They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[John Iacoletti]

But is it possible that your name is actually "Richard Smith", and that you really believe with a straight face that the best evidence for Oswald going down the stairs from the sixth floor to the second floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by 12 people along the way is that it happened?

[Richard Smith]

So many words and beyond the meaningless "almost anything is possible" remark, it's just another personal attack and idiotic insinuations to divert the attention away from my question.

If you were halfway honest you would answer that it is of course possible that your opinions about Oswald's state of mind are incorrect, but you don't do that simply because you actually believe that they are not correct.

Many things are possible.

Indeed. It is even possible that once in a while you are actually right and honest about something, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty?  Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is evidence that it is incorrect as you stupidly imply.   Again, there is a lot known about Oswald.  Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him.  Literally millions of pages on the topic.  We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history.  Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.   Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy. 

[Michael Capasse]

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty?  Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is incorrect as you stupidly imply.   Again, there is a lot know about Oswald.  Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him.  Literally millions of pages on the topic.  We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history.  Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.   Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.

Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald and that ONLY Oswald himself can confirm his state of mind with absolute certainty?  Just because something is "possibly" incorrect does not automatically mean it has no merit or is evidence that it is incorrect as you stupidly imply.   Again, there is a lot known about Oswald.  Many people who knew him firsthand have written and testified about him.  Literally millions of pages on the topic.  We likely know as much about Oswald as anyone in history.  Simply because a time machine doesn't exist to talk with him doesn't mean that we can't formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.   Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald

Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not. That, by itself, makes any opinion you have speculative. Add to this that you accept that it is possible that your conjecture is wrong and you end up with a meritless insignificant opinion of which the veracity can not be verified. This in turn makes it a complete waste of time to "address the substance of the discussion". 

formulate reasoned conjecture about his state of mind.

Which is just another way of saying; because I believe what others have told me about Oswald, I can now make up stuff based upon that belief.

[John Iacoletti]

Just repeating over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message that such conjecture is "possibly" wrong without addressing the substance of the discussion is idiocy.

Says the guy who idiotically repeats the same list of false and unsubstantiated claims over and over again like an automated challenge response system stuck on the same message, and calls it “evidence”.

[John Iacoletti]

Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.

 

The single bullet fantasy isn’t impossible, therefore it happened.

It’s not impossible for Oswald to have descended 4 flights of noisy stairs in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by 12 people along the way, therefore it happened.

It’s not impossible for Oswald to get to Tenth and Patton on foot prior to Tippit’s shooting, therefore he did.

It’s not impossible for a rifle to be in a paper wrapper, therefore it was.

It’s not impossible for the rifle in the photo to be C2766, therefore it was.

Lather, rinse, repeat, vomit.

[Richard Smith]

Good to know.
Often times, nutters take the "possibly" as the way it must have happened, because, you know, Oswald did it.

Oswald DID do it.  The evidence demonstrates that beyond doubt.  What is under discussion here is his state of mind.  Something only Oswald could know with certainty.  And something that doesn't have to be proven with certainty to still conclude that he was the assassin.  It certainly isn't necessary to prove his state of mind to the subjective satisfaction of every CTer. 

[Richard Smith]

Why do you need me to say that it is "possible" that I'm incorrect when I've already indicated it is conjecture based upon what is known about Oswald

Everything you think you know about Oswald is what others have told you and you have no way to verify if it is true or not. That, by itself, makes any opinion you have speculative. Add to this that you accept that it is possible that your conjecture is wrong and you end up with a meritless insignificant opinion of which the veracity can not be verified. This in turn makes it a complete waste of time to "address the substance of the discussion". 

Wow.  This statement is breathtaking in the scope of its stupidity.  Even from you.  I can't believe that you actually own up to this.   Apply this lunatic contrarian standard to any person or event in history.  It effectively precludes ever reaching any conclusion or establishing a fact in world history.  It does explain a lot, though, about the mindset of a contrarian.