They taught me how to kill, and I liked 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

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.

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.

Classic fallacious "reasoning". A breathtaking willingness to accept any unverifiable information to reach an idiotic [i.e. made up] conclusion about Oswald's state of mind and present it as fact.

Even worse, when called out about it, the LN fool falsely claims that not accepting unverifiable 'evidence' precludes ever reaching a conclusion about anything or establishing a fact.

All of it demonstrates that this particular LN (and a few more) don't care if evidence is authentic and verifiable as long as it offers a possibility to conclude that Oswald was guilty.

It's a bit like the Republicans constantly claiming they have evidence of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton and/or Joe Biden which they are never able to produce.

Both are equally pathetic and both are supported by "Richard Smith", making it perfectly clear with what kind of individual we are dealing here.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald DID do it.  The evidence demonstrates that beyond doubt. 

LOL.

[Richard Smith]

"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." 

M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher

Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached.   For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  All I know about it comes from "what others have told me."  I have no time machine to verify if it really happened.  Perhaps it is all made up.  There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible."  I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence.  Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"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." 

M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher

Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached.   For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  All I know about it comes from "what others have told me."  I have no time machine to verify if it really happened.  Perhaps it is all made up.  There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible."  I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence.  Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.

We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.

This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.

[Martin Weidmann]

"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." 

M. Weidmann - Contrarian philosopher

Apply this idiot logic to any event or person from history and tell us how any fact or conclusion could ever be reached.   For example, I wasn't present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  All I know about it comes from "what others have told me."  I have no time machine to verify if it really happened.  Perhaps it is all made up.  There is no actual evidence of fakery but it is "possible."  I'm confident it did, however, occur based on the first account of those present and totality of evidence.  Therefore, I can conclude it is a fact without time travel as you stupidly imply here.

Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an event rather than Oswald's state of mind?

Your entire argument is pathetic. People were present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and witnessed the event. When they say it happened, you have actual eyewitness accounts and thus evidence that justifies the verifiable conclusion that the event happened.

Nobody can say with any kind of certainty what went on in Oswald's mind. All they can do is guess. And none of it is verifiable, leaving you with no basis to reach any conclusion.

If you don't understand the difference between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago.

[Martin Weidmann]

We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.

This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.

Hilarious

[Jon Banks]

We have Oswald's own statements, his writings, his actions and the accounts of others to make this judgment.

This is, of course, how we make such judgments about people. But it's ONLY with Oswald that these people object to such an act. Conspiracists here make all sorts of judgments about these figures - about major figures like LBJ and Hoover and about lesser figures like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer et al. - and they never complain. Hell, they make judgments about these people too, about their motives and credibility. Brewer's a liar, Brennan wanted attention, McDonald was a dirty cop, et cetera. But again, it's just Oswald that they won't do this.

Apples to Oranges if you’re comparing Lee Oswald to public figures whose lives are exposed to far more people.

The biggest problem with understanding Oswald is that there’s lots of gaps in information and a lot of contradictory behavior in his short life.

Some choose to ignore the gaps, contradictions, and lack of a clear motive by simply dismissing him as a “nut”.

Others view some of those odd behaviors and patterns as evidence that he was some sort of intelligence agent or asset.

At the end of the day, all we can do is speculate because we’re left with puzzle pieces of his life and clearly don’t have enough pieces to complete the construction of the puzzle…

[Richard Smith]

Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an event rather than Oswald's state of mind?

Your entire argument is pathetic. People were present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and witnessed the event. When they say it happened, you have actual eyewitness accounts and thus evidence that justifies the verifiable conclusion that the event happened.

Nobody can say with any kind of certainty what went on in Oswald's mind. All they can do is guess. And none of it is verifiable, leaving you with no basis to reach any conclusion.

If you don't understand the difference between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago.

I've already explained this to you.  I didn't have to personally know Oswald as you stupidly suggest to formulate reasoned conjecture as to his personality.  There WERE many people who knew and left accounts of Oswald.  Many people testified about him including his personality.  Many competent historians and law enforcement investigators have analyzed him and written books on the topic.  I've explained to you as to a small child that there can be reasoned conjecture as to Oswald's state of mind based upon the large volume exiting information.  Instead of addressing that issue, you took the thread down the contrarian rabbit hole that nothing could be known about Oswald's state of mind because I didn't meet him personally.  It goes beyond just that, however.  You apply this same idiot logic to the determination as to whether Oswald was the assassin.  Suggesting the evidence is dubious for similar reason.  Thus, no fact can ever proven that lends itself to Oswald's guilt no matter how well supported in your contrarian fantasy world while every manner of baseless alternatives can be entertained if it suggests doubt.