Ron Paul Says Kennedy Was Murdered

[Richard Smith]

All LNer's believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative...... and they lack the guts and intelligence to face the truth.

Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin?   That is nonsense.  There is no narrative behind the lone shooter conclusion.  I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies.  I believe, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln because that is what the evidence confirms.  There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination.  It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue.  Subjective narratives are only behind fake conspiracy theories.  It is an attempt to graft the world view of some nut onto a real-world event to validate that view.

[Sean Kneringer]

Curious thread title. Of course he was murdered. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin?   That is nonsense.  There is no narrative behind the lone shooter conclusion.  I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies.  I believe, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln because that is what the evidence confirms.  There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination.  It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue.  Subjective narratives are only behind fake conspiracy theories.  It is an attempt to graft the world view of some nut onto a real-world event to validate that view.

Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin?   That is nonsense.

Sure, it's nonsense. But it's true nevertheless! For some idiotic reason, you and other LNs somehow simply can not handle the possibility of Kennedy being murdered by a conspiracy.

I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies.

Hilarious! You are the least open minded person I know. You simply dismiss all the circumstantial evidence that points to another narrative and then claim there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination.

Utter BS. You just don't want to see it. There is in fact more credible circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of some sort of a conspiracy then there is pointing at Oswald being the lone gunman,

It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue. 

And what evidence would that be? I have been asking you for months to provide the evidence for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and for him coming down the stairs, unnoticed, within 75 seconds after the last shot. You have never been able to produce this critical evidence for one reason only; it doesn't exist. And that's only the beginning of everything you need to make up to get even close to putting an MC rifle in Oswald's hand on 11/22/63.

[Richard Smith]

Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin?   That is nonsense.

Sure, it's nonsense. But it's true nevertheless! For some idiotic reason, you and other LNs somehow simply can not handle the possibility of Kennedy being murdered by a conspiracy.

I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies.

Hilarious! You are the least open minded person I know. You simply dismiss all the circumstantial evidence that points to another narrative and then claim there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination.

Utter BS. You just don't want to see it. There is in fact more credible circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of some sort of a conspiracy then there is pointing at Oswald being the lone gunman,

It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue. 

And what evidence would that be? I have been asking you for months to provide the evidence for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and for him coming down the stairs, unnoticed, within 75 seconds after the last shot. You have never been able to produce this critical evidence for one reason only; it doesn't exist. And that's only the beginning of everything you need to make up to get even close to putting an MC rifle in Oswald's hand on 11/22/63.

Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?  This event happened almost 60 years ago.  Why would it matter to me whether JFK was assassinated as part of conspiracy?  Anyone involved would be long dead or in a nursing home (almost as old as Biden).  I've cited a specific and analogous example.  I accept that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln.  I reach that conclusion based on the evidence.  Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?  It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?  This event happened almost 60 years ago.  Why would it matter to me whether JFK was assassinated as part of conspiracy?  Anyone involved would be long dead or in a nursing home (almost as old as Biden).  I've cited a specific and analogous example.  I accept that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln.  I reach that conclusion based on the evidence.  Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?  It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.

Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

That's actually a very good question. It has me puzzled for many years, yet time after time LNs clearly demonstrate that they, for some mysterious reason, can't even bring themselves to accepting that there are massive problems, or even one minor problem, with the extremely circumstantial case against Oswald. Instead they fight and lie about every minor detail as if their life depended on it.

Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?

In the Lincoln case there was never any discussion about a sole assassin. Although Wilkes Booth was the only one successful, there were also unsuccessful attempts to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward and Vice President Andrew Johnson. It is beyond question that more than one person was involved, making it unescapably a conspiracy. Things are not nearly so clear and obvious in the Kennedy case.

It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.

It's actually laughable to even pretend that that isn't the case. There is no way any sane logical thinking person can reach the lone nut conclusion based on what passes for evidence in the Kennedy case. The mere fact that you can't produce evidence you claim exists, combined with the constant misrepresentations and outright lies about the evidence, tells the true story.

[Walt Cakebread]

Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?  This event happened almost 60 years ago.  Why would it matter to me whether JFK was assassinated as part of conspiracy?  Anyone involved would be long dead or in a nursing home (almost as old as Biden).  I've cited a specific and analogous example.  I accept that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln.  I reach that conclusion based on the evidence.  Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?  It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.

why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

The conspiracy would of necessity have had to originated at the very highest and most powerful office in he land.  (the office of the POTUS)   And that reality makes a mockery of all we hold dear.   Only gutless fools accept he ridiculous tale that was dumped on he grieving and trusting citizens.   We were ignorant .....and trusted that our government would tell us the truth.   ( The people ( trusting gutless suckers) must be lead to believe that Oswald was the lone assassin and he had no motive or confederates ....LBJ...11 /23/63 )  Some of us opened our eyes,  and saw the truth, but many lack the brains or guts to see that the tale that LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover dumped on us is a gargantuan lie.

[Zeon Mason]

The question is WHY JFK was murdered  and why the method selected was execution by rifle shots at the very end of what would have been a triumphal demonstration of courage in the face of previous warning threats of assassination should JFK dare to visit Dallas Texas in in 1963.

[Richard Smith]

Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

That's actually a very good question. It has me puzzled for many years, yet time after time LNs clearly demonstrate that they, for some mysterious reason, can't even bring themselves to accepting that there are massive problems, or even one minor problem, with the extremely circumstantial case against Oswald. Instead they fight and lie about every minor detail as if their life depended on it.

Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?

In the Lincoln case there was never any discussion about a sole assassin. Although Wilkes Booth was the only one successful, there were also unsuccessful attempts to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward and Vice President Andrew Johnson. It is beyond question that more than one person was involved, making it unescapably a conspiracy. Things are not nearly so clear and obvious in the Kennedy case.

It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.

It's actually laughable to even pretend that that isn't the case. There is no way any sane logical thinking person can reach the lone nut conclusion based on what passes for evidence in the Kennedy case. The mere fact that you can't produce evidence you claim exists, combined with the constant misrepresentations and outright lies about the evidence, tells the true story.

Many things are no doubt puzzling to you.  It is humorous that you actually support my explanation by noting that a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination was "obvious."  It is obvious only because the evidence confirms that conclusion.  Not due to any bias for or against conspiracies.  In contrast, a conspiracy in the JFK is not proven because the evidence is lacking.  Even after nearly 60 years there is no credible evidence that supports a conspiracy conclusion.  Well done!  I thought you were a closet CTer but you are actually a closet LNer.