Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, how do you know when Klein's took delivery of those rifles?

Martin's question is quite clear. It is a response to one your "facts"
I see no need to re phrase it.
Either you can answer it, or you won't.

up to you.

Sorry, I still don't understand.

JohnM

Which means that he can't answer it, at least not without making a fool of himself.

[Vincent Baxter]

you talk like Mytton.

I talk like Mytton? The person you're currently accusing of not answering a question? And by completely ignoring my question and just replying with a stupid comment is a much more reasonable response and a perfect example of how someone should behave on this Forum? Well done, Goth! I salute you!

Or do you just have the arse ache because we don't subscribe to your opinion of it being a cover up?
Everyone who believes it's a cover up are always happy to unite together whether you believe its the CIA, FBI, Cubans, Russians or whatever, despite the fact that you can't all be right. So called "evidence" pointing to one theory clearly cancels out "evidence" to another theory but forget about that because you at least agree a cover up occurred.
Yet as soon as someone believes the lone gunman theory you all spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants and have to point out they're wrong and that they're just gullible idiots who believe anything they are force fed by the government.

If you analyse any murder case in detail you'll find numerous inconsistencies (The O.J. Simpson case is a perfect example of how someone clearly guilty can be acquitted on inconsistencies).

People have different opinions, so unless you can offer anything of value to address a question put forward, don't bother. Or is the fact that I "talk like Mytton" meant to convince me that my opinion is totally wrong and all of a sudden I should see that light and realise it was all a cover up?

[Vincent Baxter]

You seem to think there were hundreds involved, when there were maybe 50 tops, and they're all dead now, one of the last being GHWB. Obviously, the conspirators kept the number down to a bare minimum. But as far as witnesses coming forward that knew anything is concerned, they are either prematurely dead or knew when to keep their yaps shut.

Forget about James Files, what about E. Howard Hunt's confession? The problem is that any assassin that confesses will be regarded as a kook because he is a killer in the 1st place.

There is a mountain of evidence that there was a cover up. Read the forum.

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?

I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.

[Peter Goth]

I talk like Mytton? The person you're currently accusing of not answering a question? And by completely ignoring my question and just replying with a stupid comment is a much more reasonable response and a perfect example of how someone should behave on this Forum? Well done, Goth! I salute you!

Or do you just have the arse ache because we don't subscribe to your opinion of it being a cover up?
Everyone who believes it's a cover up are always happy to unite together whether you believe its the CIA, FBI, Cubans, Russians or whatever, despite the fact that you can't all be right. So called "evidence" pointing to one theory clearly cancels out "evidence" to another theory but forget about that because you at least agree a cover up occurred.
Yet as soon as someone believes the lone gunman theory you all spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants and have to point out they're wrong and that they're just gullible idiots who believe anything they are force fed by the government.

If you analyse any murder case in detail you'll find numerous inconsistencies (The O.J. Simpson case is a perfect example of how someone clearly guilty can be acquitted on inconsistencies).

People have different opinions, so unless you can offer anything of value to address a question put forward, don't bother. Or is the fact that I "talk like Mytton" meant to convince me that my opinion is totally wrong and all of a sudden I should see that light and realise it was all a cover up?

whoa...

All I did was bump a post for Mytton to answer a question he was obviously avoiding.
Now,  he is either playing dumb, or actually too incompetent to understand a simple question, in direct response to something he called a fact.

...when did I say I thought there was a coverup? - or even a conspiracy?

[Vincent Baxter]

whoa...

All I did was bump a post for Mytton to answer a question he was obviously avoiding.
Now,  he is either playing dumb, or actually too incompetent to understand a simple question, in direct response to something he called a fact.

...when did I say I thought there was a coverup? - or even a conspiracy?

No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton. It's fine, I enjoy a bit of banter but I was just pointing out it had no relevance to my post.

So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?

[Jack Trojan]

50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.

How do you know 50 people is enough? Wouldn't you keep your mouth shut for 50 years if you had the inside track on the assassination of the POTUS? You're bloody rights you would, if you knew what was good for you. Or would you rather go to jail as a co-conspirator?

Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?

E. Howard Hunt cracked. Was he a kook? No one said Oswald wasn't a kook, just a patsy which is so obvious if you did your homework. You just need to recognize sheep-dipping when you see it beyond your LNer fog.

I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.

Considering how the LNers on this forum lose every single debate and resort to ad homs and lame excuses, I would say that you merely skimmed the forum, absorbed only the LN BS and decided it would be more fun as a LNer at war with the CTs. JMHO.

[Vincent Baxter]

How do you know 50 people is enough? Wouldn't you keep your mouth shut for 50 years if you had the inside track on the assassination of the POTUS? You're bloody rights you would, if you knew what was good for you. Or would you rather go to jail as a co-conspirator?

E. Howard Hunt cracked. Was he a kook? No one said Oswald wasn't a kook, just a patsy which is so obvious if you did your homework. You just need to recognize sheep-dipping when you see it beyond your LNer fog.

Considering how the LNers on this forum lose every single debate and resort to ad homs and lame excuses, I would say that you merely skimmed the forum, absorbed only the LN BS and decided it would be more fun as a LNer at war with the CTs. JMHO.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least one person in 50 would come clean, tell someone or at the very least leave a deathbed confession.
I doubt anyone would go to jail as a co-consparitor. To convict someone as that they'd first have to completely admit that it was a complete cover up in the first place.

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.

I admit, I have only skimmed this forum. No offence to anyone on here who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, but I prioritise getting my information from books written by respected researchers, whether they be LNs or CTs. I've read lots by both camps and, sorry if I don't share the same view as you, but from what I've read so far, I'm finding myself to be in the LNs camp.

As far as LNs losing every single debate on this forum, if you class every argument being cut down by a "They were forced to lie", "Have you got actual evidence that that happened? If not, then its not true" or "You're just an idiot who is brainwashed and believed everything you are told" as winning a bebate, then yes, LNs lose every debate. Personally, I don't class this as being a conclusive winning conclusion to every argument.
As you can tell, I'm quite new to this forum and instead of getting sensible answers for queries I put forward (completely willing to listen and open to explanations that could potentially change my mind) so far all I've got from CTs are personal insults, aggressive behaviour and not one worthy reply to any questions.

Like I said, I'm willing to be proven wrong on here, but nobody seems willing to have a non-aggressive conversation. Hence why I say I prefer (or am rather forced) to get my information from books

[Bill Chapman]

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least one person in 50 would come clean, tell someone or at the very least leave a deathbed confession.
I doubt anyone would go to jail as a co-consparitor. To convict someone as that they'd first have to completely admit that it was a complete cover up in the first place.

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.

I admit, I have only skimmed this forum. No offence to anyone on here who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, but I prioritise getting my information from books written by respected researchers, whether they be LNs or CTs. I've read lots by both camps and, sorry if I don't share the same view as you, but from what I've read so far, I'm finding myself to be in the LNs camp.

As far as LNs losing every single debate on this forum, if you class every argument being cut down by a "They were forced to lie", "Have you got actual evidence that that happened? If not, then its not true" or "You're just an idiot who is brainwashed and believed everything you are told" as winning a bebate, then yes, LNs lose every debate. Personally, I don't class this as being a conclusive winning conclusion to every argument.
As you can tell, I'm quite new to this forum and instead of getting sensible answers for queries I put forward (completely willing to listen and open to explanations that could potentially change my mind) so far all I've got from CTs are personal insults, aggressive behaviour and not one worthy reply to any questions.

Like I said, I'm willing to be proven wrong on here, but nobody seems willing to have a non-aggressive conversation. Hence why I say I prefer (or am rather forced) to get my information from books

By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
>>> By all accounts? Seems you're reading only conspiracy-monger books.

"Deathbed confession" of involvement in Kennedy assassination
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=67340;topic=660.250

[Excerpts]

According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain and furthermore falsified accounts of Hunt's supposed confession. The Los Angeles Times said they examined the materials offered by the sons to support the story and found them to be "inconclusive".[67]