Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."

It's been more than half a century; we've had numerous investigations AFTER the Warren Commission including both government and media ones, e.g., CBS News, PBS, the Washington Post, ABC. Investigative journalists and historians have done investigations or works on the major figures - Robert Caro on LBJ, books on Hoover, Tim Weiner on the CIA. And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."

[Martin Weidmann]

Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.

Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.

Edited: 8:00am EST

I am not sure where you get this crap from, but it has very little to do with my post. And please stop whining. It's pathetic.

It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."

It's been more than half a century; we've had numerous investigations AFTER the Warren Commission including both government and media ones, e.g., CBS News, PBS, the Washington Post, ABC. Investigative journalists and historians have done investigations or works on the major figures - Robert Caro on LBJ, books on Hoover, Tim Weiner on the CIA. And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."

Oh boy another whiner. What is it with you LN lot? If you can't get your way, you start crying like a spoiled brat who had his toy taken away. Grow up will ya.


And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.

Garbage in, garbage out. You can't expect a different result when you put in the same information.

But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."

Nothing is ignored. That's just you being dramatic and whining. There is only one investigation that took place and that's the one done by the FBI for the Warren Commission. All the others that followed merely focused on the question whether the WC had it right or not. Most investigations in the Kennedy case are either political in nature or driven by monetary gain.

You are appealing to authority. It's a fallacy. If you need it to stay in your comfort zone that a lone nut killed a President then stay in that comfort zone.

It may well be the the WC got it right, but it's going to take a hell of lot more credible evidence, for their case against Oswald to be proven, than they have presented so far.

[Martin Weidmann]

Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation?  You haven't even managed that.  You just keep repeating the claim.  And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer. An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

Why should I show you evidence for something you should already know, or are you telling me that you are taking part in this conversation without knowing what you are talking about? Btw you are just about the last person in the world I will ever show a piece of evidence to, because you never ever produce any evidence or even answer a straight question yourself. If you want to find out something you already should know, then look it up yourself.

And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer.

So what? Police have murders on their hands every day of the year. It's is a pathetic excuse to accept that normal procedures required by law were not followed and complied with just because the victim was the President of the United States. Stop trying to mitigate the dismal job the DPD did in handling the evidence.

An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

So you keep saying, rather stupidly, while at the same time ignoring that Hill walked into the personnel office of the DPD, told the people present that this was "Oswald's revolver" and marked it, when he was only told by Bob Carroll (who gave him the revolver in the car) that it was Oswald's. Even worse, Carroll himself testified that he took the revolver from somebody's hand but he couldn't say who the hand belonged to. That's a little more than "an alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol".

But then you will accept and forgive anything as long as it keeps Oswald in play as the killer. It's almost like you have a personal emotional investment in Oswald's guilt, that's clouding your judgment.

[Richard Smith]

Why should I show you evidence for something you should already know, or are you telling me that you are taking part in this conversation without knowing what you are talking about. Btw the last person I will ever show a piece of evidence to is you, because you never ever produce any evidence or even answer a straight question yourself. If you want to find out something you already should have know, then look it up yourself.

And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas.  The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer.

So what? Police have murders on their hands every day of the year. It's is a pathetic excuse to accept that normal procedures required by law were not followed and complied with just because the victim was the President of the United States.

An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.   

So you keep saying, rather stupidly, while at the same time ignoring that Hill walked into the personnel office of the DPD, told the people present that this was "Oswald's revolver" and marked it, when he was only told by Bob Carroll (who gave him the revolver in the car) that it was Oswald's. Even worse, Carroll himself testified that he took the revolver from somebody's hand but he couldn't say who the hand belonged to. That's a little more than "an alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol".

But then you will accept and forgive anything as long as it keeps Oswald in play as the killer. It's almost like you have a personal emotional investment in Oswald's guilt, that's clouding your judgment.

Translation:  Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence.  But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963.   I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman?  I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence.  If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim.  Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact. 

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Translation:  Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence.  But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963.   I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman?  I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence.  If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim.  Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact. 

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?

[Martin Weidmann]

Translation:  Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence.  But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963.   I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman?  I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence.  If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim.  Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact. 

