The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.

This is a common whine by people who spin and misrepresent the evidence in order to be Oswald prosecutors.

Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened.

As it should be.  Several pieces of non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims, or questionable, tainted, or unverifiable circumstantial evidence do not magically combine to give anybody a "reliable conclusion as to what happened".  Your desire to have an answer doesn't justify making one up out of whole cloth.

[Tom Mahon]

This is a common whine by people who spin and misrepresent the evidence in order to be Oswald prosecutors.

As it should be.  Several pieces of non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims, or questionable, tainted, or unverifiable circumstantial evidence do not magically combine to give anybody a "reliable conclusion as to what happened".  Your desire to have an answer doesn't justify making one up out of whole cloth.

John "Abt" Iacoletti,

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Thousands, or just hundreds?

[John Iacoletti]

John "Abt" Iacoletti,

Cute.

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Thousands, or just hundreds?

Nice strawman.  Let's say the answer is 0 though.  Does that somehow prove that Oswald did it?

[Richard Smith]

Yes, but he's not a contrarian, someone arguing just for the joy of arguing and for no other purpose. That's a contrarian to me. He has a purpose: he's an Oswald defender. It's a weird Oswald-as-Dreyfus view.

Of course no one looks at an event, reconstructs it, by looking at one piece of information alone. And ignoring all of the other pieces. You look at them in their totality and not as isolated blocks. If you applied this type of thinking to any other event then it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to what happened. Everything saying "X" occurred can be isolated and dismissed as just random events. Poof, event "X" disappears, it never happens.

The contrarian knows as well as anyone here that Oswald did it.  He is just playing endless OJ defense attorney for some reason that only a psychiatrist could explain.  One of two people in the entire history of this forum that I refuse to discuss the case with. I will engage with the most outlandish loons - the Hickey did it or JFK faked his death with an exploding sock puppet people - but not this contrarian.

[Tom Mahon]

Let's say the answer is 0.  Does that somehow prove that Oswald did it?

Do you really think (sic) none of the evidence laid out in the Warren Report was fabricated by the bad guys?

[John Iacoletti]

The contrarian knows as well as anyone here that Oswald did it.  He is just playing endless OJ defense attorney for some reason that only a psychiatrist could explain.  One of two people in the entire history of this forum that I refuse to discuss the case with. I will engage with the most outlandish loons - the Hickey did it or JFK faked his death with an exploding sock puppet people - but not this contrarian.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  I'm afraid to engage with anybody who kicks my ass on a regular basis.

[John Iacoletti]

Do you really think (sic) none of the evidence laid out in the Warren Report was fabricated by the bad guys?

Are you going to ever get around to proving that Oswald did it, Socrates?

[Lance Payette]

Are you going to ever get around to proving that Oswald did it, Socrates?

I have rather extensive experience (25+ years) debating philosophical/theological issues with internet atheists. The "discussions" (to use the term loosely) go nowhere and quickly become tiresome. Your tactics are quite similar to those in the Internet Atheist Playbook. No, we cannot "prove" Oswald alone killed JFK or God exists as a matter of metaphysical ontology. I do not even insist Oswald would have been found guilty in a court of law; OJ wasn't, even though I would'ce cheerfully flipped the switch on the electric chair. We can only assess what seems to us the best evidence and most reasonable inferences in their totality and reach some level of conviction. On that basis, I have a strong conviction that Oswald was and did pretty much exactly what the Lone Nut community believes he was and did. I acknowledge some curious aspects, some anomalies, and at least the possibility that something qualiftying as a conspiracy might have occurred; none of that is sufficient - or at least has been sufficient so far - to alter my core conviction. I have no predisposition toward or emotional attachment to any JFKA theory - why would I? I once actually thought David Lifton made sense and would be fascinated if an elaborate conspiracy theory were actually true. My best assessment of the evidence and inferences is that no conspiracy occurred. Why this would bother you, I have no idea.