Am I the only CT here who can meet the LN's more than half way? If not ...

[Bill Chapman]

Bravo!.....  You're starting to show that you've learned a wee bit of what I've taught you.

Saint Waldo the Fabricator

[Bill Chapman]

Not particularly interesting.  You guys rely on faith rather than evidence, march in lock-step, and never deviate from your holy book.  Since when is it a virtue to jump off the cliff with the other lemmings?

'virtue'

Saint John the Virtuous. Apparently.

And yet you're one of the characters misrepresenting the information by nitpicking, twisting, and splitting hairs to an alarmingly deranged, ultimately smothering* standard of proof.

And for the sake of myself and fellow lemmings everywhere, I hope that you and your fellow Reptilians don't develop a taste for lemming soup anytime soon.


*Iacoletti+Caprio+Weidmann Inc.
  >>>The Smothers Brothers

[Jack Trojan]

What is your best Oswald was involved, theory?
Btw ... that's ... INVOLVED.

Not that he was duped and Not that he was really there to protect the President.
INVOLVED.

Let the sound of crickets begin.


https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337461/m1/1/?q=lee%20harvey%20oswald%20curtain%20rods

Dan, you are obviously a closet LNer but the half way point is for you to accept that this was a conspiracy and LHO was NOT a lone nut. Once you accept this was a conspiracy, which most of the world believes, then speculate away. But don't expect ANY of the LNers to buy into it because they are 100% committed to the WC LN hypothesis which has been proven flawed and untenable. The LNer position is fringe and they have to stick to it come hell or high water. Either there was a conspiracy or there wasn't. So what is YOUR half way point?

[Dan DAlimonte]

Dan, you are obviously a closet LNer but the half way point is for you to accept that this was a conspiracy and LHO was NOT a lone nut. Once you accept this was a conspiracy, which most of the world believes, then speculate away. But don't expect ANY of the LNers to buy into it because they are 100% committed to the WC LN hypothesis which has been proven flawed and untenable. The LNer position is fringe and they have to stick to it come hell or high water. Either there was a conspiracy or there wasn't. So what is YOUR half way point?

Hey, Jack.  You're absolutely correct,  I'm as close to being an LN as a person can be, because I can't believe they can be wrong about - EVERYTHING and many CT's here, as you well know, believe exactly that.  To me, the truth lies in the middle and my half way point is - he was involved. If there's any patsy to him, it's, he had to take the blame for it all. and if that happened, there had to be a damn good reason to
make it appear as such.   

Do you know how many things would fit in perfectly if he was involved with a team of two to three people?  He had his own escape route and his job was to draw the police to him which didn't happen because of that inadvertent direction from Curry to search the railroad yard first.  The second group was escaping in a station wagon and I still maintain that ALL assassins were captured that day.  Oswald on his own and that station wagon captured at Redbird airfield.  That last capture mentioned took place within twenty minutes from the event and these  - persons - as stated in the Radio Traffic Relays who were brought to the downtown jail were quickly identified as being domestic agents a/o pro or anti Castro agents and from
there on in, all roads had to lead back to Oswald acting alone.  My opinion - yes - but whatever evidence
that I do have - scant as it is - does seem to fit.   I'll list it again if you want.

Anyway, thanks for responding.  Btw - you're right again, I never did think any LN would move towards the middle, if you will, but a CT could come to the same conclusion as I stated that the LN's can't be wrong
about everything.  Oswald was no saint in my book.

[John Iacoletti]

And yet you're one of the characters misrepresenting the information by nitpicking, twisting, and splitting hairs to an alarmingly deranged, ultimately smothering* standard of proof.

Wrongo, my dear Mr. Chapman.  You and your brethren are twisting, distorting, rationalizing, speculating, and conjecturing a few bits of weak, circumstantial, and tainted evidence into what you keep claiming is a "mountain of solid evidence".  Your standard of proof is ridiculously lax.  You assume Oswald did it, therefore Oswald did it.

[Bill Chapman]

Wrongo, my dear Mr. Chapman.  You and your brethren are twisting, distorting, rationalizing, speculating, and conjecturing a few bits of weak, circumstantial, and tainted evidence into what you keep claiming is a "mountain of solid evidence".  Your standard of proof is ridiculously lax.  You assume Oswald did it, therefore Oswald did it.

Point out where I ever said 'a mountain of solid evidence'

[Martin Weidmann]

Point out where I ever said 'a mountain of solid evidence'

Don't you ever get tired of being you?

[Bill Chapman]

Don't you ever get tired of being you?

I've never had that experience
Tell us what it feels like