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Stop "translating". You're not very good at it.


I'm not asking for "evidence".  Where did you come up with that strawman? 

Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation? 

So, why did you ask if you missed where I showed the evidence..... you know, the evidence you didn't ask for?

I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence. 

A brief delay in logging the evidence isn't what has happened here. But you, being your normal dishonest self, will continue to ignore that.

We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963!  LOL.   It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas.  And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process!  It's just another murder.   Happens every day.  As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.  Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.  It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Oh poor boy. Is emotional "Richard" playing up again?

As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense. 

So, if paperwork is missing or incomplete the police can always use as an excuse that they were "busy"? Really?

Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case.

So you keep repeating over and over again, yet you never get beyond presenting speculations and assumptions. Why is that?

[Martin Weidmann]

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

What juror? What vote? What are you going on about?

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt.

Now you sound like a prosecutor who has presented a weak unconvincing case and who is complaining about the jury not believing him.

Evidence needs to hold up under scrutiny. What you seem to advocate is; "here's a piece of evidence that indicates Oswald's guilt, but don't look to close at it because if you do it will likely fall apart".

this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald.

What cause? The guy has been dead for more than half a century. I never knew him and don't care about him either way. If he did it, he got what he deserved. I merely want to find out if the evidence that claims he did it is conclusive enough to support that conclusion. Now, why is that a problem for you?

Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room)

So, just because we are not in a courtroom, we should just take your "evidence" on faith. Is that what you are saying?

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him.

Are you sure you're talking to the right person? Show me one of my posts in which I give a most innocent interpretation of Oswald's actions or the evidence against him?

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald?

Why was defending Dreyfus understandable? You are talking with the benefit of hindsight. He was condemned by the French authorities and at the time hardly anybody doubted his guilt until Emile Zola set them all straight.

You talk about Oswald in the same way as most French people talked about Dreyfus prior to Zola's intervention. You do understand that, don't you? Or come to think of it, perhaps you don't.

[Richard Smith]

As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.

And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).

Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.

As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?

It's mystifying.  The evidentiary case against Oswald is very strong and straightforward.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to understand how we could have much more evidence than exists.  Almost equally compelling is the improbable nature of any alternative narrative - including everything that would have to have happened - for Oswald to be innocent or some Gomer Pyle-type patsy.     

So what is the explanation for this pedantic endless defense of Oswald:

1) Bias.  A conspiracy behind the JFK assassination comports with a world view that important events are always controlled by some nefarious entity.  So the CIA, FBI, WC, or LBJ is behind everything.  In fact, the conspiracy itself becomes necessary to explain why they can never make a case for proving Oswald's innocence.  Some powerful force precludes it.  An endless loop.  Similar to UFO believers.  They can never be dissuaded from this belief because their inability to make the case for Oswald's innocence is deemed further proof of a conspiracy.

2) Compulsion disorder.  Many CTers appear to share a common trait.  They are obsessed with minutia.  They literally can't see the forest for the trees.  Long rambling posts that have disconnected points that never add up to anything.  They can't filter information into knowledge.  Thus, they become overwhelmed by detail and conclude "something" must have happened.  What they can't quite articulate but something must have happened because a lot of small details can't be explained to their subjective satisfaction.

3) Mental illness.  Some CTers appear to have actual mental issues.  If they believe even half of the nonsense that they espouse, they are suffering from delusions and paranoia.  Outside of an Internet forum with many like minded folks, these people would be put in a straight jacket for some of their nutty theories.  There are serious minded CTers who use evidence in an attempt to make their case, but they are a definite minority.  Oddly, intelligence is not a mitigating factor.  In fact, there some very intelligent CTers who are off their rocker.

4)  Attention.  It's easy to play the contrarian and gain attention.  Ironically, not much different from Oswald himself who played the outsider to garner attention.  So they take issue with every point - no matter how obvious - that lends itself to Oswald's guilt ("Oswald's rifle - LOL").  Repeat endlessly.  I suppose it passes the time like other hobbies.  Whether these folks believe their own nonsense is unclear.  Perhaps they get so caught up in trying to conjure up doubt that they come to believe it.