame the evidence against an impossible standard of proof, suggest there is (false) doubt, don't bother to address what did happen if their client is not guilty.   Repeat endlessly.

[Colin Crow]

While there are some here who promote certain ( bizarre, unproven, ) " conspiracy" theories, there are plenty of people, including me, who are merely skeptical of the official story and point out inconsistencies, omissions and falsehoods therein. I.e. SBT, associations and motives of Jack Ruby, timeline of Oswald's activities presented, pre ,post, and during the assassination etc.

You are painting with a broad brush, and creating a "strawman" as a defense? I guess, of the Warren Commission. Instead, perhaps you could respond to the actual issues. Specifically, in this case, the rather shoddy and incomplete evidence regarding the "gunsack", and its provenance. We have conflicting stories from Studebaker, Day and Roy Truly. We have no photographs of the bag in situ. We have a photograph allegedly taken when the bag was resting on top of the stack of boxes. When was this taken? Why was the bag just lying there? Had it not already been taken into evidence?
These are just honest questions.

Oswald may well have been the actual assassin, and murderer of Tippit; the official story, at this point, does not support it's own conclusion.

The bag was in position to transport the wooden sill from the wrong SN window just before 3pm. This strip was not intact was was in two pieces. I believe the longer piece was supporting the bag in the photos of Montgomery leaving the building and the shorter piece was supporting the pop bottle carried by Johnson. Those who originally viewed the SN incorrectly assumed the shots were made as Kennedy approached. It was only after Day returned to the TSBD after depositing the rifle at HQ that he realised Studebaker had removed the wrong strip. Later the correct one was removed for fingerprinting.

[John Iacoletti]

The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid.  The reason is obvious.  There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin.

Translation from “Richard”-speak:

“My assumptions are automatically correct unless you prove me wrong.”

[Martin Weidmann]

The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid.  The reason is obvious.  There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin.  Our dishonest contrarians know this.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate by taking issue with everything.  Basically what a defense attorney does for a client that they know is guilty.  Frame the evidence against an impossible standard of proof, suggest there is (false) doubt, don't bother to address what did happen if their client is not guilty.   Repeat endlessly.

This must be one of the most stupid posts Richard has ever come up with.....

There is no reason nor requirement for an alternative scenario or explanantion for what happened. The evidence is supposed to show that something did happen and should be strong and convincing enough to withstand scrutiny.

The is no "impossible standard of proof". The evidence either convinces or it doesn't. Complaining about an impossible standard of proof only shows that Richard isn't actually sure himself that the evidence will hold up under closer examination.

Richard likes to play the prosecutor who complains about the jury because he can't convince them with his contrived narrative