Who is sitting up in Zapruder @Z456?

[John Iacoletti]

In the hopes that if he keeps thinking up more stupid ways of making the same unsupported claims, they will somehow become true.

[Bill Chapman]

In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Sounds just like a certain (unmentionable hereabouts, as per forum rules) irreligious, dogmatic belief system.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

A few names to note:

Lee Harvey Oswald (aka a nobody): Killer of J.D. Tippit

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka a somebody): Probably shot by Lee Harvey Oswald

Alek Hidell (aka Lee Harvey Oswald): In charge of armament procurement for Lee Harvey Oswald

Oswald Harvey Lee (aka Lee Harvey Oswald): In charge of safe-house procurement for Lee Harvey Oswald

Dirty Harvey (aka Lee Harvey Oswald): In charge of killing poor dumb cops

The Oswald defenders make the same arguments that the Trump supporters do about the alleged stolen election. You present evidence and they deny it. Deny deny deny. It was all a coverup, the witnesses are part of the conspiracy, the evidence was planted or stolen...on and on and on.

You cannot reason with conspiracy fanatics. Whatever evidence you produce will simply be said to be evidence of the conspiracy.

The assassination has been investigated, off and on, for more than half a century. The government had investigations, news organizations conducted investigations, reporters interviewed the witnesses at the scene, historians like Caro have done extensive work on the key figures, other reporters like Hersh and Weiner did investigations. This is the most studied event in American history.

And the totality of it all of it leads to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK. Did he have help? There's no evidence for it. Maybe he did. But we'll never find out today.

So the conspiracy response to all of this is to simply deny it all. Like Trump and his supporters, they just deny that investigations show that the election wasn't stolen. It is literally impossible to reason with such a mindset.

[Bill Chapman]

The Oswald defenders make the same arguments that the Trump supporters do about the alleged stolen election. You present evidence and they deny it. Deny deny deny. It was all a coverup, the witnesses are part of the conspiracy, the evidence was planted or stolen...on and on and on.

You cannot reason with conspiracy fanatics. Whatever evidence you produce will simply be said to be evidence of the conspiracy.

The assassination has been investigated, off and on, for more than half a century. The government had investigations, news organizations conducted investigations, reporters interviewed the witnesses at the scene, historians like Caro have done extensive work on the key figures, other reporters like Hersh and Weiner did investigations. This is the most studied event in American history.

And the totality of it all of it leads to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK. Did he have help? There's no evidence for it. Maybe he did. But we'll never find out today.

So the conspiracy response to all of this is to simply deny it all. Like Trump and his supporters, they just deny that investigations show that the election wasn't stolen. It is literally impossible to reason with such a mindset.

Nobody needed help or even a motive to do what Oswald probably did
'Just do did it' for the hell of it, and buggered off

Just sayin' 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Nobody needed help or even a motive to do what Oswald probably did
Just do did it for the hell of it, and buggered off

Just sayin' 

Most likely. He retrieved his rifle the day before the assassination, he had to hitch a ride from a friend to get to the "scene", he left nearly all of his money to Marina, he had no means of transportation, he's out walking around in broad daylight after the assassination......

So where is the help? Where is any planning? It's all rushed, spur of the moment.

Either his help left him dry or there was no help. Besides, who is going to work with an oddball like him? And his nature was not to work with others. He was the consummate loner.

He left the building shortly after the shooting. There is no evidence at all that he showed any interest in what happened. Is JFK dead? Did they catch the shooters? There is no evidence he had any concern about this.

This is where his defenders say, "Lots of people didn't care about the shooting." Right, Oswald was just like "lots of other people." Nothing distinguished him from them.

We're going around in circles. The evidence is known. One can accept it or reject it. At this point it's just repeating what we've known.

And right NOW we have some of Trump's supporters/thugs storming the Capitol. What an embarrassment. A bunch of disgraces to the country. Just disgusting.

[Bill Chapman]

And right NOW we have some of Trump's supporters/thugs storming the Capitol. What an embarrassment. A bunch of disgraces to the country. Just disgusting.

Trump is the biggest thug in history
Last night Chris Cuomo (CNN) said 'thunka-thunka'
John Berman asks what that means
Cuomo responds 'that's the sound of the tires as Trump throws Pence under the bus'

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Trump is the biggest thug in history
Last night Chris Cuomo (CNN) said 'thunka-thunka'
John Berman asks what that means
Cuomo responds 'that's the sound of the tires as Trump throws Pence under the bus'

I can think of dozens of people in history who were far bigger thugs, did far more horrible things than this idiot Trump.

I was always worried - from Day One - about his supporters more than him. He was always a con man, a fraud, a grifter. His type have come and gone before. The real danger is the mob that follows him, that believes in him. He will go soon but the Trump mentality, the grievance paranoia will stay behind. We now have to clean up after him. These are deeply deeply misguided people. Trump played them as chumps.

Grievance conspiracy paranoids. Oswald defenders, Trump defenders...it's all the same worldview about "them" and "they" controlling the world.

[John Iacoletti]

In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

Says the guy who knows nothing, has proven nothing, and just believes.

Sounds just like a certain (unmentionable hereabouts, as per forum rules) irreligious, dogmatic belief system.

Yet another thing you pontificate about that you have no understanding of.