Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Martin Weidmann]

In short, people who disagree with you.
Thanks so much for your always-useful information.

You can't even get that right. No wonder you're an LN

[Bill Chapman]

You can't even get that right. No wonder you're an LN

I disagree with you

[Martin Weidmann]

I disagree with you

No problem. You can disagree with me all you like.
I'll start to worry when you agree with me.

[Richard Smith]

You can't even get that right. No wonder you're an LN

Keep in mind that Martin does not admit to being a CTer.  Rather, he constantly berates LNers, nitpicks any evidence of Oswald's guilt by applying an impossible standard of proof, entertains any possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter how baseless or absurd, and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.  So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it, and by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked, he is just a neutral arbiter of the case who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald. 

[Bill Chapman]

No problem. You can disagree with me all you like.
I'll start to worry when you agree with me.

Now that would be scary: There are more than enough zombies around here.

[Martin Weidmann]

Keep in mind that Martin does not admit to being a CTer.  Rather, he constantly berates LNers, nitpicks any evidence of Oswald's guilt by applying an impossible standard of proof, entertains any possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter how baseless or absurd, and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.  So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it, and by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked, he is just a neutral arbiter of the case who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.

Stop lying.

thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.

I have never thought or said anything of the kind

So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it,

Again, I never said that I believe that.

by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked

Never claimed anything of the kind

who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.

And yet another lie. I have never defended Oswald. In fact, I have always said that if the evidence showed Oswald did it, I would accept that. So, I don't defend Oswald, I merely scrutinize the evidence guys like you claim to have.

And when you start arguing that the mere fact that a rifle (which you claim, but can't prove, belongs to Oswald), is somehow evidence that he was present on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63, then I call you out for your blatant stupidity or dishonesty (take your pick). That's not defending Oswald, it's just finding your "evidence" pathetically weak and most certainly not conclusive.

[John Iacoletti]

Keep in mind that Martin does not admit to being a CTer.  Rather, he constantly berates LNers, nitpicks any evidence of Oswald's guilt by applying an impossible standard of proof, entertains any possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter how baseless or absurd, and thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.  So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it, and by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked, he is just a neutral arbiter of the case who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.

Typical "Richard" strawman 

Martin has said none of these things.  Try looking in the mirror.  You call anybody who disagrees with your pronouncements a "conspiracy theorist".  You rattle off lists of BS claims and call them "evidence".  You ignore any information to the contrary, and berate anyone with any other point of view.

[Richard Smith]

Stop lying.

thinks Oswald has an alibi for the moment of the assassination.

I have never thought or said anything of the kind

So despite apparently believing that Oswald couldn't have done it,

Again, I never said that I believe that.

by implication that the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was faked

Never claimed anything of the kind

who just happens to spend his every waking moment defending Oswald.

And yet another lie. I have never defended Oswald. In fact, I have always said that if the evidence showed Oswald did it, I would accept that. So, I don't defend Oswald, I merely scrutinize the evidence guys like you claim to have.

And when you start arguing that the mere fact that a rifle (which you claim, but can't prove, belongs to Oswald), is somehow evidence that he was present on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63, then I call you out for your blatant stupidity or dishonesty (take your pick). That's not defending Oswald, it's just finding your "evidence" pathetically weak and most certainly not conclusive.

Here we go.  Round and round down the rabbit hole. You have gone on and on and on for weeks insisting that Oswald could not have come down the stairs from the 6th floor unnoticed after the assassination. And that there is no evidence he was on the 6th floor or pulled the trigger.  So maybe reconcile those claims with how you have not concluded that Oswald is innocent.  If he wasn't on the 6th floor and couldn't reach the lunchroom unnoticed from the 6th floor as you have claimed endlessly that rules him out as the assassin.  Good grief.